A libertarian could be a minarchist, and anarchist, or simply someone who looks at our current governance architecture (state control focusing on finance and asset wealth growth) as counter intuitive.
> Does the libertarian within you believe that the State will accomplish this goal, without worse repercussions?
The libertarian in my worries that a state would either abuse a system for the benefit of a small elite, or purposefully skew results in favor for their brand of narrative (didn't work, too expensive, just not possible, abolishing labour laws because it needs to be done!, etc...).
Personally it depends on the policy details to me. If this leads to the abolishment of all other forms of social assistance, and can reduce the amount of government employees who simply decided who got them in our older models, then sign me up. A system would also have to not discriminate, neither down nor up in regards to income.
That said if our choices are current social assistance, negative income tax based minimum income, or minimum income for all without deductions, then both NIT-MI and MI work for me.
> Does the libertarian within you believe that the State will accomplish this goal, without worse repercussions?
The libertarian in my worries that a state would either abuse a system for the benefit of a small elite, or purposefully skew results in favor for their brand of narrative (didn't work, too expensive, just not possible, abolishing labour laws because it needs to be done!, etc...).
Personally it depends on the policy details to me. If this leads to the abolishment of all other forms of social assistance, and can reduce the amount of government employees who simply decided who got them in our older models, then sign me up. A system would also have to not discriminate, neither down nor up in regards to income.
That said if our choices are current social assistance, negative income tax based minimum income, or minimum income for all without deductions, then both NIT-MI and MI work for me.