The Idea Of A "Pure" Libertarian

[Revoltingest]

This thread addresses those of us who favor economic liberty.
It's not for those who identify as "left libertarians" of the ilk
who want a socialist or other regulated economy.

I sometimes receive criticism for supporting things like environmental
regulations in order to prevent polluting the air, water, & land.
This is easy to defend because it prevents one person from infringing
upon the rights of another. Using the tort system to compensate for
environmental caused losses is impractical when the effects are global.

A thornier issue....
I support the UBI, financed by taxation. A libertarian wants to tax
people to support largess for the others? The horror! It's not "pure".
I see this from a real world pragmatic perspective, ie, in the USA,
libertarians will never lead the country. So the issue becomes
finding maximally libertarian of politically achievable solutions.
This means a solution acceptable to both Dems & Pubs.
One case....
The UBI offers more liberty to the recipient than welfare (with its
restrictions) & public housing (with its restrictions). For example,
Section 8 housing requires landlords to monitor the tenants'
guests & co-tenants, reporting this to the fed, & limiting how
long someone may reside. To heck with that, eh.

Fellow libertarians, what say you about such issues?

 

[Nakosis]

I see a necessity for UBI because of automation.

If business can profit without the need for as much human labor.
Those companies still in need of labor could pay a lower wage. Subtract UBI amount from the pay.

Not sure how this would affect the economy though. Government debt needs to be recovered.
Lower labor costs to the company but higher taxes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Subtract UBI amount from the pay.

The UBI shouldn't be reduced by wages, otherwise
it would be a disincentive to working.

Lower labor costs to the company but higher taxes.

If other social programs were reduced or
eliminated, it could be close to net zero effect.

 

[Nakosis]

The UBI shouldn't be reduced by wages, otherwise
it would be a disincentive to working.

If other social programs were reduced or
eliminated, it could be close to net zero effect.

UBI is not a disincentive?

How do you feel about open borders? Libertarians ought to support open borders.

 

[Revoltingest]

UBI is not a disincentive?

The incentive to work exists because they get to
keep what they earn, without having benefits reduced.

I recall 2 single moms I know who were counselled by
social workers to quit their jobs because that gave them
the maximum income. Working netted them less.

How do you feel about open borders? Libertarians ought to support open borders.

I favor open with some, eg, Canuckistan, but not others,
eg, Mexico. This is based solely on practical concerns,
eg, security, population growth.

 

[Nakosis]

The incentive to work exists because they get to
keep what they earn, without having benefits reduced.

I recall 2 single moms I know who were counselled by
social workers to quit their jobs because that gave them
the maximum income. Working netted them less.

Still think there'd be some reduction in wages.

I favor open with some, eg, Canuckistan, but not others,
eg, Mexico. This is based solely on practical concerns,
eg, security, population growth.

You know you can't make a practical argument without being a racist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Still think there'd be some reduction in wages.

If there were, it should be so gradual as to not discourage
earning money. There are advantages to the unadjusted
UBI, eg, minimal opportunity for fraud, fairness because
given to all, work incentive.

You know you can't make a practical argument without being a racist.

I am racist, sexist, unpatriotic, greedy, & a misanthrope.

 

[Nakosis]

I am racist, sexist, unpatriotic, greedy, & a misanthrope.

IOW, a libertarian.

 

[Revoltingest]

IOW, a libertarian.

Alas, so we're so often told.
"Authoritarian" too.