I think you will find Peter Barnes' wok on making the income from resources not created by humans part of a national fund for all of great interest. He also references Paine's proposal and the Alaska Fund as an example.
Barnes is not anti-market, and in fact made a fortune as a founder of Working Assets Money Fund, an ethical investment organization. But, unlike any libertarian I have read (and I've read many), distinguishes between benefits arising from an individual's creative contribution and wealth generated basically by the systemic context within which it derives its value. His most recent work is "Ours The Case for Universal Property" 2021, Polity Press.
"The libertarian economist David Friedman (2013), son of Milton Friedman, and Professor Zwolinski (2013), the philosopher, have both expressed sympathy for Paine’s idea that everyone today suffers from past injustices in terms of property rights. A universal income might be an appropriate reparations payment, they say."
In the piece you cite in your references I express sympathy for the idea of past injustices, criticize the suggestion that a universal income would be a suitable reparations payment.
You say, "the existing state of the world is in part a result of past rights violations. Land claims in libertarian theory may be based on a series of voluntary transfers beginning with the person who first mixed his labor with the land, but many land claims in the real world run back to an initial seizure by force.,,, Most libertarians would recognize this as a legitimate problem." I think if you look only at the sentence mentioning you, I am okay. The problem is the following sentence, where I say, "A universal income might be an appropriate reparations payment, they say." While you reject UBI as reparations, you do say that reparations from Africans to African Americans might be justifiable.
As I read what you wrote for the first time in a dozen years, I find your argument more confusing than I did at the time, when I was writing against deadline. If I misstated or misconstrued your argument, I appologize. My main interest was linking your father's work on a negative income tax to Nixon and the UBI. I plan on writing more on UBI and will try harder to be clear now that I can write at leisure. I'm not going to edit what I wrote above because it's a reprint of something already published.
The point of the reference to reparations from Africans was evidence that Matt et. al. were trying to justify a conclusion not to deduce one. They wanted a libertarian argument for transfers to the poor, so ignored actual implications from their argument that went in the opposite direction.
More than a decade ago I had an extended exchange with Matt and others on an online Cato Unbound forum [https://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/april-2012/where-next-past-present-future-classical-liberalism/]. My basic complaint was that they were trying to fudge up libertarian arguments for fashionable progressive conclusions. It is the same as my complaint about the same thing on the other side of the political fence by Mises Caucus libertarians trying to find arguments for MAGA conclusions.
The skeptics have a point when they note that handing out cash disincentivizes people to work. It would make more sense to provide some financial assistance in buying a first house or getting health care. Of course, we'd have to fix the housing shortage as well.
I think you will find Peter Barnes' wok on making the income from resources not created by humans part of a national fund for all of great interest. He also references Paine's proposal and the Alaska Fund as an example.
Barnes is not anti-market, and in fact made a fortune as a founder of Working Assets Money Fund, an ethical investment organization. But, unlike any libertarian I have read (and I've read many), distinguishes between benefits arising from an individual's creative contribution and wealth generated basically by the systemic context within which it derives its value. His most recent work is "Ours The Case for Universal Property" 2021, Polity Press.
thanks
"The libertarian economist David Friedman (2013), son of Milton Friedman, and Professor Zwolinski (2013), the philosopher, have both expressed sympathy for Paine’s idea that everyone today suffers from past injustices in terms of property rights. A universal income might be an appropriate reparations payment, they say."
In the piece you cite in your references I express sympathy for the idea of past injustices, criticize the suggestion that a universal income would be a suitable reparations payment.
You say, "the existing state of the world is in part a result of past rights violations. Land claims in libertarian theory may be based on a series of voluntary transfers beginning with the person who first mixed his labor with the land, but many land claims in the real world run back to an initial seizure by force.,,, Most libertarians would recognize this as a legitimate problem." I think if you look only at the sentence mentioning you, I am okay. The problem is the following sentence, where I say, "A universal income might be an appropriate reparations payment, they say." While you reject UBI as reparations, you do say that reparations from Africans to African Americans might be justifiable.
As I read what you wrote for the first time in a dozen years, I find your argument more confusing than I did at the time, when I was writing against deadline. If I misstated or misconstrued your argument, I appologize. My main interest was linking your father's work on a negative income tax to Nixon and the UBI. I plan on writing more on UBI and will try harder to be clear now that I can write at leisure. I'm not going to edit what I wrote above because it's a reprint of something already published.
Fair enough.
The point of the reference to reparations from Africans was evidence that Matt et. al. were trying to justify a conclusion not to deduce one. They wanted a libertarian argument for transfers to the poor, so ignored actual implications from their argument that went in the opposite direction.
More than a decade ago I had an extended exchange with Matt and others on an online Cato Unbound forum [https://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/april-2012/where-next-past-present-future-classical-liberalism/]. My basic complaint was that they were trying to fudge up libertarian arguments for fashionable progressive conclusions. It is the same as my complaint about the same thing on the other side of the political fence by Mises Caucus libertarians trying to find arguments for MAGA conclusions.
The skeptics have a point when they note that handing out cash disincentivizes people to work. It would make more sense to provide some financial assistance in buying a first house or getting health care. Of course, we'd have to fix the housing shortage as well.