I am as libertarian as they come. My theoretical leanings are anarchism. But as the brilliant thinkers I follow on my FB routinely point out far better than I ever could, like Robert Higgs or Thaddeus Russell, among others, conservatives are wrongheaded to want to close the borders to protect the integrity of the welfare state. In short, they’re using one facet of big government (which is arguably far more harmful) to protect another facet of big government all in the name of nationalistic shit (Americans>brown, poor people from arbitrarily different geographical locations).

Libertarians are often thought to be Utopian, but I propose an idea, which isn’t my idea at all; it’s long been proposed by libertarians and libertarian-leaning individuals. If we “have” to have a welfare apparatus, wherein we’re doling out payments to people through Social Security or Medicare or any other number of ways in which the government distributes the wealth, then let’s at least do it in a way that’s superior: A basic income guarantee.

Matt Zwolinski argued the case for a BIG on libertarian grounds. His basic premise,as I understand it, is that in a world that clearly rejects libertarian principles, the switch to a BIG could actually be practically done and still be sound re: libertarian principles. He says, “The question is not whether a BIG is a perfectly libertarian policy in every way, but whether it is more libertarian than the other realistically available policy alternatives.”

The people want a safety net and if we’re going to provide one, let’s at least do the best option within that understanding.