One common libertarian complaint about the welfare state as we know it is that it’s inefficient. If we want to help the poor, we can do much better by simplifying. Eliminate the dozens and dozens of means-tested programs that make up the American welfare state, and replace them all with a simple cash payment, with no strings attached — a basic income guarantee.

The benefits of such an approach would be numerous, and they can be inferred by observing what we have right now: As economists frequently point out, in-kind transfers like housing assistance and food stamps deliver less value than cash. They are also paternalistic. Means-testing can create perverse incentives and lock people into poverty rather than allowing them to integrate into the larger economy. Along the way, the federal government incurs substantial administrative costs. Welfare fraud is likewise a constant concern.

These problems were weighty enough that the great libertarian economist Milton Friedman came to endorse a version of the basic income. Yet at least two potential objections remain: First, a basic income may sap Americans’ work ethic, even if it doesn’t trap them in poverty. And second, libertarians will likely still view such a system as coercive, because it transfers money from those who have earned it to those who have done nothing.

This month we debate the ethics and public policy of the basic income. It is all but certain to be a divisive topic, but then again, Cato Unbound is a place for exactly these sorts of debates. Our lead essayist this month is UC San Diego professor and bleeding heart libertarian Matt Zwolinski. Responding to him will be Professor Michael Huemer of the University of Colorado at Boulder, the Manhattan Institute’s Jim Manzi, and Cornell University’s Robert H. Frank.