0
1

[–] TeardropsFromHell 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Hayek was wrong on loads of things. He fell into the same trap Friedman did, he wasn't filled with enough conviction to see his thoughts to their logical conclusion.

0
0

[–] 5107449? ago 

Indeed. Who owns a man, the one who ostensibly rules him? Or the one who pays him?

0
0

[–] 5108182? [S] ago  (edited ago)

I have to admit that I like the BIG idea from a pragmatic libertarian POV. It pacifies a large part of the unproductive parts of society and thus serves to protect private property by heavily reducing the incentive for criminal forceful redistribution by thieving, mugging, burglary etc.

I think it is more effective at property protection than a large police force, and it definitively beats the current bloated unemployment bureaucracy (which is in and of itself a hidden BIG programme to employ people who would fail on the free market) that has to check on "neediness", run special programs for drug addictions, ethnic minorities etc. Just have a one-size-fits-all BIG that allows for very basic (uncomfortable) survival that goes to everyone (both rich Suburban Paul and poor Ghetto Pete) and strike it mercilessly for those who turn to crime. It would then be the business of the recipients to make ends meet and keep their noses clean without the big nanny state forcibly keeping their heads above the water even if they spend their money irresponsibly.

It would still run into the issue of open welfare vs open borders as unproductive parasites gravitate toward "free" hand-outs, and require some measures to keep them from just walking over and draining productive societies dry by claiming the "free" hand-outs, but it would yet be a step up from the status quo. Open borders can be the next step on the long road to ideal Libertarianism as we turn the unproductive elements into self-sustaining ones and eliminate the need for BIG to pacify parts of society.