Recently I commented on the proposal posted at the Bleeding Heart Libertarians site regarding the advocacy of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). To make a long story short, a proposal advocating a $10,000 per person income guarantee instead of the various federal welfare programs. The Bleeding Hearts view this as a libertarian position.
Like clockwork, here comes Krugman, bashing the “libertarian” position on BIG:
…the currently trendy idea among libertarians that we can make things much better by replacing the welfare state with a basic guaranteed income. As Mike says, this notion rests on the belief that the welfare state is a crazily complicated mess of inefficient programs, and that simplification would save enough money to pay for universal grants that are neither means-tested nor conditional on misfortune.
Point, counterpoint – nothing is left but a political debate of inconsequential details. This is the nonsense to which the Bleeding Hearts and pragmatic libertarians expose the philosophy.
Guess who is complaining about Krugman’s attack? None other than one of the cornerstones of the Bleeding Hearts, Matt Zwolinski:
A few days ago, Paul Krugman displayed his masterful knowledge of the sociology of the libertarian movement by complaining about all the Ayn Randians running around advocating for a Basic Income Guarantee.
Matt, if you don’t want Krugman to be confused about Libertarianism, perhaps you should stop confusing him.
Or stop pretending that you had nothing to do with it.