[nickik]

Fuck I just wrote a juge text but the link expired and I lost it.

Heres the short version:

Generally I agree and I would like to see that too.

About PP:

1. Basic Income (BGE) is a very liberal socal policy(something I could see Friedman or Hayek support). It rases the amount of GDP on the government side but takes away a lot of the controll and bureaucracy that is there now.

2. The want to take away alot of state power too, specially in police and military. Think about what massiv change there drug policy would make.

3. The are the only ones that I could ever see attacking finance. Because (a) the are young (b) not infiltrated by lobbiests (yet) (c) currage to trie something diffrent (think out of the box) (d) efficent use of tools and communication (work on the buget like a opensource project would be something worth trying)

Rather have liberal statist with a social side then conservativ statist with love for police (CUD) or hardcore statist like (SPD).

[roel_v]

"Basic Income (BGE) is a very liberal socal policy(something I could see Friedman or Hayek support)."

Actually Friedman (I assume you're talking about Milton Friedman here, since there are several prominent economists named 'Friedman' nowadays) advocated just that in 1962 in 'Capitalism and Freedom', albeit in the form of a negative income tax.

[mjn]

I believe Friedman supported it sort of half-heartedly, because he thought the population wouldn't stand for not having a social safety net at all, and if there was to be one, the negative income tax was less distorting and less bureaucratic than the usual mixture of rent control, food stamps, and unemployment benefits.

Hayek did support it on more philosophical grounds, because he thought it would increase individual freedom. Almost the exact opposite reasoning as some libertarians, actually. It's common for libertarians to argue that social programs should be handled by private charity, but Hayek worried that doing so leads to collectivism, because people feel bound to social cliques that provide social safety for their members (ethnic groups, churches, etc.), and fear leaving the groups lest they lose their insurance. So he would prefer there be a society-wide safety net not tied to these cliques.

I kept forgetting where he had written that, so I excerpted a quote in my mini-scrapbook here: http://www.kmjn.org/snippets/hayek79_minimumincome.html

[nickik]

Yes I talk about Miltion. He supported the negative income tax because it was a better system (I think that BGE is even more effectiv). The diffrence between Milton and me for exmple is that he tought that the NIT was only temporary. He wanted a temporary system until the Free Market did not need such a system any more but I think he agree that it would take a while.