- Private property must be inviolable.
- Free markets are the best arbiters of truth, including how it determines what each person is worth.
I won't comment; just want to listen.
As for me personally, I’m open to the idea of basic income, but I specifically like Milton Friedman’s “Negative Income Tax” idea more. As for why, I think that (1) we can afford and have shown politically for several generations that we do want a basic social safety net for everyone, and (2) the current way we provide it is pretty mediocre. The idea of replacing the current system with simple cash payments seems to me like a potential cost saving and efficacy improving move.
But since it hasn’t been done on a large scale before I’d rather see that idea thoroughly tested and researched before I’d have confidence that any nation should fully adopt it, and IMO its not very easy to design a good test.
Thus I’d say those ideas are more of an intellectual curiosity than a position I’d advocate.
This question is meaningless in the abstract. UBI doesn't inherently square with, or fail to square with, Libertarian values. You'd have to be asking about a specific proposal to get an answer to this.
That said, a UBI proposal that funds the UBI through purely voluntary means would, indeed, square with Libertarian values, which are their core reduce to "you can't initiate force, or use fraud, against others. Force is only for self-defense".
Free markets are the best arbiters of truth, including how it determines what each person is worth.
A UBI scheme which was funded through entirely voluntary means would actually be part of the free market, so there is no conflict.