"The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born." (emphasis added)
I like Hayek, but I do not worship Hayek. If Hayek thought a guaranteed income was a good thing, it does not necessarily mean that a guaranteed income is a good thing.
“... a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.”
Does this idea ignore that we, Americans, don’t have a caste society? The question answers itself.
Further, would all immigrants qualify? Certainly “THEY” were born disadvantagd but, how is that any American citizens fault?
All men are created equal but, no one should be guaranteed a particular outcome. It disincentives rather than promotes ingenuity and reward of at least the basic reward of a days work.
Does it not stand to reason that it would promote not only slothfulness and the use of coke but, wouldn’t there be a constant demand for COLA?
You know who would win? Ingenious men of a certain avarice who would find a way to profit from lazy azz, no good, slugs.
BTW, I got no problem with welfare as social necessity to fill a temporary gap or the aged, who at least contribute 16% of their wage to social security.
One small passage , out of context.
Please note the crucial phrase ‘when he is unable to provide for himself’. It sounds to me a lot more like an endorsement of a safety net for the truly needy and incapable rather than some sort of blanket endorsement of ‘guaranteed income for all’.
I remember my high school econ-social studies teacher bringing this up back in ‘83 as part of a larger discussion on welfare. He was bringing up different approaches and pros/cons.