> Well yeah, which is why they're called parasites in some circles. So how
> can you consistently condemn unearned capital income at the same time
> you're arguing for a separation of work and income? I say this as someone
> very sympathetic to the idea, but at a loss for how to argue for it.
Schweikart makes the case in his book. Probably the most radical and ingenious part of his scheme. He has a lot of good ideas (it seems to me) but writes as a philosopher and not as an economist so some of these ideas might look absurd from a dismal scientist's point of view. If there is a labor market there will be some involuntary unemployment. If I remember, S champions some sort of guaranteed basic income where every citizen receives a check every month. I think even M. Friedman argued for this at one time. Part of the socialist programme ,I take it, is meaningful and productive work for all those who want it.
On the subject of welfare, someone told me the other day that suicide of welfare recipients has increased in the past few years probably due to the increased harassment and humiliation. Here in B.C., you used to have to line up in public on a certain day to get your check. It was great way to hand out leaflets and organize the unemployed (a very difficult task),so, you guessed it, the gov't intoduced direct mailing and direct deposits of checks thus abolishing lineups. I know the welfare system in Canada is a great deal more enlightened than the U.S. Not quite as much stigma either, especially when it comes to more prestigious forms of welfare like student loans.
Sam Pawlett