At Larvatus Prodeo Mark Bahnisch says:

I’m with Jason. I’ve been arguing for a long time we should get rid of the intrusive and paternalistic bureaucracy which obsesses about turning people into compliant ‘work ready’ citizens.

But as Ken Parish reminds readers, liberating the dependent from bureaucratic paternalism is only half the bargain. The whole point of the cash transfers is to allow the government to deregulate the labour market and dismantle the welfare state. It’s worth thinking through what happens after the deal goes down.

Let me clarify my position for you, Don. I hadn’t read Murray’s plan, and still haven’t. I’m with Jason on the principle of a guarenteed minimum income and getting rid of the compliance obsessed and inefficient Centrelink and employment service bureaucracies which in practical terms do little to achieve the aims that labour market programmes should.

It seems to me that it doesn’t logically follow that you have to go down Murray’s route. I’m just suggesting that we need a different and less oppressive and bureaucratic approach to income support. So yes it would be odd if I found Murray’s ideas appealling in toto. I don’t – but if you care to go back and read my post again, you’ll find that I set out what I support.

I certainly don’t believe in replacing all government services to assist disadvantaged people with a cash grant. I believe in replacing the dole and benefits with a guaranteed minimum income payment at one (higher) rate and continuing to fund labour market programmes for those who choose to take advantage of them. Of course I would envisage that things like housing assistance, etc. would continue. There may well be better ways to deliver them, and I’m agnostic as to whether there might be non-statist ways of doing so which achieve the saim aims more efficiently and with less imposition on people’s freedom, but that’s a debate I’m not entering right now.

Yep. I’m with you. Great post.