> Being taken care of is security. They are completely different concepts.
They are different, but closely related. The lack of security, health and life drastically reduce your choices. It is meaningless to have the right to make a choice, if the means and abilities to make that choice is inaccessible to you.
We can not give everyone the means and ability to be able to make every choice, but that does not mean there are not certain choices that are so basic that they are essential if we are to not make a mockery of claiming to want to ensure liberty.
> Also, if someone else is forced to provide for the other person they definitely don't have liberty, they are basically a slave to another person.
I would fuly support your ability to "secede", so to speak, from society. As long as you then were to accept that society can choose not to deal with you, as forcing rest of society to deal with you would equally deprive them of liberty, and as long as you control no more than an even proportion of land and other scarce resources.
Ultimately, if you truly want to maximise liberty for yourself as well as others, it means choosing to give up some of your own to integrate into wider society.
> A basic income system like that proposed by Georgists,Geo-Libertarians, and I think Thomas Paine (Agrarian Justice) is compatible with both left and right libertarian views.
It's compatible with some left libertarian views. More widely, it is compatible with the views of many left libertarians that even so see it as undesirable because it's basically a repeat of Bismark's "state socialism": Bismark created the first relatively modern welfare system explicitly as an attempt at pulling the rug from under the revolutionary movements in Germany at the time (at the same time as he outlawed dozens of parties and newspapers). His goal was to reduce the appetite for revolution, to prevent the socialists from going much further.
Basic income, similarly, is a half-assed measure at guaranteeing a bare minimum in the face of mounting fears that automation will in the coming years sooner or later make demands for larger reforms grow stronger (basically we're seeing mounting fears that Marx description of end-stage capitalism was correct when he assumed that capitalists will essentially run out of new markets to expand into and find that ultimately their only way of driving down prices is to drive down employment costs, and thus at the same time reduce their markets).
As such, it is "compatible" in the sense that it is - subject to issues about provisioning of scarce resources, such as healthcare provisioning - not worse than most current systems. But it is also not all that much better.
This is the reason why you tend to see far more support for basic income coming out of classical liberal groups than left libertarian / socialist groups.
They are different, but closely related. The lack of security, health and life drastically reduce your choices. It is meaningless to have the right to make a choice, if the means and abilities to make that choice is inaccessible to you.
We can not give everyone the means and ability to be able to make every choice, but that does not mean there are not certain choices that are so basic that they are essential if we are to not make a mockery of claiming to want to ensure liberty.
> Also, if someone else is forced to provide for the other person they definitely don't have liberty, they are basically a slave to another person.
I would fuly support your ability to "secede", so to speak, from society. As long as you then were to accept that society can choose not to deal with you, as forcing rest of society to deal with you would equally deprive them of liberty, and as long as you control no more than an even proportion of land and other scarce resources.
Ultimately, if you truly want to maximise liberty for yourself as well as others, it means choosing to give up some of your own to integrate into wider society.
> A basic income system like that proposed by Georgists,Geo-Libertarians, and I think Thomas Paine (Agrarian Justice) is compatible with both left and right libertarian views.
It's compatible with some left libertarian views. More widely, it is compatible with the views of many left libertarians that even so see it as undesirable because it's basically a repeat of Bismark's "state socialism": Bismark created the first relatively modern welfare system explicitly as an attempt at pulling the rug from under the revolutionary movements in Germany at the time (at the same time as he outlawed dozens of parties and newspapers). His goal was to reduce the appetite for revolution, to prevent the socialists from going much further.
Basic income, similarly, is a half-assed measure at guaranteeing a bare minimum in the face of mounting fears that automation will in the coming years sooner or later make demands for larger reforms grow stronger (basically we're seeing mounting fears that Marx description of end-stage capitalism was correct when he assumed that capitalists will essentially run out of new markets to expand into and find that ultimately their only way of driving down prices is to drive down employment costs, and thus at the same time reduce their markets).
As such, it is "compatible" in the sense that it is - subject to issues about provisioning of scarce resources, such as healthcare provisioning - not worse than most current systems. But it is also not all that much better.
This is the reason why you tend to see far more support for basic income coming out of classical liberal groups than left libertarian / socialist groups.