No UBI Link – No Trade-off

Hemel and Fleischer 17, * Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law, **Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School (“Atlas Nods: The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income,” Chicago Unbound, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13519&context=journal_articles)

Moreover, by evaluating a UBI on libertarian grounds while writing for an audience of both libertarians and non-libertarians, we respond to a demand from non-libertarian UBI supporters for a fuller understanding of the libertarian basis for a UBI. Currently, many nonlibertarian supporters of a UBI are hesitant to ally with their libertarian fellow travelers. They fear that a UBI could be a “Trojan horse” offered by libertarians and capitalists seeking ultimately to dismantle the welfare state.11 Here, we look inside the horse to see whether it is indeed hollow, and conclude that it is not. Libertarianism offers normative support for pursuing a UBI as a permanent policy objective. Of course, whether or not we think a UBI is consistent with libertarian principles does not reveal the motives of other UBI supporters. We do think, though, that our examination of the libertarian bases for a UBI will help non-libertarians evaluate the sincerity of their potential coalition partners, and will give them greater confidence that committed libertarians can support a UBI as an end in itself rather than a mere waystation on the road toward the evisceration of the welfare state.

UBI debates will occur in isolation from other policies – no risk of a trade-off

Kasy 18, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Harvard University (Maximilian, “Why a Universal Basic Income Is Better Than Subsidies of Low-Wage Work,” )

How exactly the politics of a UBI would unfold is of course a complex matter. A key determinant of the political response would be the institutionally available and perceived policy alternatives. That said, once a UBI is introduced, it seems plausible that any political debate about its size would take place largely in isolation from debates about other possible policy changes. Since a majority would have to lose from a reduction of the UBI, considered in isolation, it seems plausible that maintaining or expanding the UBI would have widespread support. This appears to be indeed the case for existing universal transfer programs, such as the Alaska Permanent Fund—which is extremely popular, according to findings of Jones and Marinescu (2018)