The only real welfare reform is “a job is a right.”

The only other real welfare reform is true post-scarcity economics. But I see no third possibility.

The essay Real Welfare Reform by David S. D’Amato pretty much sums up my reasons for thinking of the left libertarian movement as 1% left and 99% libertarian. While it is true that “the two narratives are naturally aligned,” the left libertarian and the right libertarian agree on the fundamental ethical principle (the so-called non-aggression principle) and disagree at times on the implications on that principle, with more than a few self-identified right libertarians coming out as anti-intellectual-property and even anti-corporate-personhood.  To my ears the tone of the two tendencies is indistinguishable.  The belief that the interests of the poor will automatically be served by a sufficiently free market is not unique to left libertarianism or even libertarianism. It is a belief embodied in Reagan’s “volunteerism” and his successor’s “points of light.” For me it is still too much of a leap of faith. To me, a plausible outcome to the removal of barriers to competition is a flourishing of the most competitive among the currently marginalized and excluded. Even if there is enough charitable goodwill amongst the public to cover the survival needs of any that might still be left behind, I hardly see it as an adequate solution to the unemployment and poverty problems as charity, like “welfare,” is an affront to dignity. The trouble, as I see it, with counting entirely on removal of barriers to competition, is the glaringly obvious fact that competition itself is a barrier to entry. Being a contributing member of society is either a right or it is a privilege. I have more esteem for the former.  That is why I consider negative liberty an inherently right-of-center concept, along with the market mechanism itself.  Maybe that makes me a statist, although I think a voluntary “covenant not to compete” (or at least, in the final analysis, not to reject any individual from some active role) among all members of a probably small and hopefully at least somewhat self-sufficient community might resolve the paradox. That hope is what keeps me going.  I know solutions that require intentional community are at best inelegant, but what can I say?   I can say what I feel.