basic needs libertarianism

I'm a basic needs libertarian. I do not see any conflict between maximizing liberty and mandatorily covering the basic needs of those whose income is insufficient for this purpose.

by so doing, some market imperfections -the most perverse ones- would be fixed, while peace, solidarity and trust (sine qua non conditions of efficient market behavior--unless you think that conflict, discord and the lack of trust promote non-discriminatory behavior and italian style renaissances) would be consolidated among the individuals within the community. plus, the bases for growth would be guaranteed to be as broad, solid and stable as possible; thus creating a propitious environment for the flow of information and goods, and overall, for sustainable growth, to take place.

think about it: if basic needs are not covered in at least one individual in the community, then this individual may take decisions under conditions of despair and/or irrationality, and extreme measures may follow--some may be willing to work for less; some others may be willing to work under inframarginal circumstances; very few may loose their heads and end up cheating, stealing, giving themselves to the abuse of some narcotic, loosing all hope, protesting violently, or even joining their local extremist group.

whatever the consequences, they surely are more costly to individuals, families, communities and society, than those of mandatorily covering the basic needs of each individual. no one would be compelled to do any indecent work; wages would not be pulled down incessantly; economic exploitation would be much rarer; crime rates would drop; people would live a healthier, longer, more peaceful and safer life, and this would guarantee a broad-based, stable and robust growth.

in short, the cause of freedom is at greater risk when basic needs are not covered than when there is an obligation to cover them. in the first case, chaos and poverty restrain liberty and development. in the second one, the negative effects of governement intervention are surpassed by the positive effects of a more productive labor force.
let no one say laissez faire until liberty is at the helm! level the field first, then play.

3 issues may arise: 1) how to define "basic needs," 2) how to solve the conflict between libertarianism and that "mandatory" clause, and 3) how to implement that mandate

1) I'm not anyone to impose my understanding of the term "basic needs" on any community. however, I understand that the universal declaration of human rights, which has been ratified by most of the states we live in, recognizes that food, housing, medical care, basic education and security are part of the inalienable right to an adequate standard of living of each individual. of course, I'm aware about the fact that "food," "health services," "security," "education" and "shelter" may be defined in many different ways given different circumstances. that's why I'd suggest defining each generation's basic needs via cyclical and regional plebiscites.

2) a true libertarian is a declared enemy of exploitation, abuse, inequality of opportunity and anything that doesn´t look like well-functioning markets--all of the above limit the freedoms of individuals and create perverse incentives that attempt to instaurate the law of the jungle as opposed to the paradise of human liberties that we all dream of. it so happens that, as stated above, not covering the basic needs of each individual puts the suppliers of labor into a trap while perverting the demanders of labor so as to reach an equilibrium which, on the aggregate and over the long run, yields an inferior quality of life and human development for everybody when compared to the hypothetical case in which basic needs (basic education + basic health care + basic nutrition + an existenzminimum living place + basic insurance and minimal safety nets + policing for all) are mandatorily covered.

preemptive libertarianism erradicates the causes of that which is averse to each individual´s freedoms. by mandatorily covering our basic needs, we´ll erradicate economic exploitation and unfair practices; we´ll level the playing fields and we´ll be guaranteed trully equal opportunities; + we´ll fix, improve and create more efficient and trustable markets on the way.

3) am I saying that I´d like santa government to overexpand? not necessarily. first off, some forms of government expansions are beneficial: take the case of a developing country where carbon emissions are taxed so as to fund conditonal programs of a progressive and corrective nature.
in any case, this is the idea: the state mandates and regulates, while free enterprise, non-profs and associations deal with the execution and evaluation. realistically speaking, this program wouldn´t add much to the hillarycare model. not anybody´s favorite but preferable and less costly (think in terms of forgone growth and the social costs of real needs) than the status quo.