Unlike most countries, Japan's debt is mainly funded internally, their inhabitants have an extremely high saving rate and are willing to buy their governments debt, Do you expect that Briton's will suddenly start saving again and buy government bonds? I will answer that for you-no, they are also too deeply in debt to save.

The debt is not a cypher, you have two choices pay-up or default, if you default the chances of borrowing in the future at reasonable rates are minimal, therefore the possibility of running a deficit is essentially nil. If the UK-uncut morons think that this governments present attempts are austere then they are in for a rude awakening should default be considered. The deficit this year (depending on who you believe) is reckoned to be £125,000,000,000, which ministries will you abolish?

The young lady is not sick she is a glutton, would you pay her more?

The fact that housing can be built cheaper in some locations is well known, however you have not answered the questions.

I pose them again.

What citizens guaranteed income would you recommend for a 63 stone girl, who obviously cannot work?

Would she be entitled to other benefits?

Would people who perceive they need more food or purpose-built homes receive a higher citizens guaranteed income?

Would there be an expectation that people pay into the plan before receiving benefits, like an insurance scheme or is this yet another human right borne by taxpayers?

The Japamese government debt was downgraded almost ten years ago. Kindly check the interest rate they are paying.
The debt is a cypher.

Yes, some sick people would have to recieve more.

I'm sure there must be a way to build more basic housing for people... I'd build them somewhere cheap, like Wales...

You are telling me that in a libertarian society I will have more freedom to do what I want "libertarianism is about leting people live their lives how they want to", but there will always be restrictions on the things we do, because we have to take other people into account.
As for there being "nothing" stopping me buying land, of course there is - money.
I don't think your free market land would be as different from the current system as you seem to think. There would probably be more people with the freedom tostarve and the freedom to be degraded as sex workers though.

"We are social animals, there is no such thing as a complete individual and there is no such thing as complete freedom."

?

I haven't argued that there is.

Sorry, I disagree.

And jobs are a cost, not a benefit.

Tom, I covered some of this in the post I saved onto your blog last week, which hasn't yet been approved. Basically, we don't need that much from each other once our basic needs are met and so demand for services is likely to fall at times, depressions wil result unless government is able to step in, and starvation if government doesn't provide for the poor.
Those are the reasons why I don't think a free market system will work. I could be wrong. It is possible that voluntary societies can serve the same role as government - though in that case we will have " free rider" problems instead of problems of compulsion. I'm not sure that one is clearly morally worse than the other.
You might not be concerned whether a free market system actually works - the system might be an end in itself as far as you are concerned. If so, that is your religious belief.

As for the Soviet Union, I'm not proposing getting rid of private property, shooting peole with glasses or putting us to work on collective farms. I'm propsing giving each person a basic minimum and building markets on top of that.
I think it is rather childish to make the comparison...

"I happen to disagree that the distribution of property achieved by a free market will always be the best. But if I live in your libertarian society, I am still bound by law and force to obey your ideology."

Classic - "you're taking away my freedom to remove your freedom".

It is you who wants to remove our options and dictate our actions, not the other way round.

Libertarianism is about letting people live their lives how they want to, not how the state demands.

So in a libertarian society there'd be nothing to stop you, and like-minded others, buying land and living how you want. You could divide it up equally, pay a CBI, control wages, etc.

When you say "restrain the use of force", do you really mean "enforce the law"?
If I were to take a chocolate bar from sainsburys without paying, I presume you would consider this force.
 Fair enough, but there is no law of nature which dictates that property ownership must take the form you desire. We chose this form on the basis of what we consider to be best for society. And if force is used in your society to maintain law, it is also being used to maintain ideology. 
I happen to disagree that the distribution of property achieved by a free market will always be the best. But if I live in your libertarian society, I am still bound by law and force to obey your ideology. 

An oncologist.
If it were a top chef, I might have a different opinion.

Why?

'If cleaning drains is such a vital and unpleasent task, why not pay people more to do it, rather than rely on their desperation?'

Mark, wages are not arbitrary, people get pay a wage base on their education, experience, skills etc.

May I ask you this question: which one of these jobs would you consider to be more important?

A burger flipper or an oncologist?

I'll have a look...

Ok... believe in using the law...

"The flip side to responsibility is blame.
Unless we take responsibility for each other, nothing will improve"

Why?

I'm not willing to take responsibility for someone else's actions or life. That's not to say I won't help those in need. But I'm sure as hell not taking responsibility for them.

And by "we" do you mean "we, the people" or the state because the state's welfare projects crushed the previously existing friendly societies and the like where people did look after each other? The state giving people money for nothing is another step in the direction of "the state is mother, the state is father" (see the disgusting Obama "Julia" ad).

Do you believe in law?

"If you're not sure what it actually means then how do you expect anyone to give you an accurate answer?"

I'm not sure what this means, but I could have a guess. It's a bit like saying, "unless you are certain what everyone else in thevworld thinks of something how can you speak of it and expect someone to respond?"
The answer, of course, is easily. It's what we do every day.

I wouldn't be surprised if people did believe that putting people in cages would improve the economy and only refrain from advocating such a policy on the grounds of morality.

There've been better but he tried.

No, I don't think the term implies taking responsibility. It means that by allowing failures to be destroyed, we can release resources to create success.
Right wingers often believe that by making being out of work as unpleasent as possible we can improve the economy.

You believe that people should be held responsible for their actions. Do you also believe that they should always be responsible for their situation?

Diogenes,
Where did I say "get rid of the price mechanism"? I'm assuming that people will do the work which they are paid to do, but that the work which is paid least is probably stuff we can do without.
If cleaning drains is such a vital and unpleasent task, why not pay people more to do it, rather than rely on their desperation?
Andrew,
Sorry. First ever blog post. I'll try to be more abrasive in future... out of a matter of interest, do you think the process of creative destruction should apply to individuals?

'A common criticism levelled against the Citizen's Basic Income is that it would interfere with the process of "creative destruction" and therefore reduce long term productivity gains.'

A common criticism levelled by the Acme Strawman Cooperative perhaps. The rest of us understand that a Citizen's Basic Income would destroy the incentive to be productive which makes progress inevitable in a free trading society.

Statists are so keen to throw out the bathwater of inequality that they usually fail to notice the baby of incentivised selflessness that is the key to the undeniable success of capitalist nations. Yes selflessness, allow me to explain.

The price mechanism forces people to act selflessly by rewarding creativity and labour which is valued by others not by themselves. In order to be comfortable you maximise the value of your efforts as assessed by society (the market).

The Citizens Basic Income would lead to people doing what they want like a nation of Surrey wives; all wanting to run florists, interior design boutiques, coffee shops and vintners. Great, until you need someone to do a mindless job like cleaning your drains or killing your rats. Only the free market incentivises those selfless heroes properly.