Regular readers of this blog will likely find the current issue of The Independent Review to be of significant interest.

In it, you’ll find an intra-libertarian debate on the merits of the Basic Income Guarantee. Mike Munger and I argue in favor of the policy, David Henderson and Robert Whales against. (My argument here is substantially different from the argument I made at Cato Unbound last year. That argument was a pragmatic, second-best argument that aimed to show that even libertarians who opposed the welfare state altogether should endorse a BIG as better than the status quo. In my new paper, I argue for a BIG on a more principled basis, drawing on the liberation opposition to coercion and the Lockean Proviso)

The issue also features an essay by Nicolás Maloberti on “Rawls and Bleeding Heart Libertarianism: How Well Do They Mix?“. Here’s the abstract:

In 1971, Harvard University philosopher John Rawls put forth an innovative argument for the welfare state, but today a new crop of thinkers invokes Rawls to justify a libertarian society. Their project is intriguing, but it is doubtful that these self-described “bleeding heart libertarians” can count on a Rawlsian framework to provide robust support for inviolable liberty.

Alas, the full issue won’t be online for six months. So if you want to read it now, you’ll have to subscribe, or order the single issue!