Conceptually I like it for that, and other reasons. But what programs do you toss out? Education? Health Care? Food stamps? Subsidized Housing? Each of these has vast constituencies.
The article notes that this policy would be huge for the libertarian right - no need to give people any free stuff other than the standard income, and just let markets provide every other public service.
GMI is a dividing line on the libertarian right. Most still hate it, because they're basically anarchists who hate any form of government spending. But there's a minority who really like it for its simplicity and fairness, and the positive impact on personal liberty.
They sound like the Mutualists, of whom I know one (he's in the same political party as me, hilariously.)
As far as I can tell, Mutualists = Market anarchists who believe local judges (who aren't officially given any power) and embarrassment will keep everyone behaving ethically - no need for formal laws or governments. It seems a very very deep misunderstanding of the role of weak-tie trust in economics to me.
