In the previous post, it was suggested that the unearned income of landlords, rentiers and capitalists should really be the equal entitlement of all citizens. Such an equal entitlement could, in part, take the form of basic income or a social dividend. Public banking would be one way to facilitate a move in that direction.
It is sometimes argued that a basic income guarantee (BIG) would be unfair because it requires no reciprocation from the recipient. If we are to hold to a principle of reciprocity, it might be worth briefly considering how the principle ought to be applied in the present social system. In a system of private property ownership, it would seem that the reciprocity argument against basic income is false. Would-be recipients are already reciprocating, before any such introduction of basic income, by agreeing to go along with the private-property system. Why should individuals, especially those not born into private property, respect private property rights unless they are compensated for their acceptance of the arrangement? If we are going to appeal to reciprocity, the onus of reciprocation should be on those who derive property income.