I think I posted that one during one of our earlier UBI discussions (it's from 2015). It's an interesting paper if nothing else for its overview of previous proposals, usually, but not entirely, ones by conservatives and libertarians (not surprising given the source and not a criticism, just an observation).
For another pro/con discussion metnioned by Tanner, see this essay and, at the bottom, the response essays.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guaranteeAnd the follow-up.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/12/matt-zwolinski/gospel-workAs near as I can tell, Zwolinksi is a strong Libertarian, but not necessarily a conservative, or at least more of a Libertarian and less of a conservative than Tanner (both being affiliated with Cato, it's safe to say that both lean far more Libertarian and conservative than the average American).
Cato's ambivalent position on the UBI (much in evidence in Tanner's essay) is interesting as the Cato Institute on the one hand is skeptical of any handouts from governemnt and on the other reveres Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, both of whom were proponents of forms of the UBI. From the paper:
For example, F. A. Hayek noted that “I always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country.” In Law, Legislation and Liberty, he wrote:
The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.
