I do think where the money is coming from to support vulnerable populations and how we define them is actually the key question for progressive policy. Right now we have mostly centralized authorities determining who is vulnerable (which is often arbitrary to some degree) and because there is no transparency in how people's taxes (let alone how their inflation) is spent, people are naturally suspicious of what is going on. To give a concrete example, as someone who has worked in the environmental regulatory space for over 20 years, I have seen this play out in my work. Environmental resources that should be protected often are not, typically because someone with a lot of money bulldozes their way through the regulations. On the other hand, perfectly reasonable and low impact projects are delayed and small developers stonewalled by endless red tape. I've also seen the environmental space be co-opted by certain favored actors to focus on funneling money to those causes, sometimes at the detriment of other environmental resources that are equally or even more deserving (in my opinion). The problem in short is that some person or entity is deciding how the money is redistributed and there is a lack of transparency as well as a lack of say from the people who provide that money. Hence, many people (not just libertarians) see this as unfair in some way and rightly so. In the olden days you had local communities that collected the funds and distributed them to the people to help the young, the old, and the disabled. There was still nepotism but the communities had much more input and your social standing mattered. Today the redistribution is at a national and even global level and the people's will is not observed. Therefore, I think it is of the utmost importance that any progressive policies address this key issue and I think that while Bitcoin addresses the Cantillon effect to some degree, we need to seek better cypherpunk ways of allowing the People to decide who and what causes they wish to help .