Bureaucratic selectivity mechanisms are the true colours of welfare states, stigmatising benefit recipients while hampering their trust in institutions and society at large. Universal policies such as the Universal Basic Income could protect recipients’ trust by circumventing selectivity paraphernalia. By analysing regressions on the Finnish UBI experiment’s survey data, we assess the links from policy selectivity to trust in the benefit-providing institution and generalised trust through the pathway of reduced bureaucratic experience. More specifically, we analyse whether receipt of UBI leads (...) to greater trust directly or while accompanied by an actual or perceived reduction in bureaucracy. According to our results, UBI is accompanied by greater trust, while selectivity does not necessarily lead to less trust or perception of less bureaucracy. However, in our analysis, policy selectivity did not directly correlate to recipients’ reported bureaucratic experiences, and their relationship with trust proved tricky: selectivity did not risk recipients’ trust in the policy-implementing institution, but generalised trust in other people was lowered. Thus, selective benefit recipients might be prone to self-inflicted stigma, hampering their trust in other people, regardless of actual bureaucratic experiences or trust in the welfare system. (shrink)

O presente artigo tem como objetivo reconstruir argumentos cen-trais, desenvolvidos por Robert Nozick, acerca das posições extremas que não diferenciam Estado-providência e Estado totalitário na política dos libertarianos norte-americanos, isto é, sobre as afinidades percebidas por Nozick com as teses desta corrente de pensamento, embora se afastando num ponto essencial: a questão do Estado. Ao contrário da teoria anar-quista, o Estado mínimo é preferível ao estado de natureza, tal como John locke o descreve.