>greater negative liberty
What does this mean?

>We could even make a requirement that individuals remain in the work force (even if they can't find an employer willing to hire them at this time): they would provide proof that they've applied to jobs, were seeking further education, or the like.

I've long been a supporter of a negative income tax (actually, until recently it was a basic income), and this is one idea I've been trying to develop. I have some concerns about how well the idea you layed out could be implemented. It seems like it is doomed to fail due to the nessasary bueracracy. Either the process of proving you were looking for work becomes so streamline that you do not need to actually exert meaningfull effort (and possibly waste employers time to get the needed paperwork), or proving that you are seeking work would become a significant burden.

The solution I've been thinking of is some sort of work on demand program, where, while your unemployed and reiciving your guaranteed income, you can be asked to do short term work for the government (and/or private companies). Obviously this would need regulation to prevent it from being exploitative, but it would allow the governent to make more infastructure investments without needing nearly as much money. It might even save more money than we are paying people through the program as we would effectivly be getting labor at below market wages. An important part of this system is that there be no long term commitment, so if you find a job, want to move, etc, you will not be prevented from doing so. This may also require an additional investment in training the unemployed to do the specific job we need them to (but training the workforce is a good idea anyway).

Apart from the obvious regulatory issues, which seem solvable, what I can't quite figure out is how to make this fit in with a negative income tax. Effectivly the work on demand model makes the government an employer of last resort, and what would be negative income tax simply becomes a paycheck. The best solution I can come up with is abandon the negative income tax idea and embrace the government as an employer of last resort model. This sidesteps the problem of a lazy unemployed by requiring them to work to receive the income. If the 'normal' workforce gets to small employers could 'rent' these workers from the government, again at sub-market wages.

This however, risks employers not hiring 'normal' workers, but rather work on demand`ers. If this is the case, then many people would be unable to get a normal job, and effectivly be forced to work for sub-market wages, potentially leading to a situation like the industrial revolution where much of the workforce is trapped in low paying jobs because they are the only ones available.

However, because the government controls the minimum income, they control the wages of these workers, so they can increase said wages as this starts to become the case. But, as this happens we move even more into the government become the sole employer. Once this happens we begin to loose the free market, causing us to be in an effectivly socialist state. However, when a specific region of this economy becomes inneficient, an entrapanuer would have the oppurtunity to make above minimum wages by competing with the existing provider. If quality of life is good enough for everyone that no one wants to do this, then we win. If quality of life is bad enough then someone will do this. Hopefully this will allow the free market to create and maintain the proper equilibrium point between socialism and free-market.