> Where does that view go on the right/left spectrum?

Its a not-uncommon libertarian view that's probably more common the farther right you go (but you'll also find some left-libertarians who believe it; heck, you'll find left-libertarians that are almost completely opposed to the existence of the state as such)

"left", "right", and "libertarian" are all pretty broad groups within which there is lots of individual variation.

Consider: a world where everyone is entitled to a basic income (and hopefully also guaranteed healthcare) has a lot to offer for libertarians:

Fewer desperate people means you have the liberty to walk streets at night without the fear of being mugged. You are less likely to be panhandled by homeless people missing body parts because they couldn't afford their medical bills. Assuming BI suffices for the myriad of society's problems and replaces government solutions, it is an effective way to contain the state's scope and ambitions, since any "deserved" welfare scheme rests on the ideas that there are "correct" ways to live and "incorrect" ways that require welfare to fix. Basic income does away with that idea by providing what people need as the basis for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while not mandating a particular way to live (such as drug testing for food stamps or work/-searching requirements for the unemployed who would be shown the door if they preferred to live as an unpaid community volunteer). This is why BI is often attributed as a conservative idea.

<Fewer desperate people means you have the liberty to walk streets at night without the fear of being mugged.>

You think that desires for nonessentials (or even luxuries) magically go away in such an environment?

Heck, a guy who was playing in the NBA a year ago was shot dead while pulling a home-invasion robbery this week. NBA minimum salary was $507K.

That NBA guy (I assume we're talking about Bryce Dejean-Jones) played this year too and it wasn't a home-invasion robbery.

There is a completely valid subset of libertarianism (which includes social libertarians) that would argue for economic liberty, and how your liberty can be impeded by finances just as much as by the gunpoint of the state.

It is often modernly invoked in the exclusive context of when taxes or state programs harm people enough to put them into financial insecurity, but it applies to private finance as well, and is principally rooted in the hierarchy of needs, which can also be considered a growing degree of freedom - if you are stuck at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy, you are prisoner to it.

Increasingly libertarians make those arguments, but that wasn't always the case. Both Hayek and Friedman argued in favor of a basic income:

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic...

Agreed. Right-leaning libertarians strongly value the non-aggression principle. If the BI is to be funded via coercive means (e.g. income tax) it is morally impermissible and utterly incompatible.

However I don't doubt that some will accept it on a pragmatic basis, with the hope or expectation that it will lead to an overall reduction in violations of the NAP.