[BSDobelix]

>Or it divides them into people that create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth.

That's what i meant with the potatoes, the government pays for the field with the rare potatoes, and the standardized potatoes make wealth.

>So you do agree that art should be supported by government I see, so how would you do it?

With free housing (art community's), tax free stuff (for small to medium sales etc) like it's done today. And to be honest i think 99.5% of artist dont do a full-time-art-job, most of them do other stuff too...and that's good.

Is my friend who plays the didgeridoo in his free time now an artist if he declares it's suddenly his full-time occupation?

One example, why exclude people like Geo-scientists who sometimes dont even get any money (except they work for big-oil or the state).

On a base your are right, not everything that's good for societies is compatible within a capitalistic system. But this is just a complete wrong step.

[jmye]

> Is my friend who plays the didgeridoo in his free time now an artist if he declares it's suddenly his full-time occupation?

Is this really a risk, given UBI is generally minimal? Anyone who wants to live on it full-time to support their art, whatever it may be, is welcome to it. It's not like they're sitting back and getting rich, here.

> One example, why exclude people like Geo-scientists who sometimes dont even get any money (except they work for big-oil or the state).

Because "UBI for everyone who deserves it" is a much harder, bigger step, and fighting against small wins because they don't include literally every single outlier case you can think of is absurdly non-productive, not to mention that it's a vacuous counter-argument.

[jimnotgym]

But giving housing or tax breaks needs lots of admin. Isn't that less efficient?

Giving housing forces people to live in certain places. What if you are a traveling musician, you might be better off with a van.

It is like the Victorian view of giving charity. 'Don't give them money, give them food', like the people don't know what they need.

[BSDobelix]

>But giving housing or tax breaks needs lots of admin. Isn't that less efficient?

Art community's are most always self managing, i would argue finding out who makes art is much more complicated.

>Giving housing forces people to live in certain places.

No one is forced to take free housing or being an artist, if you want something for free you have to play by rules.

>like the people don't know what they need

True, but why are people who are artist different from anyone else, that's my critique. Why is creating art more important then preserving art, being a scientist, a rare-potato-farmer, a retro-game-preserver...or a small town politician?

[jimnotgym]

> True, but why are people who are artist different from anyone else, that's my critique.

I don't think it is helpful to frame it in terms of, 'sure they should get it, but what about other people doing public good? Since the others can't get it, the artists shouldn't'. How about saying, 'this is a great start, how do we get a broader scheme for other philanthropic causes'?

[BSDobelix]

>I don't think it is helpful to frame it in terms of, 'sure they should get it, but what about other people doing public good? Since the others can't get it, the artists shouldn't'.

I think it's the only logical way, same right for everyone, occupation is not a factor for additional rights.

> 'this is a great start,

And the end...sadly.