| >their number is likely to no higher than the currently idle Why do you think giving some people free money that do not get it now would not result in some of them becoming idle? There is evidence as payments increase the idle increase. For example, I think the OECD has data showing there are more people on disability by a wide margin across countries, and this correlates with the benefits the various countries offer. Do you really think there are naturally more disabled people in the UK than the US, or that because they offer better support more people are inclined to try and get it? >if I wanted to spend a couple of weeks cleaning up my local beach of garbage I should be free to do so - the benefit to society is obviously large but the effort might just be me or a small group of similar minded folks Obviously large to whom? Why does this group or person not already pay someone to clean the beach? Apparently the value is so low that people spend their money on things they want, instead of hiring you to clean the beach. What you're arguing is that people will produce things of lesser value to society, but of some value to their own belief set, things of such low value overall that no one will pay for it. This results in a lower amount of goods and services, which ultimately results in society getting poorer, not richer. |