[anticon]

The level of koolaid here is just too large a mountain to attempt to scale.

Automation will just move a few jobs around, like it always has done. And yes - we don't need jobs. But no - that doesn't mean the state should give everyone free money.

[merijnv]

> But no - that doesn't mean the state should give everyone free money.

Why not?

[anticon]

Because there is no free money. We would all have to pay for it. We would be subsidising laziness.

[merijnv]

> Because there is no free money.

Ok, sure.

> We would all have to pay for it.

Well, yes.

> We would be subsidising laziness.

Why is it laziness? As I pointed out, repeatedly, above. There's two ways we can go with this discussion. You can state "There is nothing worth of value, except economic value". If that's what you believe, fine. But I think that is a very shallow and hollow belief and then there is not much sense in further discussion.

Alternatively, you can agree that there are pursuits that, while not producing any economic value, are very valuable to society. Such as arts, social projects, research, etc. and that those of us who are good at maximising economic value (but, most likely not spending as much time/effort in other areas) should subsidise those of us who ARE taking care of our elderly, raising kids, or otherwise fulfilling socially and artistically important roles. In which case we can discuss whether basic income is a good way to accomplish this or whether there are better ways.

And what is so terrible about subsiding laziness? Why do you care? If you have more than enough money to do whatever you want, what does it hurt you that someone manages to "not starve" even though they don't "do anything"? Is that really so bad? You would honestly prefer thousands, if not millions, starving to avoid "subsidising laziness"?