The puritanical idea of “man MUST work” is that each man must PROVE that he has a right to live.

The republican ideal of work was once true, but no longer is. We must face our assumptions — and our assumption is — “all men should work to eat.” This is fairly clearly gleaned straight from the ancient Hebraic texts and other agrarian societies with a massive percentage of males able to work participating in providing for the basics of life — food, water, shelter. We live now in a culture where almost no one is involved in the creation of food, housing, or water. There is this interesting hidden idea — which is if you do not contribute — you don’t get to participate. Which many would just say is as pure as a pure logical syllogism.

But we see much evidence against this — and we already make many exceptions. The disabled, the elderly, the juvenile — we don’t assume work. With maternity leave and increasingly paternity leave — we provide for times of rest from work. Sabbatical has been a tradition in academia for a long time. I think that we continue to hold this view because we are afraid of the ramifications of releasing it versus an ideological belief in it. What would it mean that you could have food, water, shelter, and healthcare without having to work. This is very non-libertarian!

Would a basic income subsidize video games and drugs, or would it spark new entrepreneurs. How many entrepreneurs per video game player are we willing to get? 1 to every 2? What if we profit the world’s greatest artists? Musicians? Composers? Would it not be better if man were (1) freed from the drudgery of their day job that they use to keep afloat their aspirations, and (2) if man were able to pursue anything he sets his mind to — without fear of death. If a person stops working a job picking up recycling (because a robot does it) — and just spends more time with their children and is, as a result, a better parent (having basics provided for) — have we lost as a society? And should that person be ostracized and called a lazy leech? There are a lot of paternalistic societal assumptions that we bake into this — we don’t think that people would use their time well — and by well, I mean to advance the greater society.

I think implicit in that assumption is the puritanical view of work — that it is a necessary evil, something to be avoided if possible, if you are rich enough. (that is another thing! the already wealthy (even if inherited) can eat free and we pass no judgement). If work is something to be avoided, and you give people basic stuffs, they will most certainly not work! If work is a delight, if work is meaning, if work is purpose, and man’s greatest desire is for meaning, then they will keep doing “work” and more likely they will participate in non-competitive non-mimetic work that is fitting to them as a person. Additionally we apply the biblical phrase that “idle hands are a devil’s workshop”. We look at project housing and communities that are already living on welfare and we looking at the output and state of those communities — and I think to a certain extent — we rightly turn up our nose! (and half not-rightly because we assume that “different from us” is “bad’).

We extend this idea of “you must work to eat” as a referendum on human motivation. Yet 90% of the effort we see in the developed world, certainly in the upper class, is not people working to eat — they are working for more stuff. If we look at the top 5%, by wealth and pedigree, in the US — they are not even working for stuff — they are working for bragging rights. This paints a clear picture that what motivates man is not simply the need to eat — but is a society-scale vicious case of mimetic desire. Yet we see so much of our greatest advances as humanity from those that have escaped this vicious loop. Our greatest artists, scientists, mathematicians, and religious leaders did not compete for more stuff or compete for bragging rights. They did what they did because it was the expression of their soul into their context. Many of them were poor and penniless at the end of their life — but their names live on. Heroes of the enlightenment didn’t hold down a job — they cruised from cafe to cafe in Paris.

An objection you might raise is — well — if they could not help but do this thing (creating great art for instance), then they would certainly do it regardless of basic income — and you might be right. But I think that we should not view individuals as boolean values — either you have it or you don’t — either you will do it or you want. Looking at the stories of our nation’s heroes, we see as much accident as intention. Sometimes the most incredible secrets are discovered within each of us. Do we want more great thinkers, artists, and poets? Or do we want more salary men with rough and calloused but compliant hands and hearts? Our goal as a society should be to create the most for the least for the greatest number.

What would this look like in application? You would have to give up a lot to get this. Would you get a check, or would your food and housing be rationed? How would you avoid project housing? or would you? How would you account for people who want to live in California costing much more than those in Kansas. How could one state pass such a law without almost certainly attracting the dross from it’s neighbors? These are all real problems! But no great solution has not faced great problems — or it would have already been done.

Will this look like Scandinavia? Great in “happiness”, but poor in innovation? How can we measure success except with an economic yardstick? Do we try things in advance, or wait until technology makes these choices for us? Does government fill the gap with tons of state jobs as socialists have tried? Is the regularity and direction given to most in work necessary for some stability? (versus total freedom and no direction) Who will man our coffee shop counters? Who will clean out our septic tanks? Are there jobs so undesirable but necessary that they would not get done without the threat of withholding food from it’s worker for it’s completion? Probably, but few.

What are the big differences between American capitalism and European socialism? Are they societal — bred into the fabric of our personalities and temperaments, or are they codified — written and prescribed through law? Across Europe we see the failed social state propped up and likely soon to be torn down with a large influx of non-homogeneity disrupting the virtue of taking care of those like you. Little innovation comes from Europe — is this because they get free healthcare, or are the reasons they give free healthcare the reasons they don’t innovate? If American conservatism is about “conserving” wealth — then the idea of propping up is distasteful unless it is a bribe to prevent rebellion or a tax to prevent death in our line of sight. And that brings up maybe the most key factor of all — who pays for this? Where does the money come from? Doesn’t it cost money to grow good food, move it to the right place, create the energy for heat and AC, find and refine the resources for shelter? Does the government go to the rich and say “give me some of that!” — or do the rich voluntarily say — “take some of this”. Is a co-op possible? A burning man-esque place where there is no money? Theorists would tell us that without money — man can not be rewarded for his work — and therefore will not work. Would Picasso agree with that? Or just Wall Street? Is the idea of “man must work” primarily promulgated by the capitalists that benefit from cheap and subservient labor? But how do we pay for it? And how much would it cost? Do they get TV? Money for soda? Money for alcohol? Do they only get bread and water? What if you are celiac? Do you get free wellness exams? What if you need very expensive brain surgery? I think most people find basic income in the normative region very tasteful and worth contributing to — food in bread, drink in water, shelter in a warm bed, sanitation in toilet and shower access, healthcare in a wellness exam or a pulled tooth. (so much of American donation dollars are voluntarily and purposeful given to this end around the world!) But the extremes confuse us, beyond bread what? alcohol? TV and internet? a bidet? heart transplants? We, correctly, stress test an idea by applying it to an entire population. Costly things are almost by definition at the extreme where they do not benefit from scale. NB — jobs that exist will still be compensated, and potentially handsomely because of the leverage of their output — those that are motivated by more — will work them. Does that mean that the world will be an Elysium ghetto?

I think more of the sentences above are interrogative rather than declarative. I’m not sure why I could presume to have any real answers without any real facts. The reality is that technology is going to cause a “job” apocalypse and concentrate wealth in the owners of capital and technology. So far the capitalists have seen it profitable to reinvest their capital into hiring people to make more money. But what happens when AI is smart than a human in 50% of scenarios, then 90%, then 99%? Thankfully so far technology has caused a wealth convergence (standard of living) alongside it’s income divergence. Near free energy through fusion will make it free to take things out of the ground, move them places, process them into things, and move them to shelves. Near free intelligence through AI will provide every person a dedicated 24/7 doctor/lawyer/and more. All basic goods and services will have extremely small marginal cost. Today it may cost $30,000 a year for basic income. In the future, it will cost near $0. We will have to face this, so let’s get some real facts.

The best way to get facts is to run experiments that closely mimic our presumed environment. This is difficult — since we don’t have AI — we can’t set up a city that runs on AI — to test. We could provide a stop-gap — through non-resident human labor — but I’m not sure that that satisfies our desire to do away with a have/have-not servant/served disparity. Is the timing right to run experiments is a valid question. How would we know that? We should set a threshold of percentage of the population we need to work paid jobs to sustain the rest. Because orders of magnitude seem to effectively reveal leverage in human minds — we could arbitrarily (pending additional information) choose 10%. 10% of people need to work paid jobs for us to run this experiment. Some would pick the island strategy. But then of course you end up only having the people you invite. The question facing our society is not whether people you would be friends with (as a billionaire) would do well in this system, but whether every random slice would do well in this system. Some would pick the “everyone in this midwest town” strategy — but then do you prevent newcomers? And how do you choose the city? Randomly? What power does this experiment have, and how is success measured?

Things worth exploring.