My issue with UBI is that it does not in itself advance productivity. My vision for a future where there is enough for everyone and all of that abundance is sufficiently evenly distributed that no one is wanting for basic needs is a future where most of the productive work done in the world is done by machines and those machines are open source. The second part, where most of the machines are open source, is the critical component in my opinion that differentiates my vision from the world I think we will have if we don’t act to change course. (That world being one where proprietary machines are licensed with fees that ensure wealth is concentrated rather than distributed.) With open source productive machines being the basis of economic productivity, all engineering effort would go towards the common good of making those machines more productive. Companies would compete to manufacture the machines better than others, and would have first mover advantage on the new developments they produce. They would overall have a somewhat lower incentive to innovate, but this is offset by the larger incentive to innovate new players would have. More broadly I see intellectual property as a violation of the natural rules, and I see that we could voluntarily stop using intellectual property any time we want.

It is my belief that legislative solutions will always be eventually undermined whereas solutions that bring us productivity cannot later be taken away by legislative bargaining. I also believe than any UBI implemented would always be half hearted in implementation just as minimum wage isn’t actually enough for many people to thrive on.

What do you all think about the way I pose this? Where I claim that open source productive machinery is a viable alternative to UBI as a means of more broadly distributing the wealth of increased productivity?