Helping people, building something great, improving the world are goals that can and are being taught in schools now. Unfortunately, the state of education is far from perfect. It seems feasible to correlate the laziness that is so feared by opponents of BI with a flawed education system. It is difficult to believe that better education cannot improve the intellectual curiosity and motivation of the supposedly "lazy." A flawed education system produces ignorance, laziness, and stifles intellectual appetite.
Instead of falling back on fundamental attribution error to assume there's something inherently wrong with the "lazy" person, maybe realize that without proper education and being shown opportunities and paths for contribution, people will certainly seem lazy. Not to say that university admissions are a perfect filter for people who are willing and capable of working hard, but even at top tier universities in the U.S., "Undecided" is a common major among students. Students who have a high school degree and have made it into selective schools, demonstrated at least some ability to work, but still don't necessarily know where to contribute.
Without data, but anecdotally I hear of many relatively wealthy middle-aged people who could retire comfortably, but don't, or they pursue a different productive interest (like teaching or volunteer work) after switching from their previous career. It seems reasonable that a better education system would go far to encourage people to better themselves and the world even in a BI scenario. It is hard to imagine someone who has learned curiosity, intrinsic motivation to contribute something, and empathy for others would sit around and leech from others all day.
They do indeed. And why not let them?
Most of what they could do with their time is being automated away, and the front-line service industries (restaurants, coffee houses) can only take on so many.
Does there not ever come a point when we can say we're rich enough as a society to support those who can't meaningfully contribute? That even without their effort we have wealth in excess and can afford to carry them?
You are free to support those who can't meaningfully contribute, but where do you get the moral authority to demand that I do so as well, with my own money?
Besides the moral argument, isn't there a good chance that a permanent underclass with a guaranteed welfare income will overpopulate in relation to those who are "meaningfully contributing", to the point where the ratio is so bad that the system breaks down?
We're not quite there yet but what happens when all the food and goods a society need can be made by automation, run by a skeleton crew of (say) 5% of the population in facilities owned by 1% of the population? Nobody else can compete on price or availability, the makers don't need staff, and only so many can fit into the service industries.
Do the 1% continue to take the majority of wealth as rent, and the 5% live reasonably well, and f*ck everyone else? Or do we recognise that human progress has been a group effort and start to share the abundance with everyone?
Besides which, if you're asking where the moral authority to demand you help house feed and clothe people comes from... LOL. It's already here. What's not moral is the immature libertarian "I've got mine" attitude we see so much of these days. Tax to help the less fortunate and societal development is theft of my stuff by force and inherently immoral? That's a pretty stunted and selfish thought pattern right there.
>> isn't there a good chance that a permanent underclass with a guaranteed welfare income will overpopulate in relation to those who are "meaningfully contributing", to the point where the ratio is so bad that the system breaks down?
Oh no, the poor people will breed!
Rather than snarky comments, try to actually think about the question. There are good arguments against unbridled capitalism, but "Libertarians -- LOL!!" is not one of them.
- remuneration would likely improve
- only motivated people would be left, so "pretending" to enjoy a job and all other kinds of fakery diminishes
- artificial competition for jobs would decrease drastically
- the ability to change jobs becomes extremely fluid on both sides of the table(with liberalized hire/fire policies [employer-side] plus a lack of worry about winding up in the street [worker-side])
This is a very large net benefit to the motivated. The sooner those who don't want to be there get to stop working, the better for the rest. An "arts, sports, and leisure (which may take the form of beer or video games)" is going to happen, and we should be happy to allow it for those who want nothing more.
why?
-"artificial competition for jobs would decrease drastically"
why is artificial competition important? You are saying that it will be easier for qualified people to get jobs because unqualified people won't bother to apply any more?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
Artificial competition going away is important, because it reduces the "fake" demand for positions; those that would rather not be there won't, which takes the pressure off that position (reducing its perceived scarcity/value.) This has both the above-described wage effects, and a cultural effect: you no longer have people pretending that they want a job, lying to get jobs, inflating their resumes, gladhanding, etc. You're only there if you want to be.
Also, if inflation stayed in hand, the basic income itself would look an awful lot like a raise.
Of course people would still work, for the same reason you don't still live with your parents - although judging by your response, maybe you do. Are you personally going to be perfectly content with a $10K/yr subsistence allowance? And closing all schools? What are you talking about?
The fact is that many countries have something like this anyway, with probably a few more strings attached, and they haven't turned into anything like what you predict. The fact you name-drop "communism" just cements your obvious ignorance.