There would probably also need to be some kind of exemption for people with physical or mental disabilities.
However, the details of basic income-like schemes may be irrelevant. Basic income and its mutations are possible when most household products are basically done by robots. It is possible basic income will grow at 25-50% YoY rate and that growth indicator is only thing that matters.
You could have a volunteer work "requirement" that was only enforced by social convention. If it was seen as dishonest/lazy to take the income without giving back to your community in any way, that would probably spur some social good without the inefficiency of a heavy-handed enforcement mechanism.
Fair enough. I find it difficult to accept a system that doesn't grant a powerful advantage to a person with a significant physical/mental disability though. Equal basic income for all does not seem fair in that context.
Also...this is more me thinking out loud than attacking anyone.
I was thinking how equality movemen failed to produced social change in short time as world is extremely unbalanced. I think post-scarcity economy will bring new solutions and new social contracts.
Again, you make a valid point. Let me stop the debate right here though. We're venturing into philosophical territory here...the kind more suited to 5000 word essays than HN posts.
One thing we can debate however:
>post-scarcity economy
I find this notion decidedly problematic. We've been optimizing the sht out of production for decades and yet the average family is battling to make ends meet more than ever. "post-scarcity economy"...I don't buy it...not even close.
I get where you are coming from and I agree that the current track record doesn't allow for such predictions. However, I am linking the advent of post-scarcity to the widespread adoption of some transhumanism values. Maybe that'll work. Or we'll be consumed by grey goo. The future is too bright to see it clearly.
On the somewhat unrelated note my favorite flavor of transhumanism is abolitionism that aims to remove suffering as much as possible.
You speak of "remove suffering" whilst I speak of inequality increased a 100 fold. You are clearly a very reasonable person, but I don't see a "meeting of minds" happening here unless I misunderstood you dramatically - there is no overcoming that gap. A 100 fold increase in inequality destroys everything in its path.
You raise a valid point. At first I thought "don't be stupid...obviously its beneficial". Looking at that word "mandatory" in your question though I'm no longer confident in my initial instinct....