Maybe. I know a lot of creative people who would never just sit and watch TV, that's an anecdote to counter yours.
- so what? For all I care you can find moving boulders up and down your street to be a fun exercise in self-determination, I wouldn't pay you anything for it, though maybe I could hire you and pay you if you moved the boulders that I needed moving.
Perhaps there are enough people who love to create, and these would be given incentives.
- people who love to create do it without having the state to steal on their behalf already.
The wage for simple tasks like cleaning would go up, as the supply of workers went down.
- so not only would the productive people be stolen from to subsidise the unproductive, now they would have to pay more for the jobs that without the taxes wouldn't be as expensive.
But that's exactly it, all that gov't can do is stealing and redistributing, which pushes costs and prices up. Gov't can't lower costs, even if it can lower cost of some specific thing somewhere, all it means that many other costs are going up to subsidise that one particular lower price (with questionable outcomes as well).
Many would consider this to be fair.
- I am sure anybody who is getting paid in that system for doing nothing considers it extremely unfair if all of a sudden the money flow would stop as those, who would be forced to pay for them, would have to take over the system and fix the INJUSTICE of being force to subsidise the leeches.
For a while people could do menial tasks and be compensated well for it, until it finally would be cheaper to design advanced robots.
- one thing is certain, as prices are pushed up by gov't via taxes, regulations, inflation, more and more robots will be created, because capital and labour are always in competition and if there is an unnatural price support for one, then the other will step in and try and fix the problem.
'basic income' doesn't exist now as welfare. It's not meant to be a permanent solution, and people like I don't consider it ethical to use it as such.
- of-course it does, that's all it is. 'Basic income' is welfare, it's theft and redistribution. Generations of people live on it.
If I was given basic income I would probably work on open source projects and develop hardware for a while.
- if I was given basic income, I would spend my time on a beach.
I don't agree. One shouldn't force people to donate a lot to others, as in communism.
- one shouldn't be stolen from regardless of the amount, fixed that for you.
Freedom and property rights are important. However, when giving away the basics is almost free, then people indeed should be given it for free
- so how about not using gov't violence to achieve this goal, you have in your mind? If it is true, that things are so 'free' to make, leave it to the free market to distribute all these things at lowest prices.
How do you think things are PRODUCED, WRAPPED, SHIPPED, DISTRIBUTED if not because there are tons of people doing the work, who wouldn't be doing it if they had money coming to them for free? What you see as "free production" is a consequence of FREE MARKET EFFICIENCY that can allocate resources in the most efficient manner given the current market realities.
You are proposing changing the market realities and are convinced that for some reason things would still be "free". Nothing is free and there is nothing more expensive than something that gov't wants to redistribute as 'free'.
There's no dogma to support that, but it seems fair, doesn't it?
- of-course it's dogma. What is your excuse for stealing if not dogma? You think things are free - that's just plain ignorance.
- no, what is pointless is your comment. A hobby does not serve millions by providing all the components of manufacturing and distribution chain, not all things are files moved across the Internet, and even the Internet is not something that exists without energy, maintenance, replacement of parts and growth of infrastructure.
Money is like an IOU.
- money is a claim on future consumption, money is store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange.
Why do we then have bubbles, crises?
- imperfect allocation of resources, which deepens with government involvement causes bubbles in some sectors and then the market reallocates the resources by cleansing the system, which requires fall of some activities, this means firing, shutting down companies, re-evaluations. It's a healthy process and trying to deny the free market ability to run it, causes much bigger systematic imbalances in the long run, which then require and lead to much greater fluctuations during re-evaluations, which means much bigger economic swings and if people don't like the small ones, they really don't like the big ones that government delays and grows but that eventually hit. The next one to hit will be the gov't bond and dollar bubbles bursting.
Free software even
- free software is not free as in beer, not necessarily and somebody has to spend their own time and money to build it and IT IS happening today. Free software is a free market product, there is no conflict there.
Is there any reason to believe that wage levels or capitalism in general are more fair and sane?
- of-course, because it's not set by politicians and people who think they "know better", it's set by the collective choices of all market participants.
why must a business serve a large number of customers?
- it's called economy of scale, that's what improves our standard of living. If only tiny businesses existed, then results would be varying from business to business, the standards would be much lower and there would be much less interoperability, there would be much greater price differences depending on your local business rather than on global ability to use resources in the most efficient manner.
Small businesses can only serve tiny markets. Amazon brings lowest prices to most customers and that's a benefit for a much greater economy as people have to spend LESS (something you should be FOR rather than against, which you seem to be, given how much you want people to get for free, why are you against people getting stuff CHEAP?)
if all is automated then nobody will have work, and people will basically die of starvation in the food store.
- that's precisely it, with lower and lower costs of production, the free market capitalist solution is to LOWER prices, the only reason ANY prices are going up today is GOVERNMENT intervention in every market, especially in money markets.
With more and more automation, things should and are getting cheaper to produce and distribute. In an auction where the most anybody has is 100 bucks in his pocket, the most expensive item sold will cost 100 bucks.
In an auction where the most anybody has is 2 dollars in their pocket, the most any item can go for is 2 dollars. Free market finds inventory clearing prices as long as gov't does not intervene.
Just to add, look at all the junk brought to us by capitalism that we don't need
- just because YOU don't need something, doesn't mean it's useless if somebody is paying for it.
where most basics are a given, and people can focus on the interesting stuff.
- so allow the markets work to make everything cheaper, instead you are interested in getting more gov't, and this is the strange thing about collectivists - they don't understand that it's the gov't that raises costs and prices, while they are supposedly rallying under the flags of: FREE.
So let the market make things cheaper, many things in the market may be free, many things were, before gov't stepped in.