> Yes. I in good conscience advocate [a guaranteed minimal income].
> I do so because I believe it is essential to our long term wellbeing and
> thriving. Now, the hard question is how to successfully get there.
So I take it that you are in favor of your U.S. government right
now guaranteeing every adult a minimum income, no strings attached?
As there are about 200,000,000 of us presently, how much do you
think that we should all get?
> In a society where all the physical necessities of life
> are already present and where there are ample and open
> opportunities to explore and grow there is nothing left
> to do but better yourself or simply hang out. The
> latter eventually gets pretty boring.
Well, some people will choose to better themselves by becoming
experts in the history of WWF wrestling, some will study
mathematics, some will hang out in gangs just as they do now,
and some will go hiking, mountaineering, and rock climbing
all the time. How do you think that the Bush administration
should go about announcing that within a certain number of
years no one will need to work who doesn't want to? Do you
think that taxes need to be raised much to support this? Or
are you simply confident that the Singularity is so immanent
that all such questions are academic?
Thanks in advance for your answers! Meanwhile, to take a swing
at your question,
> Now, there is a question in such speculations. And that is what
> to do with the people who don't want to live in such relatively
> paradisical situations. Should room be left virtually or
> actually for those who simply insist on living a life where most
> of their time and energy is spent anxiously maintaining a
> "living" and chasing after many things of the "good life" that
> are by design either not obtainable to all or that can
> disappear so easily as to keep up anxiety levels to make them
> more productive and "industrious"? Should we keep room for
> those who wish to "make a living" rather than living a life?
It worries me---and not a little---that you think that "we" could
or should "keep room" for those. Providing for people is one thing,
but determining their conditions of life is another! Can you sense
how this sounds a little totalitarian? (Yes, I know you mean well,
but benevolent dictators from Caesar through Lenin and Castro really
did mean well also.) Granted, after the big S, things will be a lot
different, but people should always be left as free as possible to
make whatever decisions they see best.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT