Dear Tor:
I appreciate your posting and your eloquent
comments about everyone wanting to contribute. I seem to recall when
reading the FW archives that you tried to start a small business growing
something in the sea and that you were forced to discontinue it because you
could not find adequate financing for your project and your livelihood.
The original question posed the question that everyone - man - woman - child
receive a Basic Income. Obviously the combined Basic Income for a family
would be higher than for an individual. With that security and your desire
and stubbornness, would you have felt secure enough to continue after your major
setback? As I recall, you expressed considerable regret that you could not
continue. This is the kind of contribution that we would all like to see
everyone who receives a Basic Income produce.
However, let's be frank. If 5% of the
people chose to be TV watchers, layabouts, deadbeats or whatever for 20 years
and then decided to do something - would that be unconscionable? Your
question brings into play the deep seated bias we have in the Western world that
work is the primary consideration for any sane person. However, the
reality is, that there is not enough paid work to go around. Raising
children is work - my daughters have just been sick with the flu for a week and
my days have been long and tiresome - I have worked, I have just not been
paid. In a sense, the Basic Income is a way of recognizing all the unpaid
work done in society rather than work that has been monetized. Is this a
compelling reason to advocate a Basic Income? For those who work and don't
get paid, I'm sure the answer would be "yes". For those doing
monetized work and perhaps some of their productivity being used to make the
payroll, the answer may well be "no."
Can we find a compelling reason that will be
acceptable to those who work as well as those who work but don't get paid - that
is my challenge.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
