I just finished David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years and found it to be a fascinating and engaging read. One of the arguments he makes is that our most natural economy is a human economy (which he calls Communism) whereby our net of social obligations and relations, sans tokens demarcating value, is our basic state. He further argues that "money" as markers devoid of any intrinsic value arises from slavery and war, and that coinage historically arises amongst populations with large quantities of soldiers and mercenaries.

From a Graeber-Communist standpoint, a "Basic Income" is basically a human right. If you are a member of a community in which others know you and feel that you are a part of their fabric, you will be taken care of. The rise of money-driven commerce serves to erode the social fabric, thereby decontextualizing people and permitting their abuse. From a Graeber-Capitalist standpoint, money exists to deny you a "Basic Income."

And that's the problem, I think. Graeber takes a few pot-shots at Niall Ferguson and others but one thing Ferguson did was point out that while our system is cruel, it won. Over and over and over again. So while capitalism has many, many shortcomings, unless you adopt something truly bulletproof you're likely to be overrun and dominated by another tribe/culture of capitalists.

It gave me another perspective on Basic Income, namely that it's an obvious right amongst small social groups that has been entirely eliminated amongst large social groups. Under Dunbar's Number? Basic Income for you. Over? Die in the street, hippie. Which doesn't necessarily mean that Basic Income will lead to the downfall of civilization but does illustrate that civilization is basically the force that prevents it from ever happening.

At least, until we come up with a system better than capitalism. Last time anybody tried that they ended up with a nepotistic kleptocracy.

Dunno. Figure out a way for Basic Income to benefit JP Morgan Chase and it could happen.