I agree humans need some kind of labour to find meaning and purpose in life. That's why I lean towards Basic Income from a sociological perspective (economics notwithstanding). Very few people find meaning doing data entry at a desk every day of their adult life, or taking orders at McDonald's, or selling doors door-to-door. With Basic Income, sure, a lot of those people will be unfulfilled sitting at home watching Jersey Shore instead of being unfulfilled sitting at work entering data. But at least they'll have the opportunity to find meaning, instead of being forced into a mindless job that doesn't really need doing. And hey, maybe they'll even contribute something to society. Nor is Basic Income the only solution to the sociological problem. Related: On Work, The Prophet, Kahlil Gilbran; In Praise of Idleness, Bertrand Russell
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.
I'm currently reading Joseph Campbell's Myths to Live By, which has made me more aware of the social and cultural impacts at the moment. He talks about the dichotomy of social immortality and individualism, and how he believes the suppression of individualism is culturally toxic. And so, as you say, how do we find a balance? How do we find a system which allows for individual creativity and fulfillment, which is also resistant to corruption by the wealthy, which is also economically feasible, and ideally also maximises liberty? I think capitalism did a rather good job at most of those for nearly three hundred years. I think it's probably failing now because of individual and cultural sicknesses, rather than any insurmountable weakness of the system. Which is to say, cultural healing must precede economic healing.One of the arguments he makes is that our most natural economy is a human economy
you're likely to be overrun and dominated by another tribe/culture of capitalists.
If you are a member of a community in which others know you and feel that you are a part of their fabric
-Does he define "part of the fabric?" Seems to be pretty open to interpretation. One persons "fabric" is another's cob web.