opinions-political-livingWageHandout

Should people be given a "living wage" stipend just for existing, so that they can survive almost comfortably even if they don't work?

I don't think the government should provide this (at least not right now), because (currently), in order to get the money, it seems that government would have to tax other people who don't really have very much money, either, in order to provide it (i.e. to take money by force from working people, in order to give to non-working people). In addition, in the long term, population might increase enough to make a living wage unsustainable -- to prevent this, government that provides a universal living wage handout may have to legislate population controls, which I think should be avoided if possible.

In Self:ideas-voluntarySocialism I present an alternative: a voluntary association that provides the stipend. I think such a stipend itself is a good idea, I just don't think government should provide it.

If there is such a stipend, then, yes, there will be "leeches", people who consume resources and spend them on selfish hedonism, contributing little to society -- but this is a necessary price to pay for dynamism. What I mean by dynamism is that, to the extent that an individual's goals are determined by society, those goals will probably be more static (for example, in capitalism, one goal is to accumulate more "stuff" -- material possessions and the like -- this may not be good but it seems hard to change). To the extent that individuals determine their own goals, because there are many diverse individuals rather than a few soceital forces determining goals, the diversity of goals pursued will increase. A living wage handout would increase this diversity, and this benefit may outweigh the cost of leeches.