You are probably correct, but it would better serve the idea that people are actually being paid for what they are worth -- what responsibilities they are expected to uphold as citizens, rather than this idea that it is just 'free money.'
A lot of people like to think that BI is paying people for nothing. It isn't. You still have civil responsibilities, and upholding those responsibilities has real economic value.
You are probably correct, but it would better serve the idea that people are actually being paid for what they are worth...
"Worth" just gets to be too sticky of a subject. If I went to either side of my extended family and asked for a list of things that made someone "worthy" of receiving money, I would expect drastically different results. I think if we can't get people to agree on a choice, we have to restructure the problem to remove the need for a choice.
Plus, I think we'd be better off if all the "worth" that anyone needed to deserve some dignity was simply being human.
A lot of people like to think that BI is paying people for nothing. It isn't. You still have civil responsibilities, and upholding those responsibilities has real economic value.
Civic responsibility is important, but as with defining "worth", it seems one would be unlikely to get much agreement on a definition.
Nothing I am suggesting requires you to define 'worth' or ask anybody for any opinions on it. People are valuable simply because they are alive. We can pay them to stay that way. If they refuse, we stop paying them.
Anything on top of that is just to encourage a responsibility to share their successes.
A lot of people like to think that BI is paying people for nothing. It isn't. You still have civil responsibilities, and upholding those responsibilities has real economic value.