Comment on Douglas Rushkoff's post: I Used to Argue for UBI. Then I gave a talk at Uber.
Interesting argument, but I'm not sure I agree. If people on UBI still want to work, as has been largely demonstrated, then why should it "[obviate] the need for people to consider true alternatives to living lives as passive consumers"? To me, it's frequently the other way round. Keeping people in constant uncertainty; draining their energy either with unsatisfying work or with endless hoops to jump through to qualify for benefits: those are the things that keep people in hopelessness and prevent them from considering true alternatives. You seem to have a model in your mind of a kind of rational revolutionary ... "let me see now, this situation is intolerable therefore I will revolt" ... which favours people having unencumbered leisure of unemployment.
What's the historical or cultural evidence that people behave the way you seem to imply?
Having disagreed with your arguments, I'd like to broadly agree with your conclusions: we should in any case be giving genuine controlling stakes to everyone, distributing power, and after the distribution of power will follow more equal distribution of money. But how is that going to happen? Benevolent companies, just doing what they ethically "should" be doing?
Yes, I absolutely agree, we (that's us, you and me, those who find themselves with the privilege of some time and resource to think) should be doing what we can to encourage and support people to start their own worker-owned enterprises, and to make them out-compete their shareholder-owned competitors. But what better start for that than UBI? What better, in fact, than to accept a UBI under the kind of pretence that you suggest is in the interests of the stakeholders in the status quo, and use it for exactly the opposing ends?