> What we need is a way to make money off of local first software.
No, what we need is a way for people to not starve so that they don't have to make money at all and can focus instead on their passion project(s). Cough UBI cough
I've never understood the end goal of a UBI. If the expectation is that everyone should be able to eat (seems like a noble goal), why obfuscate that by giving people money rather than access to free food?
If we really wanted a system where we deem certain items essential and went everyone to have access to them, it makes no sense to pay for them. Money may still make sense for nonessential or luxury items, but it just gets in the way if the government has to give me money so I can go spend it on the food they actually want me to have.
I can't speak for every UBI supporter, but singling out food, and talking about “the food they want me to have”, suggests an authoritarian top-down structure that nobody wants. The whole point of UBI is to enable autonomy. People should be free to explore and understand what their own needs are and not have it be dictated.
I'll admit that I was unclear because I used the word “starve” in my message. Obviously this choice of word was borne out of the principle that food is among the most vital basic needs, and that depriving people of it is one prominent way in which our current society is cruel. Nevertheless, UBI is not about just food, but more generally about basic needs.
The amount if UBI paid to people must be based on some determination of the estimated cost of a list of basic goods though, right?
Surely it wouldn't just be food, but regardless the government would be coming up with a list of items and basing the UBI on that. If those items are deemed necessary enough that everyone should have access, why not make them freely available rather than abstracting through money first?
It would indeed be nice if everything were just freely available to everyone, but barring that, a good first step is to let everyone partake in a fair share of everything, which is what UBI enables. Again, you're still thinking in terms of top-down authoritarianism: you're thinking somebody needs to make a list of things that we need and then dictate that to us. Instead, we want to make our own decisions. The amount of UBI should depend on what's available, not on what someone up high thinks we need.
A UBI is dependent on a top down approach by design, that seems like a given here.
For a UBI to exist the government has to define some kind of system for how to set the basic income level, I assume they would define a basket of goods (and services) similar to how CPI is calculated and define a formula for how the UBI is calculated from there. One way or another, someone in the government would be coming up with a list of what is "essential" and deciding how much to subsidize.
They would also need to similarly define how the UBI is adjusted over time. Prices change over time, and there would likely be a pretty quick jump in prices when the UBI is first put into effect.
All that to say, we will never have a UBI without it being centrally planned from the top. Whether it is authoritarian or not would be up for debate, it can be centrally planned and pushed from the top down without being authoritarian - unless one thinks we're already authoritarian, most of our current federal programs would fit into that category.
The government already decides how much to invest into public infrastructure such as water pipes and water reclamation plants; roads, bridges, traffic lights etc.; air traffic control; the emergency services and coast guard... the list goes on. All these things are indeed already centrally planned.
It's not about telling you what you should need or live without. It's about providing a service.
No, what we need is a way for people to not starve so that they don't have to make money at all and can focus instead on their passion project(s). Cough UBI cough