Oh, well I think I misunderstood you then. Yeah, I think you make some interesting points. I greatly appreciate:
It reminds me of some of my own economic perspectives, (if I may expound…). People are indeed entitled (leaning into the word) to basic goods (housing, food, income, water, cellphone, healthcare, public transport, leisure, etc). And, people should accept that one should freely manage one’s own labor, especially free from the social delusions that one’s labor ought be manage by another. And this laborer could then freely agree or not to work with others, (without needing minimum wage laws since UBI covers minimum, nor many other currently wasteful social rituals, including many regulations). Then businesses would compete for labor along axis’ other than just wages, (like work environment conditions, equitable organizational structures, etc.); i.e. an actually fair-market for labor. Further, the labor which society must have in order to secure the aforementioned entitlements would first be drawn from the pools of that fair-market labor; in the cases where this first pool is insufficient to secure said entitlements, a market mechanism (now freer than any in history) would price sufficient wage incentives. As a result, the most needed (harshest / difficult) requisite labor would produce the wealthiest members of society. Imagine that, nurses being among the top 10% wealthiest members of society, and self organizing according to free and fair market dynamics.
I think my economic vision may be far less revolutionary than yours (I’m not removing revenue, though I would still say things about taxes). That said, if we were to get to your visions, then I suspect we might go through something like mine on that way there, considering where we are currently.
Anyway, I’m especially in agreement with your position on one’s right to one’s labor. And, I guess the reason I went into detail with my vision is to say that: some people puzzle with trying to square the right to not labor, with the entitlements which requires someone’s labor, but somehow not coerced. In other words, if people have the right to UBI and other human rights, including the right to not labor, then some human rights will be insecure and unfulfilled because not enough people will want to freely provide the requisite labor. I hope my explanation of my economic perspective does a fair job at squaring that paradox.
I suppose I’m interested to hear what you think about my vision, especially regarding how it still enables laborers to earn equitable inequality.