Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's part of the idea behind basic income. There are two major angles I think: economic and moral. Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the popu…
Instead of basic income, what if "basic needs" were all free: Food, shelter, healthcare, and recreation. Money would only be free for people who work. Money gives the freedom to do consume goods that are not free. Sigh. And now to tear down my own thought. Maybe "free basic needs" works (psychologically) for everyone reading HN. But I'm afraid it could destroy a percentage of the population. If someone has no fundame…
The research shows this is an extremely tiny portion of the population. The vast majority of people will find some kind of productive enterprise.
It seems paradoxical but giving homeless people free housing with no strings attached tends to end with them getting a job and rejoining society. They almost never just lay around all day doing nothing.
It's one of the last great Victorian lies still infecting us today.