Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays. My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary. Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh? JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting: "So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall." Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income? "I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."