&gt;You&#x27;re twisting my words. I am saying there is no work disincentive. None.<p>I agree that&#x27;s what you said in your most recent comment. But that&#x27;s not how you started. I quote:<p>&gt;What someone that trots that out is saying is that more people would be able to forgo wasting their lives in menial jobs and instead create art and new businesses, or stay home to raise a family or care for elderly parents<p>You clearly said that some people are going to stop working, and instead focus on things like art, and that&#x27;s a good thing. Changing your argument halfway through and not acknowledging it is bad form.<p>In fact, you even said in this comment that there&#x27;s a disincentive. It&#x27;s beyond me how you can say &quot;certain types of work ... will no longer have as an incentive&quot; and still claim there&#x27;s no work disincentive at all.<p>Make up your mind, choose an argument and stick with it.<p>&gt;I&#x27;m also saying that the work people choose may not be entirely typical, or fit within everyone&#x27;s definition of &quot;work&quot; as they define it as a moral imperative.<p>You&#x27;re still straw manning your opposition, even after I pointed out that moral imperatives to work need play no role in opposing BI. So using your terminology, how would you respond to the concern that this &quot;untypical work&quot; would reduce output enough to threaten the viability of a society?