<i>Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn&#x27;t have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them.</i><p>The article doesn&#x27;t propose threatening anyone with pain or death. Did you read it?<p>All it proposes is requiring people receiving free money to be willing to work for money instead (same as the people who are forced to give them free money).<p><i>The person with $10 mil. will not die or be in physical pain without that money. That money is worth less to them than it is to the family that very well might die, or at least be in pain, without it.</i><p>What about the marginal utility of time? The person with $10M is probably working hard. In contrast, the welfare recipient with copious amounts of free time will not die or be in pain if they spend some time working.<p>Why do the time rich get a free pass while the money rich are forced to contribute?<p>(The article explicitly advocates that people who will be in pain, i.e. those physically unable to work, would be exempt from such requirements.)<p><i>I don&#x27;t know why this concept is so foreign. It is the same reason protection rackets are illegal.</i><p>A protection racket is when you threaten a person with violence if they don&#x27;t give you money. Kind of like how tax financed welfare works, and not remotely like how the proposed &quot;uber for welfare&quot; works.<p>In a protection racket, I am worse off than I would be if the racketeer and I never encountered each other. In the proposed uber for welfare scheme the recipient is better off.