I can expand, if I like, on more abstract and philosophical points about the nature of The Civic Dividend and economics here, but I'll try to apply it as practically as I can. Human beings were originally in a "state of nature." Before we formed governments, before we had societies, we were in a state of nature. We were all "equal" in this state, in the sense that everybody had equal right to the fruits of the Earth. We were equal in an altruistic and fundamental sense. The fruits of the Earth were abundant, and all had equal right to them. Anybody had the right to pick an apple off a tree and eat it; that apple belonged to no one, because apples were plentiful, and picking a single one that nobody had laid claim to did not detract anyone else in that natural state from eating other apples.

But that doesn't exist now. There are not really any apples growing off of trees. Long ago, in this natural state, perhaps a man would go to a tree, eat an apple, and lie on the ground, surviving just from the natural resources of the Earth. But this isn't so simple today, because the resources of the Earth have been mostly picked. There are no apples growing off of trees the same way, naturally; they have all been picked, and people in large companies, in businesses, or individual themselves control all the resources. The abundant fruits of the Earth that allow for natural survival have been harvested and used up. This isn't natural. It goes against the fundamental law of nature.

Since today you cannot survive in the natural state like man did by going around and picking apples of trees because those resources have been artificially taken, things are unnatural. Man, people, have a right to take the resources of the Earth that they need to survive, or that they need to perform some greater purpose, but not to take any more than they need. Society as a whole, through various means has taken the natural resources of the Earth, yet they cannot do so in a manner that prevents natural law: in other words, taking resources more than they need that obstructs the equal state of nature where there are plentiful resources for all. Creating a world where the balance of natural, plentiful resources has shifted. You cannot take more apples that stop the plentiful state of nature's fruit, and other people from equally using it.

So, society has taken too much in this sense. Taken more resources from the state of nature that would allow all other people to plentifully use them. To resolve this, they need to give some of those resources back so that there is enough in the common, natural supply for all people to use freely.

To be clear, people can own many resources or apples. Private property is fundamental to human progress. But the state of nature demands that you do not accrue more private property or resources than you need, or that would prohibit others from benefitting from nature's fruit. To give a simple example, if the Earth had 10 people and 100 apples, then if a man took one apple, that is fine. If he takes 10, that is fine; those are all his apples, that no one can now touch since he took them, via work. But if he takes 50 apples, that is against the natural law, since he does not need 50 apples, and prevents the public from benefitting from nature's fruit, the plentiful apples.

Let me put it like this and connect it to my practical argument earlier. In the state of nature, man could eat apples off trees forever, and survive just like that. Yet this did not compel man to be stagnant. Now, it is true: there were other worries in the state of nature. It was certainly not idyllic. There were threats, human and animal. Lions and tigers and tribes, snakes and scorpions and cold. But man could eat apples of trees and have unlimited natural resources that belonged to all people equally: what I mean by that is simply that all people are free to take all the resources they need, they belong to no one, as long as they don't take more than they need or that would prevent others from using resources they need, which is plenty, since nature is plentiful.

Thinking that The Civic Dividend will stunt human incentive is like saying apples should not grow off trees, because man will get lazy and not work. But it's not true. In the state of nature, there were plenty of trees with unlimited apples, but man did not get excessively lazy. They built civilization, and created skyscrapers, cities, and eventually iPhones. You may argue that is in part because although resources were plentiful back then, life was much harsher in other ways, and thatis what motivated people. But life is still plenty harsh today to warrant the same circumstances.

In the state of nature, people were indeed motivated by other harsh forces than the plentiful natural resources. There were snakes and lions and tigers. That is already sufficient force to compel man to not be lazy. Believe me, if you were in state of nature thousands of years or eons of time ago, the abundance of apples would not allow you to be lazy when the threat of death lay in every bush along with the chance of gold.

It's the same today. Life is harsh in many same ways. We may not fear snakes and tribes killing us with spears, although some people do, but we still fear many reasonable things. There are still many threats. Trying to say that we need to motivate people to work and not be lazy by prohibiting access to the natural resources that all mankind is entitled to ignores the reality that people are motivated already by very terrifying and horrific forces still today. There is war in many places today: disease, illness, and corruption. And in places where there is not, people fear that coming to them. People have enough disaster in the world already to be motivated. They do not need to be excessively motivated on top of that by barring access to the state of natural resources mankind is entitled to.

It is, again, like saying that eons ago, in the state of nature, that apples should not have grown on trees, because man would get lazy at having unlimited apples. Man was afraid of snakes and war. And today, we are still afraid and motivated enough by snakes and war, even if those snakes have taken a different form, and the wars fought with different and more powerful weapons. Trying to motivate people like this is unnatural. It violates the fundamental law of nature in two ways. 1) By barring people from access to the natural resources all mankind are equally entitled to because of nature's plenty and freedom, by society having removed in various ways those natural resources from the common grasp, and 2) by attempting to motivate people in an unnatural way, with excessive forces beyond the natural ones that are sufficiently horrific and incentivizing enough; which also degrades the quality of human nature by prescribing a belief that humans should be compelled primarily by fear rather than desire for something greater, than goodness. It is one thing for a snake to bite you; at least it is a snake, and terrifying as that may be you know it did not sit down and calmly think of a way to hurt you. But when humanity itself demeans people by intentionally pushing onto them a belief that think they are nothing more than pack animals to be coerced, this creates a type of fear that does not spur action and greatness, it locks people into a cage and only creates darkness. In both ways, this is unnatural, and wrong.

That is why I am against it. That's why these forays into freedom from speech to work proves me correct.