Also, Aaron specifically uses the term "basic minimum income", and describes a scenario where "you could live off the government-provided income as you got things started."
This sounds like the welfare office becomes your infinitely patient investor. "Well, yes, I've been receiving assistance for 20 years straight, and I'm not disabled. But you see, I've been working on my startup all this time, and I think we're just about to turn the corner!"
"Supposed to" means they do have people in place whose job is to prevent fraud. It's surely not possible to prevent it entirely, but if you're just sitting around working on a startup, I think they'd probably catch on.
So, if the Swedish model is to believed, society would have to cope with, an approximately 7-10% jump in unemployed working-age people living on the state. If you don't think that's applicable, please explain why.
Given Aaron's example, such behavior isn't "fraud" anyone needs to "catch". Using the minimum income to help you work on a startup, no matter how silly or hopeless, is notabug, it's a feature.
I think that Aaron's idea is 1) unworkable, 2) politically unfeasible in the US, and 3) doesn't even reflect what countries like Sweden have in any case.
Also, Aaron specifically uses the term "basic minimum income", and describes a scenario where "you could live off the government-provided income as you got things started."
This sounds like the welfare office becomes your infinitely patient investor. "Well, yes, I've been receiving assistance for 20 years straight, and I'm not disabled. But you see, I've been working on my startup all this time, and I think we're just about to turn the corner!"