Theirs are the strong shoulders that carry the heaviest burdens.

The right side of the political spectrum will say:

'Listen, these people are very productive, you have to give them some leeway.

Don't tax them too heavily and everything will be fine.'

The left side of the political spectrum will say:

'Well that might be true, but it is not very fair...

...and we have to show solidarity with the lower classes.

Let's raise their taxes a little. That would be best.'

This is what we call the political debate in a nutshell.

But the basic assumption is the same, you see:

That wealth comes from people at the top.

That wealth is produced up there.

Whereas if you look at the real economy, the people we depend on...

The people, that if they would go on strike, we would be left in deep shit...

...well that would be what we would normally call the lower and lower middle classes.

The teacher, the garbage man, the nurse, the cleaners.

If they would go on strike, we would be left with the shit.

So, they are essentially the strongest shoulders that carry the heaviest burdens.

So I am advocating an economy in which...

...maybe by introducing a universal basic income, they get to have more bargaining power.

In which they get higher wages, so they will also have to pay more taxes...

...which will eventually tell who is solidarious with whom here really.

The way I picture a healthy civilised society is this:

We give everyone access to high quality public education...

...high quality health care and we give them a solid ground to stand upon.

And this is unconditional. This has to be there, no matter what.

You will not have to enforce it by filling out all sorts of forms...

...or by humiliating yourself at the desk of social services.

That is not necessary. It is a right, not a favor.

- Yes, but you are convinced that there is enough equity to finance something like a basic income?

Well, the fact that, let's say, twenty to twenty five percent of the Dutch say:

'My job does not have any added value'

Means that we are rich enough to maintain those people.

I mean, that is insane.

Add that up to regular unemployment...

...and you are talking about thirty percent of the population who are not productive in that sense.

So yes, apparently we can. That is how rich we are.

Apparently we are so innovative and strong that we as a society we can afford so much bullshit.

And the richer we get, the smarter our computers will get, the brighter our robots will get.

The smoother our society will run, the more bullshit we can afford.

So that suggests that we can go towards an entirely different society.

- So who are the opponents of these unorthodox plans?

The biggest opponents are always those in power...

...when it comes to ideas such as a universal basic income.

It is that simple.

If you live comfortably off your investments...

...you won't feel inclined to share those dividends with other people.

You'll say: 'Hey listen, it's fine to grant me that dividend...

...that is fine, I come from a good family.

But you can't just go and hand out those dividends to everyone.

They will just waste it, that is dangerous.'

That is more or less what King Louis said in the 17th century.

He said: 'You can't just give the rabble a social dividend. That won't work obviously.'

So the idea that most people aren't any good...

...that the majority of people are fundamentally depraved...

...is one of the oldest ideas in Western history.

This goes way back to the ancient Greeks.

And it has always been in the authorities' interest, making sure that we won't trust each other.

Because if we don't trust each other, then we will need those in power to control us.

Then we will need bosses of the money who...

Indeed, indeed.

So it is a revolutionary idea.

If you say: Wait, maybe most of the people are kind.

Maybe most of the people want to make something out of their lives.

Maybe most people are virtuous.

If you really think that thought through, than you can redesign your society entirely.