true freedom is having your [basic] needs taken care of

so that you can start to do work on things that you actually find meaningful and beneficial to the world, instead of work that creates the most privatized profit for some business institution/some tiny group of people (two very different things).

I completely understand some peoples' desires at this point to "do the minimum" or just completely drop out of the system all together.

But I also think that it's a "bad thing", or maybe I should say, "the result of a broken system." In fact, it's perhaps one of the strongest indictments of our current economic system (which keeps trying to convince us that it positively or even perfectly incentivizes productivity), that there are many people who are not creatively enamored by the work they do, who are so disconnected and alienated from it they don't feel like putting any effort towards it at all.

It would actually be much more efficient in the long term to begin creating a system in which people could better do the work they wanted to do, work that wasn't intellectually deadening, high stress, and increasingly policed. How could a change to a more individual-based workplace composition (driven by slowly increasing the base of each individual's economic leverage) not represent a huge amount of potential room for growth in productivity?

Isn't it always better to encourage people to choose the work they want to do? Doesn't that always lead to enormously more creativity and output?

Maybe there will be some people who will have trouble finding their internal motivation to do things that are extremely far-sighted, long-term or charitable, in the world again, but that's because the current system does its best to kill those impulses.