I have to think about this more, but just want to at least start with some thoughts. I think the advancements of technology vastly improve the general welfare of everyone. It's not absolutely necessary to participate in the modern economy and any group, community, and even individual can live in autarky or various levels of it. Just think about the Amish. They'll still be around when we're flying around in saucers. If there were such a replicator any supply creates demand and if the demand is not sufficient and there is nothing the humans can provide there will be less of a supply. If a monopoly has the potential to provide someone a lifetimes's worth of food/shelter with technology and there is not enough demand or if it's too expensive in relation to what people can provide for it the monopoly would have to lower the price or not produce it all. With the advent of 3D printers and customized manufacturing I think there is going to be an abundance of variety and local 'flavors' of all types of goods. For example we'll have cars and vehicles of all shapes and sizes instead of these mass-produced vehicles we have today. We'll have a spread of wealth instead of a concentration. The counter trend in mass-produced food is local, organic, and sustainable food and there will be increased premiums in those. Decentralization in money/banking (blockchain), energy (solar), entertainment (VR), manufacturing (3D printed homes & vehicles) allows everyone to become sustainable more quickly. It seems technology is a great equalizer more than a divider, and free market economics should create balance. Even if we had or did not want access to any of these advanced technologies we can still harness the knowledge online and learn how to live a more sustainable/simple life. Mankind will have more choice. There will be a transition period with disruptive technologies, but social institutions take time to adapt. The newspaper industry took over a decade to transform and adapt in the Internet age instead of being eliminated outright. Government institutions are the hardest to change. Why do we still have public education? Give children internet access, a laptop, and just a bit of parental guidance and you're done. Kids learn more online than in schools. Anyways I digress. I'll think about this more, but I think the whole of mankind well be better off without any of these government mechanisms although I do agree for practical reasons and because of the general public's perceptions of government having a basic income may be a necessary evil. Taxation is theft though. For those in the free market making money, I think it may be a good idea to create a privatized basic income to disintermediate government's role and reduce forced taxation.