Think back to the greatest discoveries of the modern age. Imagine discoveries that led to paradigm shifts, catalysts which allowed for leaps forward in economic and development. Now try to picture who the trailblazers who made these discoveries were? How many of them were day-laborers, working tirelessly to make ends meet, constantly tired and sleepless?

Many of the "scientists" of the modern era were not scientists at all. The names of the most famous discoverers in the fields of astronomy, math, genetics, biology and other sciences are dominated by either members of the clergy or men and women of vast wealth. The two share "time" as their most abundant and valuable asset. This is where those that argue for a minimum basic income justify any added expenditure to society.

I first heard about a minimum basic income about 20 years ago as a sophomore in high school. The policy studies class I was taking was pitched the idea by our teacher, "what if everyone was guaranteed a minimum basic income, so that no one could go homeless or hungry." Who can argue with that? Guaranteed welfare for everyone? Eradication of homelessness and poverty in general? Sounds great. So what's the problem?

The theory is actually very straightforward while the reasoning behind the theory is not universally shared. The theory is that an inalienable right of a human being is that of shelter and food. No person should have to live on the street, beg for food, go hungry, or die because of malnutrition. To that end, "the government," - whoever that may be - should provide everyone with a minimum basic income. Everyone, regardless of income level or education, would receive a monthly stipend. That stipend would allow someone to put a roof over their head and eat. The "minimum" in minimum basic income, is just that. The stipend wouldn't allow for vacations or luxury goods et cetera.

Before we get to why this is necessary, let's start from the end, what will this do to help the economy and contribute to the greater good? To begin with, just like the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare" as it is more widely known, the demand for basic goods will increase - as it did for insurance - and this will cause prices to actually go down. The second reason and most important argument for a basic income, is that it will allow people to exercise their brains.

There are quite literally billions of people who do not have the luxury to think. They do not have the luxury to read a book, to research a topic of interest, to do anything, really, other than eat, sleep and go to work. Unfettered capitalism has become "modern slavery," argue supporters of minimum basic incomes.

This ability to think, to dream, to imagine, is a human's most valuable asset and by shackling it to mundane activities, humanity essentially throws away that which is most precious in every human. The theory is that even if 90 percent of people use the extra cash as just supplemental income and they do not use it as a passport to research, invent, innovate, that 10 percent of the people will. That 10 percent or even 1 percent of the populous is still many times greater than the total percentage of people who had this luxury at any other time in the last 100 years.

The theory is that thousands of new ideas and innovations will be born overnight. New technologies will be discovered and new businesses and fields will emerge. This will in turn lead to thousands of new jobs and the growth of the tax base. Those on the sidelines, living on just the basic minimum income will again be able to live comfortably off of a "normal job" as was true during the United States of the 1950s and 1960s. While the wage gap may continue to grow, at least no one will be left behind. A gutting of the bureaucracy will allow for more spending on preventative care and may ultimately be cheaper for governments than their current entitlement programs as some studies have shown.

Now "the why." During the 2012 election campaign, U.S. President Barack Obama said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." Used by those on the right to attack Obama, the president prefaces the statements with "If you were successful somewhere along the line, somebody gave you some help ... Somebody invested in roads and bridges." Obama's statements illustrate the "it's only fair" side of the argument. Some do not care what the reasoning is, as long as it will be good for business and society in general.

Who knows if such a system will actually work as promised, but with so much potential benefit, this is an idea that must be further researched.