I would happily sacrifice my ability to make a living writing software if it meant that all software was FOSS. That would absolutely thrill me to no end. I think that so much good would be done for the world therein that it would be ethically outrageous for me to object. I wouldn't spend that much less time writing software, either, because doing it 8 hours a day saps my will to do it during the other 8.
"I would happily sacrifice my ability to make a living writing software if it meant that all software was FOSS."
And I most certainly wouldn't. I use and contribute to open source, but I love development too much to do something else for a living. But I also have a personal life. I could not spend 40 hours a week doing another job, then spend 40 more doing development. I might spend 4 more hours doing development, and I expect that my learning curve would be severely stunted.
I think it's very unrealistic to think that passion alone could drive software development without the ability to spend most of your time learning and doing what you love.
And I think that applies to other creative endeavors, too. Yes, a lot of music gets created by amateurs. But I doubt Bach or the Beatles could have made the work they did if they had non-musical day jobs.
I personally don't think a basic income guarantee will fire passion.
I'd write software for art's sake even if I didn't get compensated for it.
However, I feel it is critically important to the discussion: Libre does _NOT_ mean Gratis!
To answer the question asked by billpatrianakos: "I still feel it hurts software developers. How does this not bother you?"
Software has been shared Gratis ever since it first existed (even before the PDP-7 era).
And yet software developers have been making far more than your average auto mechanic in all that time.
The distributors have been the ones most threatened by Gratis sharing. They can't mark up the software when they put it in a box and add a pretty manual (and add DRM or some form of copy protection, which only hurts honest consumers).
There will always be skilled hackers (i.e. developers), just as there will always be musicians creating music, even if the RIAA and friends disappear.
Gratis sharing is free advertising. The honor system is ultimately the only system of compensation that does not break in a system with no scarcity and unlimited sharing. Software has been born into that system; music and movies and writing are discovering that they now live in that world too.
Although it's new for musicians, hackers understand it intuitively.
Gratis sharing does not mean you don't get paid. However, if you go with a non-Libre distribution channel, you may not get paid. Artists who sign up with a label may end up paying the label for the privilege of performing. Admittedly that's an extreme case, but the fundamental theory of a non-Libre channel is trying to create artificial scarcity using computers where there is none -- so you only end up hurting your paying customers. Those who do Gratis sharing will only be affected marginally.
To get paid, just focus on providing the services to your customers. The customer is always right, yes, but also you should be able to see their needs more clearly than they can, themselves. In this way you become valuable to them as a source of continual improvement. Great musicians do the same.
