I don’t follow your reasoning. You seem to identify two main problems, which is why you think UBI is [unlikely to happen / not a good idea in your opinion] (I’m not sure which one you are claiming, or if you’re claiming both).
Problem 2: You show, with examples, that when someone relies on some social program system, then they can be forced to do things, under the threat of being excluded from said program. Does this imply that a program with simple conditions or without any condition, such as UBI, would be a better alternative, because it would make excluding someone harder or impossible?
Problem 1: You seem to mostly make two claims in this section
UBI includes giving money to very bad people
Giving money to very bad people is a deal-breaker in a democracy
[Plus a lot of strawmen, intended as illustration it seems]
(1) is crystal clear, but I don’t see why (2) would be true. I agree that (1) is an argument against UBI, but I’m sure UBI supporters also have arguments pro UBI. Is there something about (1) which makes it some kind of final argument? Getting back to my initial confusion, is (1) a final argument for you (i.e. you think that some people are so bad that a scheme leading to them receiving money must not be implemented), or is (1) a final argument for almost everyone?
I don’t follow your reasoning. You seem to identify two main problems, which is why you think UBI is [unlikely to happen / not a good idea in your opinion] (I’m not sure which one you are claiming, or if you’re claiming both).
Problem 2: You show, with examples, that when someone relies on some social program system, then they can be forced to do things, under the threat of being excluded from said program. Does this imply that a program with simple conditions or without any condition, such as UBI, would be a better alternative, because it would make excluding someone harder or impossible?
Problem 1: You seem to mostly make two claims in this section
UBI includes giving money to very bad people
Giving money to very bad people is a deal-breaker in a democracy
[Plus a lot of strawmen, intended as illustration it seems]
(1) is crystal clear, but I don’t see why (2) would be true. I agree that (1) is an argument against UBI, but I’m sure UBI supporters also have arguments pro UBI. Is there something about (1) which makes it some kind of final argument? Getting back to my initial confusion, is (1) a final argument for you (i.e. you think that some people are so bad that a scheme leading to them receiving money must not be implemented), or is (1) a final argument for almost everyone?
The argument is:
1. You probably can’t make it universal.
2. If people can be excluded from the program and depend on it, it creates a power differential that can be abused.
3. There are lots of present-day examples of such abuse, so absent a change, that abuse or similar will continue to exist even if we have a UBI.
You can’t make it universal at all, or you can’t make it universal incrementally?
Thank you!