We already have solutions to that basic problem through a large number of social programs. UBI doesn't change the basic social contract, it just fixes a bunch of problems in how we try to achieve these societal goals.
Need-based programs create complicated bureaucracies, fickle providers, inefficient direct-service providers, and frequent negative rates of return when someone tries to better themselves or their family.
I think the arguments of UBI as a job replacement tool is misguided at best. But as a way to replace a wide swath of anti-poverty measures it could be great. By being universal it provides value and consistency that can benefit everyone.
In this I suppose I align with the older Libertarian arguments for UBI, it's one of the smallest-government safety nets you can provide. Decreasing the size of government isn't a top priority for me (and I'm not a Libertarian), but it's still a nice feature.
@ianbicking You can also see the UBI as a better replacement for cultural grants.
One of the big issue with grants for artists is that it favours only certain communities. The gatekeepers who decide who to grant the money to could disappear, allowing for more diversity in arts.
@stevegenoud Good point! It's removing all that gatekeeping that's the real appeal – deciding who is deserving, who is lazy, who is worth supporting, who brought things on themselves...
That whole judgement process isn't just bad for the people in the outgroup, I think it hurts the people who judge as well. There's resentment everywhere.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!