[Gormo]

> UBI's critics expected these programs to have terrible outcomes, where recipients would spend their money on trivialities (or worse: drugs).

The worst possible outcome is the intended one: where UBI recipients spend it on essentials, and society adapts over time such that a large swath of the population becomes dependent on state-issued subsidies for basic sustenance.

This would create an entrenched concentration of "soft" power that gives centralized political institutions -- and by extension, the factions that control them -- an unprecedented level of top-down control over society, which will invariably leveraged for ulterior purposes.

[jareklupinski]

> an unprecedented level of top-down control over society

wouldn't the people that the article is accusing of being against UBI, want this outcome?

sounds like if they want more control, they should be for UBI

[Gormo]

I'm not sure the article itself is an unbiased source, given that it is published by a pro-UBI website.

It seems likely that the article's assumptions about who is opposing UBI and why they are opposing it are erroneous. I personally oppose UBI for the reasons I described above, by my motivations have nothing to do with anything the article is talking about.

It's also possible that various factions are using positioning around UBI proposals as a proxy or as a tactic to advance other, more complex, political aims.

[laverya]

Would UBI lead to more control for them, or for government? I have to imagine the latter.

[lenerdenator]

The problem is, we already have that.

[Gormo]

To some extent, but I don't think it's anywhere near as entrenched and pervasive as a large-scale UBI program would make it.

[laverya]

One of many reasons that FDR was the worst president in US history.

[lenerdenator]

I'm talking about the ability of people to concentrate soft power with capital. At least with federal programs there's _some_ ability for the average person to influence how the program is run, even if it's abstracted through Congress and elections.

The alternative is neo-feudalism.

[Gormo]

I don't agree that there's any substantive difference in what you're complaining about and what you're proposing as a solution. The scenario in both cases is people being dependent for essential livelihood on organizations administered by strangers with their own motives.

However, the status quo reality doesn't fully reflect what you're complaining about, because the "ability of people to concentrate soft power with capital" is something that is distributed widely across society, with a vast plurality of institutions and communities, having varying and often opposing motivations, all having the capacity to independently develop their own capital.

Conversely, the political state is a single institution with structural incentives that converge toward a single set of objectives, and no, the electoral process is not a sufficient mechanism of accountability.

Effectively, what you are arguing for is taking the pattern that you find unfavorable in the first place, and putting it under the control of a single centralized monopoly with insufficient safeguards against abuse.