[simoncion]

> ...I don't really feel responsible for every human on the planet, or even a significant percentage.

That's fair and totally 1000% reasonable. However:

What if (whether through sudden injury or the accumulated injuries of aging) you become utterly unable to work, you've burned through your savings, all your family is dead, and you're an unlikable cunt [0] so those around you are supremely disinclined to provide assistance? Should you be cast out into the wilderness to starve?

What if you were born permanently unable to work and utterly unsympathetic? Should your fate be to die of exposure?

[0] I cannot stress hard enough that if you think I'm making comment about your character, please do remember that I absolutely am not. I don't know shit about you, so I cannot comment on your character. However, injury, illness, and prolonged bad periods can absolutely turn someone into an unlikable cunt... driving away a predicated-on-tolerability material-and-emotional support network just when one needs it most.

[blfr]

That's a welfare argument, not really relevant to UBI.

[simoncion]

> That's a welfare argument, not really relevant to UBI.

UBI is welfare.

[_heimdall]

Is it not reasonable to consider a UBI as a universal welfare program?

[sokoloff]

Yes, that’s the seemingly obviously correct way to think about it. Which is also why many people who think the sliver of population who is unable to work should be able to get welfare to avoid starving, but that the vast majority of the population who is capable of productive work should be expected to provide for their own consumption rather than have it be provided to them.