[krapp]

>Just giving out money does seem like it lacks imagination for people who think state services can only be provided by private sector (and co-incidentally the wealthy will own the private providers hence getting the money)

I think UBI is a concession to this unfortunate political reality. In the US (and maybe the UK I don't know, they seem to love privatizing everything now) universal basic services are an absolute existential impossibility. Americans hear that and they imagine Stalinism and mass graves.

A better argument against UBI, to me, would be that it would only pass muster with voters under the Devil's deal of repealing all existing social services (and likely privatizing them) to cut government expenditures, and so it would never be enough to allow people to afford those services to begin with.

It would also cease to be universal. Voters would demand means testing and governments would attach strings and limitations in order to keep money out of the hands of immigrants and the indigent poor, as welfare policies often reflect systemically racist biases. And of course there would be corruption and grift at all levels.

And I'm saying this as someone who supports UBI as a concept. I think coupling people's access to the economy (and in the US, to healthcare and education) entirely to the value the market can extract from them is a moral evil. Food deserts are a moral evil. But I absolutely don't trust the US to implement UBI in any way that doesn't somehow benefit the rich and punish everyone else.