RE: Will universal basic income give too much power to whomever distributes it?
The basic problem with socialism inspired programs is not the theoretical or ideological foundation of these seemingly altruistic ideas, right? After all who does not agree that pure capitalism has a down side; namely, it is statistically impossible for everyone to win in a merit based competition, there has to be losers. Hence the famous quote, "Capitalism is the worse system ever invented .... except for all the rest".
The problem, as with almost every en devour in life, is in the execution and all the empirical evidence shows this to be true, in almost every case:
Social programs are designed by bureaucrats to be easily accessible, but very hard to relinquish. Why do these programs punish people who try to get extra income through the marginal work they may pick up (as 1 example)? Clearly, policing 'wrong doers' or scammers is not the reason (see next point).
Social programs are badly managed and therefore full of 'less than moral' persons, who are anti-social and criminal. Even though these actors are not at all sophisticated about their fraudulent acts; they rarely get caught.
Every socialist western democracy has fostered at least some notably large 'welfare generation' and in most cases, multi-generational welfare 'communities' (see above for reasons).
the examples could go on ...
Of course, we could skip all of these detailed examples of how human nature does not always (sarcasm) meet with our desires or wishful, hopeful ideal of ourselves. Don't you have to prove that the philosophy of "equality of outcome" is a better approach then the "equality of opportunity" philosophy? Anything else is just confusing the real practical issues with a mixture of ideals (portrayed as reality) and incorrectly assigned microcosms (limited examples of a narrow or small group of successes, portrayed as being applicable on the large scale).
I don't believe humans are anywhere close to the monolithic, identical in behaviour ideal that is required by the "equality of outcome" philosophy and Governments traditionally do not engage in the activities that would evolve or support such an ideal. Not to mention the conundrum represented by 'trying to make everyone think, feel or act in very similar ways' when humans are by definition completely unique creatures, not the Borg.
I could go on ... but it is a huge topic. Bottom line is, my hope is one day through organic means (everyone evolves to agree ) we agree humanity is one thing. Until then, the free market with limited and TRULY democratic government is the best environment to incubate these outcomes, we hope for.
Universal basic income is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, and it is a market expanding and further decentralizing solution to the problem of both non-working and working poverty. So I'm not really sure why you posted everything you just did unless it's based on the misunderstanding that basic income isn't still capitalism, which it is. That's why well known capitalists like Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek wanted UBI implemented by governments.
See this is how terms are manipulated in Orwellian ways to make otherwise traditionally horrible or deviant from the accepted norm, completely acceptable.
How is a program of Universal welfare for people who have lost their jobs to automation or, more commonly, to globalist corporations that lobby governments to ship jobs out of our first world countries, a 'free market' solution?
Let's step back and look at why 1st world countries are in this mess. Globalist corporations over decades have paid politicians to give them tax exceptions, regulation exemptions, etc.; all in an effort to squash competition and it worked. While global corporations try to convince everyone that they are 'just following the free market' and finding the cheapest labor pool, they openly kill the small to medium businesses that would work to replace them with domestically created goods and services. Instead of that outcome, the strangled western markets are left with only low paying service jobs. Those jobs are going to be replaced by robots via a normal free market embracing of new better processes. That is the problem UBI is trying to solve, right?
As for the 'traditional capitalist' who support these ideas, we are back to the theory vs practical issues again, right? You didn't address any of the 'practical problems' the current social democracies have with their 'social safety net' or do you believe in the "this time we will get it right" socialist mantra? Giving people money for nothing, under the assurance that it will not trap them in a 'welfare cycle' is putting a lot of faith in people who's past performance is awful. Why not try the only method that has a proven record of creating a huge middle class and prosperity; the fairly regulated free market? This does not depend on handing over huge amounts of money to a small number bureaucrats with the hope they will not act exactly like every other single group of people with concentrated power have acted -- corruptly try to retain power.
Watch this video for a quick example of what real capitalism is supposed to be
the money paradigm is over... in 10 years from now, we'll 50-70% unemployment, UBI will mean government rationing. Orwell was a genius.
the only solution: money-free with a non darwinian permise since it is darwinism that led us there. Man is simply not an animal. And we are going to learn it, that we like it or not.
if you put equality before freedom, expect neither
if you put freedom before equality, expect a high standard of both
When the government centralizes, it is collectivism in desguise, in any form of shape. And the free market theorists have shown their true color... there never was, never has been, a free market. It was all regulated by a government. Socialism vs capitalism is ^divide and conquer^
Reads Friedman and Hayek, misses hundreds of pages of evidence that government programs do not work.
Heard of the Fatal Conceit? "The curious task of economics, is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." - Hayek