> The government simply doesn't have the resources and logistical capabilities, to identify and address each need in turn. We already made the assumption that

> The government simply doesn't have the resources and logistical capabilities, to identify and address each need in turn. We already made the assumption that they do, with the original claim " If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system". Without that requirement, you're taking on the risk that the rentiers will extract the additional income and make no changes to the sewage system. That assumes a few things: (1) The trailer park owners don't currently have the money to building a sewage system (2) The lack of money is the only reason that the owners aren't building a sewage system (3) The owners don't have other goals that they prioritize higher than providing a sewage system to tenants (4) The amount that the rentiers would be able to extract from the stipend would be enough to cover a sewage system I'm generally pretty sympathetic to the premise that allowing rational actors to choose how to spend their limited resources tends to produce results that ~everyone agrees are better than top-down planned efforts. But when you're talking about a situation in which the negotiating leverage of the two parties is so drastically imbalanced, and a problem which has such wide-reaching externalities as this one does, that's a really big leap of faith to take. Compare that to the alternative, where we've identified a concrete problem that we're looking to solve, and we use a normal process for budgeting and directing funds towards a targeted goal.