> It envisions most ordinary people as mere consumers. It's a little like saying "Our body would be healthier if we made sure to adequately feed the leeches."

> It envisions most ordinary people as mere consumers. It's a little like saying "Our body would be healthier if we made sure to adequately feed the leeches." > Yeah, no. > We need to not actively turn people into leeches. We need to stop treating them like they can't do anything but consume. It is a terrible way to treat people and it creates a very unhealthy and unsustainable system. What the heck are you talking about... If it's universal, then everybody gets it. How can anyone be a leech? And if you think some people consume more than they produce it's the same problem as with any other welfare. I don't see a problem with UBI being a replacement for welfare to some extent. Giving people dedicated restricted help is like treating them like incapable of decision making. Give them money and let them buy food themselves. What's the difference between a food stamp and food money? Pardon my ignorance. Regarding creating new leeches, about every experiment with this shows that on average by great margin it activises people. So this in practice shows the exact opposite of what you say. People usually feel empowered and regained control over their lives and try to do something with it. I am not a real proponent of universal basic income, the results seem too good. Maybe not being used to, and suddenly being given cold cash under monitor has this effect. Nevertheless, in my opinion your logic is completely reversed to what is being published.