With all due respect to the author of this, this is not particularly strong reasoning for or against UBI. It is very myopic, shallow point of view a single impl

With all due respect to the author of this, this is not particularly strong reasoning for or against UBI. It is very myopic, shallow point of view a single implementation issue, without even discussing others. However, it turns out that the very principle of UBI itself is the gravest danger to a civilized free society. UBI will work probably great in totalitarian setting, where individual human life is the last thing of value to the state itself. People have to realize that with a right comes attached a duty. If someone else has a duty to secure my right to income, he is my slave so to speak. He has to create value/wealth and there must be force to transfer it to me. This FORCE is government. The natural tyranny of states using FORCE to redistribute wealth should be so scary to humans anywhere (more so in self-proclaimed free societies). If someone can tackle this issue in real-world setting good on you. But even a moderate thought will convince anyone that as a whole to a society nothing comes as a right. Everything (wealth) has to be produced by someone. There is no automatic wealth in nature; poverty is the default condition of humanity.