Similar to the ethical and philosophical basis of things like universal health care, a universal basic income could not work if done partially. If you adopt universal health care without enshrining in your society the utter importance of taking care of everyone because of their fundamental value as human beings absent all other factors - the outcome will be tyranny. If there is an ability for someone to say 'oh, but perhaps we shouldn't take care of person X because they made bad choices and it would save us money to do so' then you will rapidly see the definition of various health-related regulations created with the goal of reducing the cost burden of health care.
While one might be tempted to say 'that would just result in people living healthier lives', that would be a very superficial and unstudied evaluation. Behavior modification on a society-wide scale like that is radically dangerous. It might actually be the most dangerous thing in history, I'm not sure. I'd need to run some numbers, but I think there is a good chance that the unintended consequences of well-intentioned behavior modification like that has killed more than all wars combined.
Basic income is an interesting idea, but requires social support. It cannot succeed in a society which has been accustomed to seeing other people suffering less than themselves as the worst thing possible. This is a necessary legacy of the Protestant Work Ethic which dictates that a persons virtue is measured by the degree of suffering they endure for the benefit "of society" (in truth only for employers, not society at large). In that mindset, asking for reward is itself immoral and can only reduce a persons virtue. Either to receive or provide such rewards is an act of immorality, and though many can not actually recognize or admit it, this underlies how they see the world. The poor deserve their lot because they contribute little. The rich must be moral because they are rich (this is predicated on a fantastical delusion that riches are awarded only when a person has benefitted many). This is why so many people hate punitive damage judgements. They're not concerned with the well-being of the corporation being fined tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for acting harmfully. They are obsessed, to the point of willful self-destruction, with ensuring that some individual does not get a "payday" legal settlement.
Without a philosophical backing that justifies a universal basic income, it would continuously be under threat, with people from all sides attempting to reduce the income to the point that few could survive on it alone, attempting to push people to 'be productive' in a world that doesn't need productive people. It's not a situation you can simply ignore and hope people wake up to. It has to be discussed and justified and explained. Why should society at large provide for those who do not produce material products? At what level should they be supported? Should drug addicts and criminals be supported? When someone feels slighted that someone who has not suffered as much as they gets the same amount, how will you answer them?
While one might be tempted to say 'that would just result in people living healthier lives', that would be a very superficial and unstudied evaluation. Behavior modification on a society-wide scale like that is radically dangerous. It might actually be the most dangerous thing in history, I'm not sure. I'd need to run some numbers, but I think there is a good chance that the unintended consequences of well-intentioned behavior modification like that has killed more than all wars combined.
Basic income is an interesting idea, but requires social support. It cannot succeed in a society which has been accustomed to seeing other people suffering less than themselves as the worst thing possible. This is a necessary legacy of the Protestant Work Ethic which dictates that a persons virtue is measured by the degree of suffering they endure for the benefit "of society" (in truth only for employers, not society at large). In that mindset, asking for reward is itself immoral and can only reduce a persons virtue. Either to receive or provide such rewards is an act of immorality, and though many can not actually recognize or admit it, this underlies how they see the world. The poor deserve their lot because they contribute little. The rich must be moral because they are rich (this is predicated on a fantastical delusion that riches are awarded only when a person has benefitted many). This is why so many people hate punitive damage judgements. They're not concerned with the well-being of the corporation being fined tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for acting harmfully. They are obsessed, to the point of willful self-destruction, with ensuring that some individual does not get a "payday" legal settlement.
Without a philosophical backing that justifies a universal basic income, it would continuously be under threat, with people from all sides attempting to reduce the income to the point that few could survive on it alone, attempting to push people to 'be productive' in a world that doesn't need productive people. It's not a situation you can simply ignore and hope people wake up to. It has to be discussed and justified and explained. Why should society at large provide for those who do not produce material products? At what level should they be supported? Should drug addicts and criminals be supported? When someone feels slighted that someone who has not suffered as much as they gets the same amount, how will you answer them?