We would still have the same capitalist economy we have right now with private property, profits, working for money and profit, private ownership of capital and the means of production, ect.

It's not socialism at all, unless you are saying that every income transfer program (such as social security) is socialism (in which case you are saying that politicians like President Obama and Hillary Clinton are socialists).

>UBI is quite literally the opposite of capitalism. It is a form of socialism

How would UBI transfer the means of production from capitalists to the workers? Don't confuse socialism with a welfare state.

>UBI is quite literally the opposite of capitalism. It is a form of socialism, so saying it makes 'all forms of socialism obsolete' is a very strange thing to say.

I couldn't agree more. What I see here is an attempt to not so subtly sneak egalitarianism into the right and create confusion.

The question that must always be asked when such initiatives are proposed is, who will pay for it? Often this question reveals that it is always the case that you'll be forcefully acquiring from a producer and giving to a non-producer.

What's the difference between social ownership/control of the means of production and very very high taxation that unconditionally funnels money from the (rich) owners of the means of production to the public?