> Why is this a bad thing? Aren't we looking to institute an universal basic income?

UBI is incompatible with open borders. Neo-liberalism doesn't know how to square that circle.

If I could give a thousand upvotes.

How this escapes otherwise rational people is just stunning.

Anybody with an explanation? Some kind of virtual citizenship?

> UBI is incompatible with open borders.

Unless every single country all had UBI at parity. Then UBI and open borders are both fine.

(Obviously, that's nearly impossible to actually achieve. But since we're dreaming, might as well go all the way...)

There's an easy solution: only give UBI to full citizens. Since you usually need to live in and pay taxes in a country for ~10 years to get full citizenship, this is an easy solution.

Like most easy solutions, it's probably too extreme, some permanent residents definitely deserve UBI too. But it doesn't seem difficult to imagine an appropriate test based on years of residency, et cetera. It's certainly an easier problem than some others, like how to pay for UBI.

Does one also get to double/triple/quadruple their UBI by producing more US citizens with a willing lady?

Many things look easy if you don't take politics into account. Castles in the air.

No, we are just arguing about it on internet forums.

gotta get all those (imaginary) points!

Having some purpose in life is important for mental health and general well-being. A basic income isn't supposed to encourage idleness.

The "idle" in the title refers only to being unemployed. George doesn't care what you're doing while "idle" -- the tone of the article is that if you don't have a job you're not a "real man".

To those downvoting me -- note the usage of the terms "infantilization" and "emasculation". You don't really have to read between the lines to hear what George is saying, you just need to look those words up.