> UBI doesn't get rid of a person's agency. Terry was mentally ill enough that he either had to have a guardian, or society had to decide that he held diametrically opposing views from the mainstream and would be allowed to live a life according to those view, regardless of the consequences

For this, we need no UBI. Simply donating to him suffices.

The world is full of people who would rather let the poor and mentally ill starve and die than lend them a dollar, for fear that doing so would just prevent them from leaving and drive down property prices. Which is why we put caltrops under bridges and on benches.

This is why we need UBI... because charity doesn't scale to the level of societies unless you force it to.

If that worked, there wouldn't be mentally ill homeless people because we already have donations. People do not voluntarily donate in enough quantities to handle society's problems

> If that worked, there wouldn't be mentally ill homeless people because we already have donations. People do not voluntarily donate in enough quantities to handle society's problems

This is a democratic vote in terms of money about society's problems. This vote shows that most people find this all quite OK.

If you want to argue that we should pay less taxes and let people die if they cant hold a job, then feel free to make that argument. Trying to hide behind "other people are cool with it" has never been a winning move in any serious debate

> If you want to argue that we should pay less taxes and let people die if they cant hold a job, then feel free to make that argument.

I do not argue for that, but I argue that the behaviour of many people provides strong evidence that this is the opinion of the majority.