Another way of phrasing the same thing, is that modern welfare systems (e.g. Australia's) put reasonable conditions on receiving welfare, that make it possible to target welfare to only the people who really cannot find a job, making the disincentive to work associated with welfare much smaller than it would have been otherwise.

I actually think it's sadder that you think characterizing people's attitudes using negative terminology is a substitute for a real argument.

EDIT: I've never complained about ratings before, but is this really a bad argument, or do basic income proponents just think that everyone who disagrees with them is an evil ignorant person? It seems to me that certain causes attract zealots.

Don't feel bad--I got net two downvotes above for pointing out the numbers showing that federal spending on healthcare and Social Security together gets us substantially closer to being able to fund it (I'm pretty sure they're not wrong numbers--if so, whoever's down voting, just point it out and I'll happily hash it out).

Zealots exist anywhere. Here, have an upvote.

yeah I shouldn't be so touchy. It's probably just controversial issues in general that make people downvote based on the perceived motives of the poster rather than the argument.

Is all manipulation bad? Ever worked harder because there was a deadline coming up? Or a bonus? Or a funding round?