At the most basic level, there's a pretty core libertarian belief that the government can't or shouldn't make decisions and individuals can or should. In this framework, giving money away to individuals will lead to it being spent better than if it was used for actual welfare. So although Libertarians tend to be anti-welfare, sometimes they make an exception for UBI, because it's still a free market solution.

Some progressives like it to, of course. Means testing is a burden, and limiting what you can spend (for example) WIC on can feel a lot like haves trying to control the lives of the have-nots.

For TREACLES though, I think there's a more pathological element at play: they plan to put everyone out of work and need a way to avoid a torches and pitchforks scenario.

[–] dashdsrdash@awful.systems 3 points 1 year ago

I'd like to believe that it's a temporarily embarrassed millionaire coping mechanism: "I will of course come out on top as an alpha techbro philosopher-king, but while I'm in the process of being recognized you should all definitely give me money. Better not make it conditional on me doing anything."

Whereas I prefer forging a clear path to long-term happiness for humans by getting them all past the demographic transition, improving quality of life and reducing the numbers by making it less attractive to have many kids. I suspect the best way to do that involves regulating capitalism down to a nice incentive system.