Conditions manipulate behavior, not lack thereof. Think about it. If I only give you a piece of chocolate if you dance for me, that is manipulating. That's also the way welfare works. The government is manipulating behavior. Did you know it spends $1 billion a year of money meant for the poor, to try to convince unwed pregnant women to get married? That's fucking manipulative as hell.
Now if I give you a piece of chocolate without conditions, you can do anything. Granted you may like me a bit more, but I'm not manipulating you, especially if you happen to believe chocolate is a human right and therefore not something you should even be thankful for.
As for fraud, it will cut down on fraud because everyone gets it without condition. Fraud is when someone lies to get something they shouldn't.
As for freedom, I suggest reading this article and arguing against the way Hayek viewed it.
For Hayek, then, and for those who follow in his footsteps, a basic income is motivated not by an allegedly misguided commitment to egalitarianism or to positive liberty. It is motivated instead by the value that libertarians prize above all others – freedom. And it is motivated by an understanding of freedom that libertarians ought to find highly attractive. The point of a basic income isn’t to give everyone the same amount of wealth. It is to ensure that everyone has enough access to material wealth to render them immune to the coercive power of others. That’s an understanding of freedom that appears to have been good enough for John Locke. It ought to be good enough for his contemporary followers as well.
As for inflation, that's a silly blanket claim to make in regards to an equation with a ton of variables. I suggest spending some time looking into them as well as the applicable evidence by reading this article.
As for productivity, the existing system is lowering it. It encourages people not to work by punishing people for working with removal of benefits. Meanwhile, two-thirds of all workers are not engaged or actively disengaged by their work. Perhaps worst of all, because people are bidding down each other's wages thanks to a surplus of labor, we aren't investing as much in automation as we otherwise would be, and so a lot of work is being done that could be done by a machine, or even need not be done at all. Plus, what we are automating tends to be high productivity work, and then that person tends to find a new job in lower productivity work. All of the above is bad for productivity.
Basic income will boost productivity. It will also boost innovation by reducing our fear of failure.
I don't think ANY government money will lack strings. To believe otherwise is ridiculous. I understand that Hayek believed a minimum guaranteed income was a good idea, but would he believe it now? Would he believe a megastate could do it well and actually enhance freedom with it? I highly doubt that.
What strings come with Social Security right now? What strings come with the Alaska dividend for all residents of Alaska?
And do you honestly think Hayek only thought what he did because he wasn't alive in 2017? Do you apply that same logic to everyone in our past who is no longer alive?
I agree with you, that is why I go a step further and has started up a movement for a money-free society.
Having to rely on the government to distribute UBI is such a bad idea. Statism is at the core of all our ills.
Hayek would certainly refute what he said he was alive today, but he too wouldnt have any real monetary solution. The global debt (short term debt) is 3 x the global GDP as we speak, how much is the world indebtment if considering the long term debt... 5 or 6 times? They amount to 100 trillion for the US alone. No kidding.
They obviously don't consider the costs do they
They read Hayek and THAT is the part they remember? How about the Fatal Conceit????