BI is immoral: why should anyone who can work get money for doing nothing?
Ultimately one is truly free when he can decide what to do with his time on earth without any pressure.
Or, to put it into perspective: why bother about funding for a tech startup, when a few friends can choose to Code stuff they want, just for fun, without any risk or have to live on ramen? Its a whole new level of entrepreneurship that would be enabled.
Any disadvantage to whom?
Followup: why is having some minimum amount of resources to live on immoral as opposed to merely unfair?
BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing. It sends a message to society: laziness pays.
Just look at the drug war, where we don't want to send the "message" to kids that drugs are OK.
There's no telling what incentives people will actually have once BI is implemented. Maybe they'll actually be more incentivised to seek risky and rewarding work because they have a guaranteed safety net.
And that's what it is: an incentive, not a moral. It's not immoral to give people something that benefits them.
> BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing.
Consider that without enough money to live, people will not do nothing. They will steal and riot. Look at it this way: like other social programs, a BI can be thought of as a way for rich people to buy a more stable and peaceful society in which to live.
I think the concept of a BI is unnecessary and poorly thought-out, but it's not immoral.
What is the underlying reason that laziness is bad?
Lack of sex and romance is immoral: why should anyone have to find a consenting partner?
The obvious answer is that rape is an initiation of force. It's immoral. Your needs or desires don't change that.
Lack of BI is not immoral. It's like saying lack of trust fund is immoral. It makes no sense. People don't have a moral obligation to provide you with things.