The one exception to this is that children might not finish school if they think they won't need to get a job. To avoid this, we might limit UBI to those who have at least made an effort to get a high school education.
Not to mention this opens the door to a whole bunch of uncomfortable questions: should we continue to subsidize childbirth as the economic value of a citizen tails off? Why spend money educating people who will never enter the labor force? What happens to immigration when immigrants statistically no longer provide economic value?
That was one of the purposes of early universal healthcare in Europe and Canada at the end of WWII. To subsidise it even more. After the war, Europe needed babies.
My farmer grandparents had one child during WWII, in 1944, then another in 1947. After this point, maternal and infant healthcare became subsidised, and my grandparents went on to have ten more children. Their prosperity over the next thirty years was eased by this, and the extension to all citizens helped even more.
This enhanced the boom generation effect in my country, and small towns really started growing.
My family did much much better than equivalent farmers in the USA(we have cousins there), and everyone ended up as productive members of society. Instead of paying for healthcare insurance, they sent their kids to university.
People eating, getting educated, driving on the roads, taking vacation, all grow an economy. Non-working citizens, ie children and students, have economic value. Always have, always will.
Increasing native birthrates will drop the need for immigration, and the attendant terrors thereof, which will please a lot of people.
The early Australians were written off as useless, non contributing members of British society, and were consigned to transportation to the Antipodes. But instead of being lazy ne'er do well types, they rose above their reputations to craft a shining egalitarian society.
Good and productive people will come from big, poor families.
See, you too want your fellow citizen to be educated. Their education leads to greater individual prosperity and that enables your greater prosperity.
Why is prosperity important? It affords one the chance to maximize the value of their liberties.
So, you could say that wanting food servers to wash their hands after going to the bathroom is governing - and you'd be right. There needs to be some form of governing because we humans don't do well without it at scale.
No, really, we suck at it. A good example is pedestrian traffic in crowds. We are too busy trying to get out the door to realize that we are unable to see the people in front can't open the doors to let us all out.
Fortunately, the government has usually mandated those types of doors open out, or sideways.
Is there too much governing? Absolutely. Those are authoritarian states and they come in many forms. The question is not all or nothing, but where we draw the lines and what we protect.
No, I won't downvote you - but I'm happy to hear you out and engage in a productive dialogue with you. We don't even have to agree with each other.
Perhaps this only serves as an example of what I see as one of the main problems with UBI - it won't stay universal.