Charity is not a legitimate role for government.
A person working for a paycheck doesn't provide value to a community, only to their employer. Chronic unemployment, however, does harm a community. The explicit physical need for food, shelter and access to medical care outweighs the implicit value in the dignity of labor.
> Charity is not a legitimate role for government.
Don't consider it charity, then, consider it insurance, or just another public service like the police or fire department.
What property does UBI destroy, and why don't increases in consumption through other means also destroy property?
10 people make widgets. Annual production is 10 widgets. Mean annual standard of living is 1 widget.
9 people make widgets, 1 person is on UBI. Annual production is 9 widgets. Mean annual standard of living is 0.9 widgets.
In the second example one widget was destroyed, and everyone was affected.
We are all counting on one another to to create value. At my business, in my community, and our country as a whole, I'm counting on you to take a job and work, because if you don't we will both have a lower standard of living.
In reality, that tenth widget still gets produced. They hire someone else to replace the "UBI recipient" or else run the production line slightly faster so nine people make ten widgets, or else automate and fire all ten employees, and make twenty widgets a year. Nothing in a real economy is that zero-sum. Value which only exists in potentia and which may as well be created by other means cannot reasonably be said to be "destroyed." Something which never existed can't be destroyed.
UBI just decouples a person's ability to work with their ability to live at a subsistence level, it doesn't prevent them from working.
Also you're assuming all paid jobs are pro-social. Is coal mining? Advertising? SEO for MLM firms? Lobbying for kleptocratic foreign governments? Some of these may have some positive effects but may be net negative in their effect on society.
Finally, I disagree that charity isn't a legitimate role for government. Since neither of us is the arbiter of government legitimacy I think we can agree to disagree here.
Of course, it's a matter of worldviews. You might think innate human behaviour is laziness and only forceful contracts can get productivity out of them. I can certainly see evidence of that, but I don't think it's innate for everyone. I think many people would be eager for a sense of belonging and purpose that could only come from contributing to society.
Think about all the people that help out in times of crisis without 'reward'. That's also innate. Whether it's the majority, I think that's a matter of culture.
If you define the primary relationship people have to each other in society with forceful contracts, then yes, you might engender also a subculture of rebellion and banditry that results in laziness and exploitation. What if we defined it differently?
I will not remind you that utopian experiments are not new.
UBI isn’t utopian. No one lives large for free. People simply get the basic support.
Charity is the raison d'être of government. A government is there to run your society. That means doing things for people, even if it's just printing passports and employing a police department.
You’re just making up an alternate definition for charity - that isn’t a valid argument.
I am playing a little fast and loose with the definition of charity, yes, but so is the OP. "Charity" isn't "free money for you to play with" (that's "philanthropy"), it's "giving help to those who need help". Governments in the developed world have significant welfare costs, so it is just plain wrong that charity isn't the role of government.
[1] (German source) https://de.statista.com/themen/71/ehrenamt/