I think your objections are reasonable, but miss the point of what basic income is trying to accomplish. Basic income is a more libertarian answer to the problem that all people share some basic needs. The success of failure of the system should considered overall.
I am sure that, if it were implemented, there would be many exceptions and special cases. I don't agree that all those exceptions or special cases would be bad or to serve "special interests." EX: severely disabled people may retain the services they used to receive through discontinued social assistance programs as it would be unrealistic to support their increased needs out of the same pool everyone uses (as we've already decided their increased needs should be supported).
I also expect there would be people who mis-managed the money, just as there are those who mis-manage the support they receive through the current US social net.
However, considering how hellishly complex the current systems are, my gut feeling is that both the problems you outlined above would be reduced. The straightforward nature of such a program would make it vastly easier for people to access the services they get for their money.
The question you should really ask is if BI seems like a better answer than the current system.
P.s. I'm not sure how I feel about BI, but I think your objections aren't the biggest worry.
I'm baffled why any libertarians support basic income. It's basic wealth redistribution. It's forcing those who work to financially support those who don't work at threat of jail time.
I am not a libertarian, though I don't think all their ideas are bad.
I agree it doesn't look like a policy they would support, but I think they get there using the following axioms.
1) It's better for me if there is a functioning common society
2) People will do anything to survive
3) People without sufficient resources will gain them however they can, often inefficiently
4) I eventually pay for externalities
These assumptions lead to the conclusion that it's in their interests to have an efficient system to fulfill the basic needs of everyone. There's some grim logic that say that killing people would be cheaper, but most people are repulsed by it and it's often not true in practice.
It's not "more libertarian" at all, since it goes against the complete idea of libertarianism. Income redistribution goes against everything that libertarians believe.
libertarians would be (and are) completely opposed to basic income! Basic income is basically a monetary redistribution, which aligns more with socialism than anything else.
> libertarians would be (and are) completely opposed to basic income!
Many libertarians are not.
> Basic income is basically a monetary redistribution
OTOH, for many libertarians, its a more liberty-preserving one than means-tested welfare programs that it would replace.
> which aligns more with socialism than anything else.
While in the US, libertarianism is often associated with right libertarianism, and socialism is often associated with Soviet-style communism and other authoritarianisms, libertarian socialism is a real thing.
Libertarian socialism is real, but does not represent the most popular use of the term libertarian. I'd also say the same thing for anarcho-capitalism, which is also often put under the libertarian umbrella.
> Libertarian socialism is real, but does not represent the most popular use of the term libertarian.
Libertarians who are not opposed to basic income are not exclusively libertarian socialists. To understand this, its useful to understand that BI isn't on top of existing programs, it replaces programs that involve government making more choices about who gets benefits, and what form those benefits take.
I am sure that, if it were implemented, there would be many exceptions and special cases. I don't agree that all those exceptions or special cases would be bad or to serve "special interests." EX: severely disabled people may retain the services they used to receive through discontinued social assistance programs as it would be unrealistic to support their increased needs out of the same pool everyone uses (as we've already decided their increased needs should be supported).
I also expect there would be people who mis-managed the money, just as there are those who mis-manage the support they receive through the current US social net.
However, considering how hellishly complex the current systems are, my gut feeling is that both the problems you outlined above would be reduced. The straightforward nature of such a program would make it vastly easier for people to access the services they get for their money.
The question you should really ask is if BI seems like a better answer than the current system.
P.s. I'm not sure how I feel about BI, but I think your objections aren't the biggest worry.