The point is not that it will cure all societal ills, but that there are a substantial percentage of poor people who are not poor because they lack the ability to spend money wisely, but because they've been thrust into situations that are beyond their ability to solve without cash.

For starters, it is extremely expensive to be poor, to the extent where certain situations are far harder to claw yourself back out of than it is to remain out of them in the first place - but sometimes people get knocked down into that hole. Basic income provides a means to protect a lot of people from those kind of situations.

Basic income further changes the dynamics even for those who end up messing up: Aid towards those people can then focus on addressing the problems that prevent them from making proper use of the income, rather than be limited by their lack of income.

A lot of problems poor people struggle with are related: Mental health problems can trigger poverty, but poverty can also drive people far into depression and make other problems worse by virtue of making treatment difficult; physical health suffers, and reduced access to health care makes it worse; alcohol and drug problems are a frequent escape, and while they won't disappear with basic income, treating addictions without addressing the situations which contributed to driving people into addictions is vastly harder. You will not automatically solve the mental health and addiction problems, but you can reduce homelessness to predominantly a health/addiction problem (as it is in many countries with decent welfare systems, even without basic income) and leave yourself with a smaller challenge.

Consider that your argument is similar to that of the Namibian farmer in the article, who assumed that people would just spend it on alcohol. The reality is that while he was right about some people, he was also wrong about a lot of people, who were able to not only change their own situation, but contribute to further improve the situation of others (e.g. the money helped some start businesses, but also contributed to creating a market for those businesses).

It is irrelevant whether or not your hypothetical homeless person is still on the streets. The more relevant question is how many are helped off the streets or otherwise see their lives improve, and whether the improvements seen are worth the cost.

That implies that the current "inefficient" infrastructure will still be needed after BI. That doesn't seem like a good use of resources; it just adds a massive tax burden on top of the current system.

BTW: I'm not arguing from philosophy, but from actually seeing homeless people on the streets every day. Each and every one of them seems to have mental and physical problems, and every one of them seems addicted to various substances (and incapable of taking care of their own finances).

They gave 322 homeless street addicts free opiates, which allowed them to sort their lives out since their day to day activities weren't entirely consumed with scoring heroin. Property theft and street violence also plummeted, saving ambulance costs for overdoses, and the police and courts millions which was all in the full SALOME study as most of the addicts used property crime to fund their addictions.

I imagine BI would do the same. Instead of being on an automatic pilot mode of desperately finding money for drugs and booze everyday there would be time to reflect and maybe seek out detox.

    > The homeless person, say, decides to blow it all on
    > hookers and blow, and is out that money in 2 days.

    > Now what happens to him? He's still on the streets. Who
    > will take care of him? Who will pay for his emergency 
    > room visits? Who will clean up after he takes a dump on
    > the street? Who will provide him with food and clothes?

... and thus will be born the "BI loan" industry: take $1000 now, and we'll collect your $375/week.