The people who have more than most by orders of magnitude will never tire in their attempts to convince everyone that (1) without their participation (rule) everything will break down; (2) without their philanthropy (self-serving monetary arrangements using tax-exempted entities they fully control) everything will break down; (3) giving people a modicum of pecuniary independence will cause an immediate collapse and everything will break down. Meanwhile they advocate for a draconian surveillance-based system because, as you can see, everything is breaking down. QED.

This seems surprisingly backward looking. Most of the thought leaders around UBI aren't politicians. I agree UBI probably doesn't work without a paradigm shift, but everyone's talking like we're amidst a paradigm shift (whether we are is questionable) but like, communism doesn't work because of the way it impacts incentives (as described) but what happens if you fully automate egg production? Then "And even worse, many people quit work once they got the UBI. So now less eggs are made." become irrelevant.

If everything's fully automated, then "many people quit work" is irrelevant, because not many people are working, which is the point?