&gt; I thought the argument for basic income is that it could support someone without the need for a job. If it can&#x27;t, then that&#x27;s not what I&#x27;ve been discussing.<p>The amount is independent of the thing. You could have a basic income of $5000&#x2F;year and it would still work better than $5000&#x2F;year in means-tested welfare. You could have a basic income of $50,000&#x2F;year but that is probably inadvisable. What probably makes the most sense is to replace existing welfare at approximately the same level and then collect data on how that works to decide the best amount in the long-term. (But $12,000&#x2F;year is probably in the ballpark.)<p>&gt; &quot;Illegal thing X cannot be enforced, therefore X should be legal&quot; is an invalid argument.<p>How is it an invalid argument? Passing unenforceable laws is futile and stupid. It fosters disrespect for the law and gives advantage to people willing to break the law when they know they can get away with it.