What this amounts to is an assertion that a (at least, in theory) democratic state should play a bigger role in organizing society, and the market should play a smaller one.
That depends on what you mean by "organizing." I'd argue that UBI increases freedom and autonomy from controlling individual decisionmaking. For the poor it removes restrictions on what they can spend their money on. For the middle class it means fewer restrictions on how to spend one's time, what employment to pursue, etc. It does redistribute wealth from the top, under the system as I conceive it, but that hardly affects the way in which the upper classes will be able to spend their time and money.
Your last point is the only valid argument for UBI. To reduce inequality and poverty, you could increase tax on the rich while directing aid to the poor, instead of writing everyone a check. The impact of focused social policies on inequality and poverty is of course much greater than that of UBI. Of course UBI will reduce inequality and poverty compared to a system with zero welfare, but that's not the present system.
As for your last point, I think there are other far less costly and less regressive ways to encourage and subsidize skills recycling than writing everyone a big check.
Actually, that isn't true at all. Existing welfare programs restrict the way recipients can spend their benefits. In the U.S. at least, there are also other absurd requirements tied to employment and even to being able to pass a drug test.
You and others who have argued this have yet to provide any answer to this question - if poor person A receives $10,000 in benefits, how does it make them worse off if the government also decides to give middle class person B $10,000 in benefits? UBI would not cut benefits to the poor, if it is designed properly. You say that "targeted" benefits are better, but this is simply a belief of yours, not a fact. Many economists believe it is better both for the poor and for the economy as a whole to simply cut poor people a check and not fiddle about trying to determine if they're working, or limiting how they can spend the money. It would save hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions) in administrative costs.
On the second point (which again, is not the only argument for UBI), it is the opposite of regressive to tax the rich more to provide the middle class a UBI. UBI is also far, far more efficient than requiring people to prove they are pursuing some sort of alternative skills before providing them a subsidy. The problem with this is that you run into all kinds of restrictions, and government picking favorites as to which kind of skills qualify, etc. Not to mention, there is no realistic mechanism by which to provide a cushion for entrepreneurs without opening up a system to massive fraud.
Inequality is huge these days. Directing subsistence income solely to the poor is not a sufficient solution, because the poor are not the only ones who suffer for inequality. Increasing the economic standing of the middle class is just as important.
