The only hope I'd have for UBI reducing crime is that those who would have entered a life of crime due to need (then escalated) would never take the first step into it - I don't think it would amount to much.
All socialist-style policies are passed with hope and good intentions.
And those policies always end disastrously.
You'd think that the historical evidence of socialism's failures would have clued people in by now. But our drive to feel good and virtuous is more powerful than reason, evidently.
So the public school system, electric grid, police/fire departments, and every form of financial assistance for the disabled and elderly, all disastrous?
Or perhaps you're referring to a more strict definition of "socialist-style policies" only including instances where the public owns the means of production of some good? But then that would have nothing to do UBI. Help me out here, can you be more specific?
Are you familiar with the concept of the "commons"?
To put it simply, the "commons" are a resource from which common people benefit, but where access cannot be restricted solely to "subscribers" (for practical reasons).
As an example, the fire department is a resource of the commons. That is, firefighting protection cannot be restricted only to people who pay for the service. If it were, then it would produce results that defeated its purpose.
Say for example that firefighting were a pay-for-protection service. Now suppose your house and my house were next to each other, and you were a subscriber to firefighting protection and I was not. If my house caught fire, then the firefighters would not come extinguish my house. But this would pose a problem because, since your house is adjacent, it might also catch fire as a result of mine catching fire. A subscriber's house would be placed in jeopardy because a non-subscriber's house was not being protected. So all houses must be protected, because fire spreads and it doesn't distinguish.
Clean air measures are another example of a resource of the commons. If you pay to have the air cleaned through preservation methods or emissions standards, but I do not pay, I still get to enjoy the benefits of cleaner air. For practical reasons, there's no way to prevent non-subscribers from enjoying the benefits.
It is my contention that the government be the custodian of the commons, in order to avert the tragedy of the commons (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). However, beyond safeguarding the commons, the government should have no other authority.
Why not? Because of government's inherent inefficiency.
Government introduces inefficiency wherever it operates because government is a monopoly within its domain. It has no competitors, and no incentive to improve.
Private interests do not typically suffer from the same inefficiency because their profits are threatened by it. They are incentivized to seek and provide their services more efficiently, lest they be beaten by competitors providing the same service. The market weeds out those who are not constantly searching for ways to provide their services, faster, cheaper, and/or more effectively. And in those industries where private provision is inefficient (the telecom industry, for example), that inefficiency is usually the result of government policy shielding the private company from competitors.
"Socialist policies" are therefore defined by their being subsidies of goods and services which are not strictly part of the commons. The strife, impoverishment, and/or disaster which follows socialist implementation of these services usually results from the government's inherent inefficiency in providing them.
So here's what we know:
Government introduces inefficiency wherever it operates, because government is a monopoly within its domain. It has no competitors, and no incentive to improve. But it is uniquely able to act impartially because, when it is appropriately restricted, it has no personal interests to pursue. The key to ensuring this impartiality is to eliminate the incentives to influence government for personal reasons, and that means restricting the scope of government. When the government is limited in scope, there are fewer incentives to try and manipulate it for private gain (such as through bribes, campaign contributions, lobbies, etc).
Businesses are highly efficient because their survival and interests depend on being as effective as possible. However, this makes businesses ill-suited for matters where impartiality matters, because every business cares ultimately about its success. Therefore, businesses should be tasked with providing for our wealth and prosperity, but not for matters which fall under the commons.
So, some examples of services within the commons include: human rights and justice, clean air and water, firefighting, police, vaccination, and the military.
Things
not in the commons include: roads, public education, health care, universal basic income, social security/retirement, and unemployment.