The main argument people use against things like UBI, free housing, and food as a human right is that without the need to work to survive, no one will work. It's hilariously preposterous. Firstly, it assumes that people would rather live a life compromised solely of eating, sleeping, and shitting than do any work at all, as if they were plants. Not only is it insulting, it's idiotic. Such a basic existence is a “life” in the same way that being in a vegetative state is a life, i.e. not much of one at all. Virtually everyone enjoys goods and services that enrich their existences past that of bodily processes which they have to pay to acquire, be those things jewelry, cars, internet, or lap dances. Remove the danger of starvation and homelessness, and people won't work to survive. Instead, they'll work to thrive. Without food and rent taking the lion's share of their paychecks, people will be able to enjoy all the little pleasures that they otherwise had had difficulty to afford. Work would be a choice, not a threat, and it'd be a choice that most people would happily make.
Secondly, it can be seen today why this argument is false. How? Well, by the fact that plenty of people already work more than they need to. Many workers accept a promotion and the attached responsibility, voluntarily work overtime, or apply for a more stressful but higher paying job, even though they might not need the extra money. If the argument was correct, no rational person would do any more than what was necessary to keep them alive. Instead, they'd take their meager but easily earned paycheck and scuttle back to their cave den to feast on cheap ramen. We would already be in the soup of mediocrity that the argument predicts for a world of assured basic needs. In fact, the biggest proof of its inaccuracy are the oligarchs that those who spout it love to idolize. They accrued more than enough (arguably too much) money to keep themselves alive a long time ago, yet they keep trying to make more.
In conclusion, it's clear to see that subsidized mediocrity is a lie and that assuring peoples' basic needs can only lead to good. But as a final point, if a system has to put the fear of death into the hearts of people in order for them to contribute to it, doesn't that say a lot more about the system than the people?