Money and power accrete more money and power. Government must serve as a redistributive force, to some degree, unless we're all-in on exploitation.
> If everyone is entitled to a basic income as a matter of right, that means others must be coerced into handing over the fruits of their labor.
...is not an approrpiate response. Just because the government is funded through income at present doesn't mean its the only way to fund government. You could fund the government (and UBI) with a land-value-tax, for example.
I take it that you have a universal definition of 'inalienable rights'.
Here's another - the whole world (all the land in the world) was claimed by people just because they were born before me (and had guns). Those people who were born before then arbitrarily hand that land/resources to other people, with really no objective justification outside of tradition.
Of course, we treat these traditions are nonsense when it's convenient -- if we really believed them then we'd give back most of the land in America to native Americans.
Isn't it just arbitrary that you're excluding others from enjoying these things? What right do you have to have exclusive use of anything?
This is exactly taxation of all kinds. And your framing presupposes that these fruits that would be obtainable without the social structure that those payments support.
Not to mention that, 'fruits of their labor' is a highly tendentious way of talking about a capitalist system. The fruits of their capital, perhaps. By and large, capital owners already extract a very large proportion of the 'fruits' of their employees labor.
I think it is a very dubious argument whether basic income would all balance out, but it is no different in kind from any other social collectivism.