The crux of global poverty, a relentless conundrum, has inspired innovative solutions. Among these, the concept of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) stands out, promising every individual a baseline sum of money, irrespective of their work status. While the idea of governments distributing this sum is widely debated, an alternative presents itself: a privatized UBI. Would such an approach alleviate poverty without the pitfalls that accompany state-led interventions?

**The Merits of Privatized UBI**

At the forefront of privatized UBI's merits is the efficient distribution mechanism. Non-profits or benefit corporations, organizations that inherently prioritize societal value, can manage these funds. Imagine these entities establishing asset trusts, which reinvest 50% of their profits back into their mission, bolstering their impact. The other half is distributed as a basic income. This model inherently promotes sustainability. The reinvested profits ensure the trust's growth, while the distributed sum addresses immediate socio-economic needs.

**Societal Implications and Separation of Money from State**

Societal structures often intertwine with the economic frameworks they operate within. A government-driven UBI, while well-intentioned, might inadvertently enhance state power, placing financial strings on every citizen's life. Historically, governments have showcased significant inefficiencies, and adding the task of managing a UBI could amplify these issues.

A privatized approach advocates for the separation of money and state, mirroring the sentiment behind the separation of church and state. Such a separation prevents potential manipulations, political machinations, or misuse of resources. In essence, it puts the power in the hands of organizations whose primary goal is societal benefit, not political advancement.

**Avoiding Unintended Consequences**

Any system, regardless of its merits, can have unintended consequences. A government-run UBI could lead to inflation, reduced work incentive, or even an overdependence on the state. A privatized UBI, managed by dedicated organizations, could circumvent some of these pitfalls. For instance, by tying the UBI to half of the profits, there's a built-in modulation; during economically robust times, the UBI might be generous, but during downturns, it could be more modest. Such a structure inherently offers a buffer against economic volatility.

Furthermore, these non-profits or benefit corporations, being closer to the communities they serve, can be more responsive. They can adjust the UBI based on real-time data and needs, something a vast government machinery might struggle with.

**Wrapping Up**

The vision of eradicating global poverty is lofty yet achievable. A privatized Universal Basic Income, steered by dedicated organizations, might just be the answer we seek. By separating money from the state, prioritizing efficiency, and being vigilant of potential pitfalls, such a system could transform the lives of millions. While the discussion is still nascent, the potential of this idea is immense, deserving both attention and exploration.