As I intend the policy, UBI is universal, in the sense that everyone receives it; it’s unconditional, so there is no means testing or geographic requirement; it’s small, so it’s not a life of luxury but it satisfies bare minimum needs; and it can be paid for by replacing the patchwork of welfare programs and targeted tax breaks, and new taxes that generally fall on socially costly things like pollution or on groups that can afford them like land owners.
If you’re interested, I’ve laid out my arguments for UBI in more detail here, and discussed some of the mechanics of funding and distributing it here. I’m also happy to continue this discussion here or in either of those threads.
I don’t think they were particularly free, no, but I don’t think it was the money they were being given that did that to them: I’d put the blame much more on the rampant discrimination following the completed destruction of their land and cultures.
In fact, one of the best arguments for UBI comes from studies of Native Americans when they began to receive money from tribe casinos. These studies found improved outcomes on multiple freedom-increasing dimensions, from mental health to education.
I am probably reading this point wrong, but it seems like you’re justifying white resentment by calling me naive to think that white resentment isn’t necessary. Almost as though you’re arguing that there should be violent repercussions because there will be violent repercussions. But that’s circular and you didn’t put it that way, so I’m sure I’m just not following, I just don’t see how else this is relevant. The left’s aim (which I’m actually criticizing here!) has been to redress wrongs they perceive in the narrative of an imagined past. The right’s aim (which I’m also criticizing) has been to return to that imagined past. The left gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they don’t symbolically redress past wrongs. The right gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they see a move from pro-white to neutral as somehow anti-white.
All my conclusions are just premises for the next thing
Having thought a bit more about it, I still agree that ideals in general can be harmful, and I still disagree that most of our problems are because of adherence to ideals. But I will say more to the former: I don’t think ideals are avoidable. Even if our goals are modest and iterative, they still must rely on a modest and iterative ideal of what the world should look like. They still also allow for things to get worse before they get better (even if it’s only modestly worse to get modestly better).
So I don’t think the choice is between pursuing ideals or not pursuing ideals. Rather, it’s about what those ideals are and where they reside, e.g. past or future, and how far in either direction. I think a future-focused ideal is preferable (and I think suggestions like James’ amendment would keep our ideals set in a future that we can realistically expect, and therefore potentially achieve).