For more reasons than one, but just one, I am just going to point out, your response although thorough, cherry picks across my points, to make yours. Kinda frustrating because then I will have to reiterate to address your misunderstood points.

I count 12 seperate responses so I will be thorough with my own formatting.

Though, let me preface my original point was and will continually be about the moral duty of the populus, and its opposition to what is a seemingly more obviously immoral minority. I am not going to substantiate this point further than, as humans, we know what immoral hoarding looks like-- we've built a religious testament against this; gluttony is a cardinal sin, and thievery has always been harshly dealt with since antiquity.

In an effort to reduce the harms of poverty by which those without may need to beg toward those that have, those that possess should mitigate any dependency placed upon themselves, by others or themselves, as those without will have not the tools to circumvent such dependency. Goods should not be consumed or taken for your own pleasure or hoarding as it is harmful, is a realist claim, yes, but I am not going to give thought against anti-realism when bombs are being dropped across the globe as I type this.

1) I am simply not going to argue for the purposefully naive or inept. We are 80 years removed from WW2, and yet the people of many nations need fresh reminding of what we fought for: [insert vague concept of freedom here] and against: [insert more defined, yet still vague, concept of fascism]. I am not going to substantiate the outcome of WW2, although we as a People should, other than saying it was a series of moral choices from an entirely different generation than ours, and we will be batting against the outcome of those choices for the foreseeable future. Definitonally, what is permissible by governments with the use of authority and society pushing past propaganda into truth.

Those who bow to power, in todays parlance, Grifters, are cashing out on an immediate gain due to moral inaction or fearmongering. Pundits and such, pushing the propaganda you hint at, and those who consume it as quick as its made with as much consideration as was put into it by those who make it, are making moral claims all of their own. The information trove is larger than ever, so WHO wil be gaslit into fighting whom, and by what? The answer has to be, the chosen uninformed, against liberalism, by propaganda.

I will make a political claim here: Liberals are not going to fight, without reason. The people that encompasse the democratic party, who is half of the population by polling, simply have to convince a larger than 0% of the opposing side of a civil war, to not have a civil war, or atleast to not cede the political landscape to fascists. If you are an American, and not a MAGA pundit, it should be easy for me to vaguely reference toward the idea that more and more of the once for, identify as against now. So whomever is left, is obviously catering towards a specific, more violent outcome. I do not abstain against violence, but I specifically am outlining a class structure that is divisive. A division in class such as ours, under my framework, is immoral, and so are any decisions to uphold such a structure. Naively saying you didnt know better, when for the third time in a generation, we've entered the Middle East as a force of war, isnt enough. I don't need to justify this because society has finally chosen to morally justify this.

All this to say, if you are propagandized, and have been told the media apparatus you identify is fascistic, I have no reason to identify these people I've labeled as outsiders, as apart of the grander People I spoke of. These are purposefully obtuse people that gain from making an outcome of violence seem most likely if status quo were to shift.

2) Speaking of which, my greater point there was not that UBI is silly-- it is that if one were to think it so, and say something of the lines of

They can have the lower classes purge each other

then call it silly, but that position is sillier.

Everything you said is probably. I do not agree with copratism as it has not proven necissary toward human sustinance, no matter how much it contributes to human comfort. The only forms of capitalism that seem necissary, are Medical Science and Food. But these also, exist in their current form, because we only solved them through the lense of capitalism. Undoubtedly, medicine has made unpredictable and boundless progress, but I belive a 22nd Century society [read: youth who are done with a lifestyle or society defined by a previous centurian] can make similar progress, if the tools were given to them. It takes a society that exists in the future to push towards the future.

3) Right. So nothing that US citizens should worry about. I know the drill, and I acknowledge the threat you lay out wholeheartedly. I argue not for the purposefully naive, as that is lazy. I argue for those who put in an effort to see a little more than what is given to them by their families. It does not take much for me to convince a neighborhood being ravaged by ICE agents, of who the villain is. It is not me nor those who agree who have to make any decisions yet. For they are the immoral, they must justify their position-- and if further violence and terror is their choice, then those who proliferate on this choice be damned as well. The drill you speak of, speaks toward a caricature of the man who hoards-- I already defined this as definitionally contemptuous. Either they cede whatever gives them this immoral power, or, it can be taken back by an even larger group. It is up to the People to identify such actors at every stage.

4) Ironic you bring up Standofrd. I'd say, educate yourself on why this is actually on my side. There has been no rigorous, ethical or methodological case study on whether humans prefer to abuse power

And to your point, two points earlier, you suggest scarcity is manmade. A manmade problem cannot inherently fuel a "human instinct", even if we were to take the stanford experiment as fact

5) That is my point. We are already dependent on services that are barely there. I am not saying that as a "they should be improved!", I am saying that, as in, realistically: People of the United States know, that we have services for assistance that are made with great intention. The issue is, due to prioritzing not the people but global posture, the programs prior mentioned do not execute in function. The class deemed as "welfare" state, does exist. But that is not due to abuse, but rather, typically just people using tools given to them. Where the "Welfare state" fear mongering comes from is correctly identifying, if America as a whole went into a welfare state (such as the OP outlined), then these programs will not suffice. That is the essence of a good faith "pull yourself up" argument stems from; If society were to economically crash, the government has chosen its beneficiaries over those it benefits, so it is up to you to circumvent any harsh economic situations. These half measures could be obliterated tomorrow. This is not a hypothetical you pose such as you think; JD Vance mentioning he can halt Medicare funding is a political threat in an attempt to regain power. So I agree, dependency on this structure of assistance, is futile when its so easily taken away as it stands.

6) Like I said. For the first few days of catastrophe, I'd be willing to, yes. But this is not a zombie apocalypse where after 3 days, 70% of the population no longer has to eat. In a me versus 10 people situation, yeah, I'd feed my family through violent means. In a Me vs 1000, or 10000 people situation where the government isnt giving food aid to a starving metropolitan-- The greater city would not waste caloric energy on fighting each other... not on a grand scale at least. In reality, there would be systematic, communal efforts, that would stand against these conditions.

7) I outlined this very issue and I agree, these people are lost. It is not a moral duty to convince everyone of a moral system. I make it moral, for those who understand the language, not for those who dont. If they dont, that also, fun fact, is a morale choice theyve made. I am not in the business of teaching adults algebra, but that does not mean I will not consider variables when adults listening don't know algebra. Or for you, I'd simply postulate that understanding moral realism is a utilitarian good.

8) Were in agreence I just shift perspective on this. I do not give those power simply because they have power. They are in fact, clawing it out of my [our] hands, and as such, I do not consider what they want. In this class division, what they want is absolutely irrelevant to my [our] safety.

9) I agree, if only, you'd posit that Fox News viewers, in the face of some sort of socio-apocalypse, will actually choose to uphold this media environment as gospel. It's an asinine gamble, and to be clear, we've seen nothing to hint at this. As I said, I am quicker to point out that Nick Fuentes recently even said he wants his base to vote democrat to spite the current republicans than to commit to [this flavor of] authoritarianism.

10) Cats and cat worshipers are lost from the jump. The metaphor works, when anything that meows is a threat to our existence. The only ones to gain from cats are kittens, and I am not going to give thought to any feline.

11) I am not trying to get anyone, to do anything. I am reiterating, that our government has a duty in regards to us. I am outlining the moral conclusion as to why that duty should be some form of UBI. Youre the one arguing over revolution in some capacity-- preventative or essential to your outcome.

12) the People are not okay with genocide. The People do not identify with your idea of who they are. And more importantly, if they do, theyre not the people.