> would anyone say that this person should continue to receive UBI? I would. There are two ways to look at this: 1. We are supporting this person through UBI

> would anyone say that this person should continue to receive UBI? I would. There are two ways to look at this: 1. We are supporting this person through UBI. We don't want to support neo-Nazi people. Therefore they should not receive UBI. 2. Neo-nazism is an issue we want to solve. Neo-nazism only dies when no significant portion of society shares that view anymore. Notice that this is very different from "when a majority of society thinks it should be eradicated" (which is where we are now). If you focus in the latter view, cutting UBI to publicly known supporters won't help because: - It would foster the "us vs them" holy war between supporters and society at large. This will only strengthen that minority. - It poses significant (i.e.: expensive to solve) logistical issues. How do you detect neo-nazi supporters? Who makes the decision? How can such decision be appealed? I see neo-nazism as a virus and education as a vaccine. Cutting UBI to identified supporters is akin to cutting life support to people displaying advanced symptoms. Would that really help?