It's less of a character issue.
I'm not sure what I am asserting has anything to do with character or not. Here, let me do this for you and let me know what specifically in it you disagree with.
Again you're right, those trust fund babies shouldn't be allowed to get away with bad decisions and should all be one bad decision away from being cut off from all their funds. Your concern about decision making ability, tax burden on the rest of us, and punishment for bad decisions on this group of people with poor decision making is laudable, it's great that you're concerned about these things and especially about how this group gets away with these behaviors you disagree with consequence free while poor people don't. But again, UBI doesn't concern them, it concerns poor people.
I have an interesting experience in "structure and guidance" that I've observed in firsthand, it may at first seem off topic but is actually highly related. Government employees used to have to submit detailed travel claims after every trip with a receipt for every meal and incidental expense they incurred. After all, we wanted "structure and guidance" on how they spent the government's money while traveling, right? In a flash of uncharacteristic brilliance, someone did an analysis of how much it cost to collect and review all this information. It turns out, just giving an employee a set amount of money each day of travel, even if they hadn't spent a dime and didn't "deserve" it (sound familiar?), cost the government far less in total than the previous system. The reimbursement is based on the location you are traveling, i.e. you get more for a day in Chicago than in Liberal, Kansas, but has nothing to do with what each employee actually spent. And it's still far cheaper than the structured system that ensured only legitimate costs were reimbursed.
This is exactly the underlying concept of UBI. And incidentally something I would think my small government conservative friends would fully support. It may very well be that we're wasting tons of money for the various bureaucracies required for "structure and guidance", and simply taking all that money and distributing it instead, while initially counterintuitive, is actually cheaper and more effective than what we're doing now (and don't claim you can make the bureaucracy more efficient if you haven't ever worked in one). And as a useful side benefit, poor people get to be treated with the same humanity as rich trust fund kids given the same behavior sets, which you surely support?
