"UBI doesn't restore any political sovereignty.
I do not see how you make any connections between the two."
Having some money to spend is better than having zero money to spend, in a world where you are required to spend money to use the Land.
"The problem with govern-cement is that they want a permanent poor and permanent homeless class."
The same is true for the owner class. Any step we can take to reclaim governance from owners, to make our relation with the Land more immediate, less dependent on fellow people, be they owners or bureaucrats, is useful.
"Either you have some weird fairy-tale like view of what happens in politics, or you think that if more people had more money, they could spend it on campaigns. Neither work."
I simply propose that we come together to make demands of what is ours. This doesn't have to do anything with government as it exists today.
"UBI implemented through such a govern-cement would result in controlled manipulation of everyone."
So just work to introduce it by your and my will? I mean if you are scared of government to take over anything you could ever champion, then what is the point of trying to make the world a more fair place?
"Post anything bad about the govern-cement on F-c-book, have your UBI cancelled. (or just delayed, lowered, routing error...)"
That's not a UBI, then. By the way, government could simply go shoot you in the head if they don't like your facebook posts, by that logic.
"Anyway, my main point is that providing the house is much much much cheaper than paying someone to rent the house. And since we would be taking from the efficient, driven people to do this, we should make the costs as minimal as possible."
Alright. I'm not too concerned about housing to be honest (edit: note that we built a silly amount of housing simply for the purpose of nobody living in it, used government to bail out the capital owners represented by the banks who financed it, and now owners enjoy growing returns on housing with nobody to live in it. So I can't say I'm very concerned about housing, given we evidently have the resources to build a rather large amount of it for nobody to actually live in it.). I'm concerned about everyone having a stake in the Land. I still think it's cool you want to provide cheap housing, as much as just having a cheap accomodation doesn't make a sovereign by itself, either.
"Further, if the cities would allow such tiny homes for homeless, I could get the whole thing donated. Donated construction worker time. Donated materials from the actual lumber mills."
Sure. Just like it has it with the UBI. If we want to do useful things, we'll have to fight for em. Be it awarding each other a UBI and guaranteed Land access with that, or be it the privilege of building minimal housing in certain locations. Government can just ruin anything and everything, if we don't democratically control it. That much is for sure. At the end of the day it's all about that democracy. Be it tinyhouses or a UBI, either thing, if introduced, does increase ability of the average person to actually make political demands, no?