Here is a response. In brief:

Argument 1: Basic Income would be better than the current welfare program.

Response: Probably true, but it would likely be added to, rather than replace, the current program.

Argument 3: Charity is a public good -- most people want it, but few want to pay for it, so it should be paid for through taxes, as is done for national defense.

Response: "we do not have any way of setting up mechanisms for income transfer that can only work in the way we would want them to" so the system will be gamed and transfers will end up going the wrong way.

Argument 2: Basic income can redress injustice from the past, since the current generation's wealthy benefitted from wrongs in the past, such as slavery and land seizure.

Response: "While the argument suggests that transfers from richer to poorer might do a better job of rectification of past injustices than random transfers, it does not imply that such transfers do a better job than doing nothing, that they on net reduce injustice rather than increasing it." There is a difference between "wealth due to past rights violations and wealth inherited from such violations."