You spend time in this piece talking about theft, but try to justify using the taking of some people's property to fund other people's need claiming their property is theft. Its a bit of a circular argument, and that doesn't even begin to address what kind of society, or economy we would have without property. The most glaring piece I find missing from this is the idea of consent. Basic income built upon consent is either trade, or charity. Basic income built upon coercion is theft, or slavery.

You say that because you deem the resources of the planet are to be equally shared that anybody who uses them must pay a fee. So what natural right to make law are you resting this idea upon? If resources are not anyone's to use as they see fit, how do you come by authority? What is the basic underpinning of power? Isn't my power and authority just as organic as yours? Why should I accept your rules? The more I read about this basic income idea the more it appears to be nothing other than rehashed socialism. Power and authority exerted by an elite over the masses. The result has always been failure. Socialism kills the human spirit in its clumsy attempt to force altruistic behavior.