RE: Universal Basic Income as Compensation for the Creation and Defense of Private Property Rights
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.
Redistributing the proceeds from 'crime' (theft) isn't theft. It's far more just than the initial theft. And see my reply to you below addressing the claim that this is socialism.
I couldn't disagree more. A car dealership selling stolen cars is aiding and abetting the car thieves. Even if they claim to have the lowest price in town enabling people who otherwise couldn't afford a car to buy one, they are still distributing property taken from others illegally, without their consent. Redistributing the proceeds of a crime is criminal.
It's not aiding and abetting the original crime. Removing the proceeds of crime from people is a disincentive to commit that particular crime. If someone goes around and steals the car stereos from everyone in a suburb, and then we take those stereos and give them back to the people, that's clearly not aiding and abetting the stealing of car stereos. And it's clearly a more just action than the original theft.
The original crime in the case of your UBI plan is property ownership. Owning things, that is the original crime. And your plan is to steal what people own and give it to other people and call it "just." I get it.
Return the stolen loot back to the victim, instead of patting them on the back and asking for more..
Exactly.
Even if it's not, you are advocating More theft in order to have more funds to distribute. .
You're right, not it's not a good argument. But that doesn't matter to them, they just want free money!