The end does not justify the means. Forcibly removing someone's money and transferring it to another person can never be justified. Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion.
However, if a billionaire wishes to privately sponsor UBI, this is a completely different story in charity and example that should be regarded. It's important to differentiate between the two, but unfortunately most UBI schemes refer to extortion, not charity.
> Forcibly removing someone's money and transferring it to another person can never be justified
Except that almost everything government does involves removing someone's money - through taxes - and transferring it to another person - through social programs (including public school, building infrastructure), social programs, paying government employees, etc.
> If a billionaire wishes to privately sponsor UBI...
Extending this to include the social programs listed above: gee I can't wait to lick a billionaire's boots and do the hokey-pokey to be allowed to drive on their roads, have my burning house saved by their private firefighters, and send my kids to the schools they own.
> The end does not justify the means. Forcibly removing someone's money and transferring it to another person can never be justified.
I agree. For that reason we should redistribute wealth from lazy rent-seeking shareholders and landlords. Billionaires and shareholders are legalized slave owners and should be treated as such.
> Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion.
Our law creates both property rights and taxes. Taxes aren't theft because, by law, that money is actually the government's property. If you want individualistically overrule our law to make taxes theft, I might as well do the same to make your property mine.
The notion of property rights is not created by the law, but a law of nature, a concept intuitively understood by human beings. The same goes for theft. The law only adopted these concepts, but it created taxes. It is not intuitively obvious that some entity is entitled to a percentage of the money you're earning.
You can change the law any way you want, but you're not changing the underlying laws of nature, and they allow you to make a case that taxes are theft. Whether that's actually true is then of course debatable and depends on a lot of variables, but saying that someone else's property should arbitrarily be yours immediately contradicts those fundamental laws.
> The notion of property rights is not created by the law, but a law of nature, a concept intuitively understood by human beings. The same goes for theft. The law only adopted these concepts, but it created taxes. It is not intuitively obvious that some entity is entitled to a percentage of the money you're earning.
Nope, sorry. You might be on to something if you limited yourself to the "foreign relations" of a community, but we're talking about intracommunity relations here. If you're looking for laws of nature, socially obligatory sharing is far more fundamental and important than any primal notions of exclusivist private property and theft.
Concepts like private property, theft, and taxation do have primitive antecedents, but you're guilty of anachronism if you think those antecedents make some modern ideological notion a kind of fundamental law.
> The end does not justify the means. Forcibly removing someone's money and transferring it to another person can never be justified. Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion.
Unrelatedly, I have also proven beyond a doubt that Ray Charles is God.
However, if a billionaire wishes to privately sponsor UBI, this is a completely different story in charity and example that should be regarded. It's important to differentiate between the two, but unfortunately most UBI schemes refer to extortion, not charity.