Exactly what did I miss? I answered your question with an example you posted the wiki to, a question you seem to have known the answer to, which begs the question, why did you even ask your question if you knew good an well exactly how a UBI can be funded? What, that's not good enough for you? Let me ask you plainly before I waste my to giving MORE references to your imbecilic insinuating contention that UBI is funded through THEFT, have you exhausted your research in exactly how ubi could be funded and is this then a semantic argument where taxes or duties incurred for using privileges is Theft?
It's either Theft or it's not, and the benefits from the transalaskan pipeline aren't Theft, so why is it Theft?
No moral sense or legal sense?
In a moral sense the genius unmatched of Benjamin Franklin said
The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.
All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
In a legal sense and a lawful, common sense, sense Taxes are the burden you voluntarily chose to bear for the benefits. In other terms, the Legal Maxims:
Favors from government often carry with them an enhanced measure of regulation.
He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.
He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.
He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.
He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage.
A privilege is, as it were, a private law.
A privilege is a personal benefit and dies with the person.
One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.
What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.
What benefits? The benefits of citizenship, this why it's private law, you work for the state by dawning the title citizen. As your employer they have every right to tell you how to wipe the floor, the privileges of citizenship Cary their own disadvantages.
how can education be provided without resorting to theft
how can healthcare be provided without resorting to theft
how can any social service be provided without resorting to theft.
The argument you want to make is that UBI is provided by theft, but instead, you phrase it as a question, as if it simply never clarified how it can be achieved without theft, good one, that's why you have plenty of example above to rub those two nerve cells together.
See the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline.
nah...you mean Alaska Permanent Fund
I give you an easy question and you miss it...
Shame.
How else?
Exactly what did I miss? I answered your question with an example you posted the wiki to, a question you seem to have known the answer to, which begs the question, why did you even ask your question if you knew good an well exactly how a UBI can be funded? What, that's not good enough for you? Let me ask you plainly before I waste my to giving MORE references to your imbecilic insinuating contention that UBI is funded through THEFT, have you exhausted your research in exactly how ubi could be funded and is this then a semantic argument where taxes or duties incurred for using privileges is Theft?
Yes, for everitt giving something back to the society you live in based on a rule the society gave itself is theft.
It makes neither legal nor moral sense, but that is how religious believers live.
It's either Theft or it's not, and the benefits from the transalaskan pipeline aren't Theft, so why is it Theft?
No moral sense or legal sense?
In a moral sense the genius unmatched of Benjamin Franklin said
In a legal sense and a lawful, common sense, sense Taxes are the burden you voluntarily chose to bear for the benefits. In other terms, the Legal Maxims:
https://ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html
What benefits? The benefits of citizenship, this why it's private law, you work for the state by dawning the title citizen. As your employer they have every right to tell you how to wipe the floor, the privileges of citizenship Cary their own disadvantages.
how can education be provided without resorting to theft
how can healthcare be provided without resorting to theft
how can any social service be provided without resorting to theft.
The argument you want to make is that UBI is provided by theft, but instead, you phrase it as a question, as if it simply never clarified how it can be achieved without theft, good one, that's why you have plenty of example above to rub those two nerve cells together.