Most apparently-equal rules aren’t actually equal in their effects. Charging everyone the same amount usually hurts poor people more. UBI is one of the few apparently-equal policies that would likely help the poor more than the rich.
Yes and on top of the obvious absurdity of this statement, there is a second level. As long as we punish things with fines they are effectively legal if you're rich enough.
That principle is only relevant in societies that don't have lotteries or inheritance, among other changes.
Curious where that idea comes from - source? Haven't encountered it.
I know that many people _think_ that, or _feel_ that way, but I haven't read anything (philosophy, political philosophy, etc), that actually theorizes it _should_ be that way, or that it really _is_ that way.
Tim Berners-Lee -- how much money does he have, and what is his contribution to society?
Or, the classic kindergarten teacher vs NBA player, etc.
By simply asking the question "Who will pay for UBI and who will receive it", the degree to which it's "fair", "just", or "equal" becomes obviously nebulous
Whether it'll work or not, I know that's a larger question.
Also, I think it'd be more helpful if you would lead with what notion of fairness (why put it in quotes?) you yourself believe UBI represents.
Because it's possible that some people may agree with you, and others may not. And that would be a good starting point for discussion.
I don't know much about the economics. Curious, how so?
> UBI is largely about symbolic equality, the kindergarten-level fairness of everyone getting the same amount. That’s important because symbols of equality are important.
IMHO, what you described is justice. Equality. Not kindergarten-level, or, rather, I guess it is, in the sense of it being fundamental to our moral understanding : ).