its not an contradiction - i assumed it was obvious that "never want to contribute" implies true altruistic behaviour, where as doing it for "PR" reasons dont count.

IN any case, yes its true that the rich shouldn't be forced to give up their assets for those who didn't earn it. But for BI to work, this essentially _has_ to be the case! Lets say the total amount of money (however you want to count it) is M, while the total amount of goods and services produced in 1 period of time is P. If BI were instated, how could it be paid for? Either increase M (by printing money essentially), or by keeping M constant, but redistribute it from those who have more (the machine owners) to those who don't have as much. Increasing M simply causes inflation, since P didn't change in this case, and so after a while, shit just gets more and more expensive. Redistributing M is what you said above - forcibly taking the assets from someone and give it to someone else. Neither is going to work imho. You might say P would increase, offsetting the problem of increasing M and the inflation it causes. THat might happen, but i don't think the rate at which P increases will match the rate at which M increases.