I'm out of mod points, so I'll just say: Good post.

Then why all the fuss about burning down the Brazilian rain forests?

As opposed to Democrats who love illegal immigrants and want them here by the millions, but then can't understand why wages can't keep up as the labor market gets flooded.

You're referring of course to the billions of people around the world who drive cars, use electricity, burn trees for heat, or any other activity which contributes to climate change, yes?

Convince the world to go back to a pre-industrial standard of living, and all the industry funded "science" in the world won't make a difference. There won't BE a fossil fuel industry.

You can do that like everyone else. Invest your income.

Why should your children be paid for work you did? No other type of profession gets that, why are "artists" special?

Assuming there were any good intentions seems awfully hasty...

What? Why would anyone voluntarily report to jail for tax avoidance. Come and get me assholes!

Now what are you going to do in your aggression-free world?

And aren't garnishment and liens aggression? What would you call it today if the US just took things from other countries? Wouldn't that be aggression? Aren't taxes themselves aggression? Taking something from someone - in this case the fruit if their labor - without their permission?

Life is aggression.

LOL, whatever you you, Mr. Internet Badass.

In any of a million ways. Here's a simple one using your civil disobedience: refusing to pay taxes which they believe are unjust.

It's non-violent civil disobedience. How will the rule of law be upheld without the use of aggression by the state?

Wait, so you're saying liberals are better than conservatives and conservatives are merely tolerated, after listing the atrocities committed by liberals?

You're a typical left-wing nutjob. You'll prove to everyone how superior you are even if it kills them.

So when the minority disagrees with the outcome of democracy and simply ignores the law, how does the democracy keep them in line? Asking them nicely to cooperate? Or by using aggression to punish the offenders?

So by being a part of this discussion with you right now, you believe that I've justified forcing someone else to grow my food, sew my clothes, and build my home? Is there any bar too low for your measure of "contribution"?

Those things are currently reimbursed via the free market at exactly the rate they're worth: $0.

Ah, you must be coming from the ridiculous view that consumption is contributing, therefore merely being a consumer and producing nothing is admirable, because being a consumer gives the producers something to do. There are people who do not contribute; they do not produce anything. They only consume. A guaranteed income will increase that segment of people who wish to do nothing but consume. Hell, if I didn't have to actually earn the right to consume food, clothing and shelter I might be tempted to spend my days doing nothing too. Get up when I want, go where I want whenever I want, and let some other poor sap spending his time producing so that I can consume. Until all jobs are eliminated and robots and computers produce everything, there's always somebody required to produce.

Further, your characterization of money as somebody being able to interfere is completely unfounded, and another symptom of your faulty thinking. There's an inherent requirement to produce which is universal and unavoidable, caused by existence as we know it. People need to eat and have shelter from the elements. Needs aren't imposed by people with money, it's biology. Beyond needs, people also have wants. To meet those needs and wants, a person has two choices: produce their own goods, or provide a service to other people who will then provide those goods to you. Money merely abstracts the services you've provided to others. Government interference comes in the form of telling me how I'm allowed to meet my needs and wants (you must purchase product X, but are not allowed to purchase product Y), and then taking an ever larger piece of every exchange of value (when you purchase product X, we get a cut of your labor), so don't blame people with money for that. If people have money, it's because they produced something that others wanted, and have contributed. People without money do not produce. It's that simple. You can argue that the wealthy are disproportionately rewarded for what they produce, but the basic fact remains.

It's perfectly logical for a person to wish for minimal interference and be against consumption without corresponding production. If you can't understand that, it's not my fault.

Nothing you said has any relevance, it's borderline gibberish.