That’s cool that you’re on Patreon. Maybe it would help if we apply your logic to yourself?

Your sponsors voluntarily choose to give you their hard-earned money. Because… they’re crazy? No. Probably not. They give you their money because they derive value from how you use their money. Evidently your use of society’s limited resources matches their preferences. They would prefer to live in a world with a basic income. Fortunately for them, you endeavor to point society in the direction of a world that your sponsors would prefer to live in. Your efforts align with their interests.

According to your story, you’re really not happy with the amount of money that your sponsors are giving you. You’re convinced that your sponsors are giving you… too much money. Too much money? Yes! From your perspective… the demand for your effort is wrong…wrong…wrong. It’s excessive! Your sponsors aren’t crazy… but they are fucking up. Kinda.

In order to solve the problem of your sponsors giving you too much money… rather than tell them to spend their money elsewhere… you advocate for redistribution. You advocate overriding the decisions of your sponsors. The government should take some of your income and give it to other people. Like me? Well… I sure am another person.

I’m an advocate of tax choice like you’re an advocate of basic income. Except, you’re a far better advocate than I am. I suck at advocacy. I don’t even have a Patreon page and if I did, barely anybody would give me any money.

Is it a minor detail that I advocate tax choice and I’m not very good at it? Maybe basic income and tax choice are pretty much the same thing?

According to your logic… we increase wealth, happiness and prosperity by transferring your money… which you were using to advocate basic income… to me… so that I can use it to advocate tax choice. Does your logic make sense?

A vegetarian sits down at a restaurant and orders a salad. Because… the vegetarian would prefer to live in a world where less animals are killed by humans. But instead of being served a salad, her waiter brings her a steak. Steak and salad are pretty much the same thing? Of course you don’t advocate 100% redistribution… so perhaps a closer analogy would be a salad with strips of streak on top.

Personally, I’m not a vegetarian. I love steak. But I’m really not going to support a law that forces vegetarians to spend more of their money on meat. Just like I’m really not going to support a law that forces basic income supporters to spend more of their money on tax choice. I don’t have to like other people’s preferences… but I do have to respect them.

Tax choice is all about respect. With tax choice… pacifists are free to boycott war like vegetarians are free to boycott meat. And you’re free to disagree… but you’re not free to disrespect. If you want to change other people’s preferences… then you have to rely solely on persuasion, logic and evidence.

Right now you’re solely relying on persuasion, logic and evidence. And it’s wonderful. Except for the part where you’re promoting a system that bypasses this priceless persuasion process.