The author's argument is essentially, > Billionaires should pay their taxes so we can finance giving everyone basic income, creators won't have to monetize the

The author's argument is essentially, > Billionaires should pay their taxes so we can finance giving everyone basic income, creators won't have to monetize the web, and humanity can live in peace. Ah, what remarkably wishful naivete. There are so many faulty assumptions in that premise. It assumes billionaires paying taxes would finance universal basic income. It would not. It assumes there will always be billionaires to tax. But if we remove competitive incentives, there may well be few or no billionaires. (It's a testament to capitalism that it has not only raised myriads out of poverty, but also created legions of super wealthy.) It assumes people who receive universal basic income will "no longer be pitted against each other." But competition will always exist; it's intrinsic to nature itself. The author assumes people will be more virtuous if only we didn't have to work for a living. This is not true. Humans are terrible, and most of us are not bright creative luminaries who'd spend our time in productive or creative pursuits. Rather, most of us are lazy and selfish by nature at best, self-destructive at worst. It assumes UBI would create peace for humanity. This is not true. Fighting, competition, and resource claiming is intrinsic to nature. In short, this article has a clickbait headline -- it really has little to do with LaTeX -- and a remarkably naive conclusion.