Economic Justice as Logical Consistency

Zera Yacob's philosophical method was to expose contradictions in widely accepted beliefs. He applied this to wealth and poverty: societies claiming to value human equality while permitting absolute destitution contain logical flaws. This approach makes UBI not primarily an empirical policy question but a logical one. If we accept that all humans possess equal rational capacity and moral worth, can we consistently deny some the material conditions to exercise that capacity? Yacob would say no—the inconsistency is philosophical before it is political. UBI examined through logical consistency demands asks whether current distribution systems pass rational scrutiny or rely on hidden assumptions about differential human worth. Yacob rejected religious justifications for inequality and demanded secular, reason-based arguments. Few such arguments withstand scrutiny. This concept elevates UBI from pragmatism to philosophical necessity: the contradiction between proclaimed equality and actual deprivation cannot be solved by policy tweaks but requires fundamental restructuring. Universal Basic Income becomes the logical conclusion of premises most societies already claim to accept.