> "Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either."

The main difference being that evidence changes between 2009 and 2015. Maybe there is new evidence since then to really support your claim that I'm not aware of? Evidence is constantly changing. Raw reasoning and logic is not constantly changing. If the only basis we're working from is rational thought, then you should be able to reach the same conclusions that Aristotle did.

Hence, the request for evidence.

> 'You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context.'

I'm using efficiency specifically in the economic context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency).

I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms. Additionally, I'll be the first to admin that my economics background is merely some early econ classes in college and a general interest afterward. I'd be very interested to hear from any economics if I've badly mucked up any of these concepts.

> "In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending."

I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion. This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries. I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing.

I'm happy to debate if the amount of government spending is currently too high or too low; I'm happy to discuss where the best place for it to be is. However, if you would seriously contend that the correct number is zero I think we may be too far apart on a base ideological level to continue this conversation in a productive way. At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.