The idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is often criticized as being coercive and antithetical to individual liberty. The idea of a UBI involves taking money from some individuals through taxation or other means, and redistributing it to others as a form of guaranteed income. This type of wealth redistribution is seen by many voluntaryists as a violation of property rights, as it involves the use of force to take from some individuals and give to others without their consent.

With that said, the specific argument against UBI in this context is that it fails to address the real issue at hand. The displacement of jobs due to automation is a legitimate concern, but the solution is not to simply pay people not to work. Instead, the focus should be on creating an environment that fosters innovation and entrepreneurship, which can lead to new jobs and economic growth. Additionally, individuals should have the freedom to adapt and retrain for new job opportunities as they arise, without being coerced into a particular path or relying on government handouts.

In regards to Andrew Yang's specific comment about truck drivers learning to code, it is true that many jobs that were thought to be safe from automation are now at risk. However, the solution is not to simply encourage people to move into other industries without addressing the root cause of job displacement. Rather, voluntaryists would argue for a free market approach that allows individuals to pursue their own interests and innovate, while respecting the property rights of others and minimizing the use of coercion and force.