Push To Implement Basic Income For All

[Mike Gorman]

The concept of our society providing a 'living income' for all has been touted for at least 200 hundred years, going beyond the current ideas of 'social security' and the welfare state. This idea proposes that we can implement a truly practical solution to poverty & homelessness by issuing all citizens with a base income. This has been largely rejected by conservative elements as being a 'Utopian' pipe dream, and is counter-intuitive for a lot of practically minded people.

However the problems of poverty & homelessness persist even within the most affluent of countries; surely we can look at this idea with fresh eyes and the benefit of our dynamic modern 'disruption' paradigm?

Not Socialism, not a pipe dream, not economic naivety. This man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine)came up with the idea some time ago, many are saying it is time to re-visit his ideas

Well this is a genuine movement, there are people looking at this idea and accepting that it can indeed be a reality, a new era for human dignity and potential.

We as Avalonians, people who are engaged with alternative perspectives, new ideas and ingenious innovation should look at this and see where we can promote, augment and develop this revolutionary concept; so that human-kind may be free of crushing poverty and the limitations of 'not having enough'! A website to view (http://www.yourbasicincome.com/)
I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[Draco]

One idea but not the hole solution is to stop competing with each other, and help more than beat, aid instead of control. just removing competing aspect from society would be one step in riding of class division and restoring social harmony. No means will it instantly fix poverty or bring peace but got to start somewhere.:shielddeflect::bearhug::wizard::peace:

[risveglio]

One idea but not the hole solution is to stop competing with each other, and help more than beat, aid instead of control. just removing competing aspect from society would be one step in riding of class division and restoring social harmony. No means will it instantly fix poverty or bring peace but got to start somewhere.:shielddeflect::bearhug::wizard::peace:

Also a great way to keep us completely stagnant.

[Draco]

Also a great way to keep us completely stagnant.[/QUOTE]

This is true under the current model which needs to change , progress can still be achieved in new ways. More transparency community projects in stead of competitions and corporations in control. These are only a few suggestions with more input for the think tank possibility are endless. :idea::welcome:

[Carmody]

To play the counterargument, as it needs be said:

How to deal with animal level desire/instinct into overbreeding?

This is a subject that is entirely in the same envelope of agenda.

No self control of breeding, no income.

Not even a twitch of nastiness or even emotion in my remark, but it's entirely, logically, in the same breath as the idea of a universal basic income.

[Ernie Nemeth]

This is not a solution. To pay people a basic salary is to forever enable their sense of entitlement. Money is slavery. How about stop taxing the poor? Anyone whose earnings fall below the poverty level, which is about $30,000 in Canada, should be exempt from paying taxes. That would be a help. I don't want to be dependant on the government for my income. I can hustle work and money on my own just fine. Emphasis on hustle. De-emphasis on a "job".

Or even better, to free the world of their ridiculous indebtedness: forgive all nations their debts. One of Harper's last actions, Canada's former Prime Minister, was to pay the central bank $20,000,000,000. Then the Liberals borrowed $40,000,000,000 for infrastructure upgrades. There's your problem - spending money you don't have.

Also, taxes allow the government into our lives on a massive scale. That is why they like the idea of paying everyone a stipend. Then everyone must report every last nickel (used to be penny but those are out of circulation) and the government can feel justified to snoop into our private lives to make sure we haven't tried to take advantage of their largesse.

I say buy local, shop local and support your local businesses. And those with money - you could call up the big boys (say a big-shot contractor), find out what they charge then call up your local little guy and offer them that amount for their work. Now you are helping, not hindering. Don't talk them down because, since you have got money, you do not deserve a deal and should never hunt for one. it's called enriching the little guy. The converse is taking advantage of the little guy. Which one better fits your mind-set?

Finally, we could do this whole civilization thing completely differently and abolish money outright and start working for ourselves and our communities. We are rich but our birthright has been stolen from us. If only we could understand just how rich we are, just how rich this world is! If we did, we would realize the extent of the bamboozling we have been subject to. Wake up world, we are rich and our riches have been stolen from us while we slept!

[amor]

Think of the mentally ill thrown out on the street to live many years ago. Think of the elderly poor who struggled all their lives to hold a job and who try to live on much less than $11,000 a year who must pay for house and car insurance, lawn cutting by law, utilities each of which rise yearly by $20, worthless health insurance with so many co-payments and other charges, Medicare at $104/month, $149 yearly deduction before so called pay per provider add on policies which restrict your doctors to very few and then additional charges are made. A hospital stay is set at ten thousand dollars a night; therefore Medicare Part A charges a set amount of $300 approx for just so many days. You are given 15 minutes to cover a myriad of complaints because you were unable to afford a doctor for 32 years and leave without any help. If you don't own a roof over your head, forget it. House repairs mean that your food budget is cut for many months, small as it was.

Houses are too large and expensive. Many homeless would be very comfortable to live in a 14 ft. x 14 ft. studio with a little patio. Government legislates huge sums of money for some project and steals most of it; the tax payers are then stuck with their largess. Shame. Shame. Shame.

[ozmirage]

Here's a test of basic intelligence to go with "basic income."

In one group, [A] everyone is EQUALLY WEALTHY. No one "needs money," so no one bothers to go work, sweat, strain, make an effort, mine, farm, fabricate, transport and trade usable goods and services.

In the other group, [B] everyone is prodigiously productive, producing, trading and enjoying surplus usable goods and services.

Which one will survive?

Obviously Group [B].
Group [A] has gone extinct, unless everyone wakes up and gets productive despite not needing money (nor a "basic income").

Which group needs a "basic income" to be prosperous?
Neither.

[Rocky_Shorz]

with automation comes unemployment.

Manufacturing is going robotic, replacing 1000 employees with a machine, the owner gets rich, those sucking on it's teet in the stock market get their slice, and it's ok good for business...

but wait what about the 999 that were laid off by this machine, shouldn't it pay for their living, removing slave labor payment and replacing it with a basic sustainable living?

that is where old school Capitolistic thinking smashes into reality.

someone has to pay for those no longer needed to turn the wheel...


my parents spent the money to put in drip systems and desert landscaping to save money on their water Bill. they used $15 in water last month and were charged $90 to cover transport and wastewater. $105

a business up the street that uses $10K of water each month is charged the same for transport

is that fair?

our nation isn't built on being fair.

everyone pays their fair share, someone decided $90 is a fair share for everyone to pay...

the people wanting the public to pay their share, own the airways and the politicians...

the time is coming where this free ride is over, and yet another free ride needs to start at the same time.

start building urban vertical farms to create needed industry, lowering the price on healthy foods so everyone can afford them.

the transition from here to there, won't be easy, but it has to happen...

[christian]

A basic income means that unproductive people are by law entitled to the property and produce of productive people.

Read that a couple of times, until it really sinks in.

A basic income means that creativity will be punished and consumerism will be rewarded.

Interesting side note: "The Cloward–Piven strategy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy) is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of 'a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty'."

[Rocky_Shorz]

someone was saying the cost of administering the welfare system cost more than the benefits paid, just by removing the system of deciding who deserves help, could double the aid being paid. Make it a given everyone deserves help when needed. Start state banks, and accounts of the unemployed are filled, income deposited will trigger a stop to the automatic payment system. Real interest is paid to depositors drawing in everyone tired of paying banks to use our money to get richer.

Are we really supposed to thank bankers for all they have done for us?

[ozmirage]

with automation comes unemployment.
That is correct - but only for money mad systems.

Under money madness, there are only THREE ways to get money :

1. Trade (labor, property),
2. Charity (private, public),
3. Predation (extortion, theft, crime).

When laborers can no longer labor, and exhaust charity, all that remains is predation - which is an unacceptable option (officially). Ergo, the collectivists argue that PUBLIC CHARITY is the remedy.

But relying on government to impose compulsory charity (socialism) is not wise. Penalizing the productive for the benefit of the nonproductive shatters the unity of a culture, pitting the recipients against the donors, in a never ending battle over who takes or keeps what was earned. Worse, it compels people to support those they would never wish to. In other words, forcing the good to support the bad. No donor should be compelled to support those who are repugnant, disgusting or otherwise unacceptable to their conscience. All because of money madness and the ingrained “need” for a share of that scarce, finite money token... under the control of the money masters.

How does one deal with unemployment outside of money madness?

Since prosperity is based on production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services, and the function of money is to facilitate trade by holding equitable value until a future trade, we can implement the opposite of giving money to the unemployed workers.

The FOURTH WAY

We can implement organic liberty money. That’s where the producer (laborer, businessman, industrialist) creates the money token that is used to buy that which he does / produces / possesses. The money token can be coin, paper or electronic entries.

For example, instead of public charity taken from another worker, let the prospective worker issue a promissory note (coupon) denominated in hours of labor, with which he trades for his necessities. When a prospective employer tenders his note back to him, he discharges his obligation and extinguishes that note. Of course, this will only work for honorable people whose word is their bond. Anyone who tries to “game” the system will lose credibility and can’t emit their own organic money.

Instead of begging for credit from usurers, entrepreneurs can finance their operation by issuing private promissory notes denominated in what they can produce, and use them to buy labor and materials. By "spending" their own money into circulation, they create a ready base of customers who will tender those notes for the particular product or service. And if they need employees, they can also trade for labor notes, and save on advertising, etc, etc.

In other words, only producers have the power to create money - the medium of exchange used to trade that which they produce. No parasite like government or usurers / bankers are allowed to create money.

Organic money is freed of the limitation of scarce species and debt-credit. Unfortunately, if implemented on a wide scale, it would have the effect of destroying the fungibility of the worthless Federal Reserve Notes (no par value). In short, billionaires become zero-aires.

How sad.

(Addendum : since only non-socialists have the power to create organic money, the pool of donors would swiftly shrink, leaving the recipient class with two options - become producers or seek private charity.)

[T Smith]

A basic income means that unproductive people are by law entitled to the property and produce of productive people.



We have that system already... it's called the income tax. But an even more insidious system of bilking the property and produce of productive people is inflation, caused by the collusion between big government and central bankers. The income tax itself technically has nothing to do with taking from the productive; it's simply a means to reign in and manage the real culprit, which is out-of-control inflation.

The elephant in the room, which I haven't heard any of the critics address, is what happens to the "basic price" of those basic necessities once you give everyone a "basic income"?

You can give every person in the world a salary of $1,000 per month, even $2,000.00 per month, but what good will it do when the allotted stipend won't even cover the cost of food, clothing, and shelter?

[Carmody]

So we can see that the answers and questions are not simple. Any system will have errors and spillage.

Removing the resource limit (over unity energies) while maintaining an atmosphere that curbs population explosion (legal limits, possibly, but that's a flammable area), might be a component of coming change.

Next problem, is that over unity materials automatically beget a world wide phenomenon of discovery and work in those areas and some of them are pure unbridled destruction and decimation. down to being able to tear the fabric of reality apart. As Joseph P Farrell says, some of them make nukes look like firecrackers--- and that's just a small corner of the situation. Ultimate power means exactly that, ultimate power. Practically.....individualized.


It gets worse. Much much worse. Worse than 99.9999% of the public understands.

So, it's a bridge of getting into a open world, with no resource problems, no population explosion, no environmental decimation, all peoples moving into the loss of ego and massive mental expansion, the removal of all fear and layered control system religions, combined with technological expansion on the individual power level that is wholly capable of tearing the world to shreds, literally..a technological expansion that is completely out anyone's ability to control.

The people need to be opened and relaxed, all at the same time, and then the technology can come on line. Any other recipe is basically a unbridled disaster. Unity in motion and thought, IS required for this sort of transition.

So we may be looking at an alien introduction scenario, in order to shatter all organized religion and break the back of human warfare, combined with whatever else unites all humans in a drastic increase in awareness.

Then the freedom and technology. As the will to over-breed ends with the end of poverty, and the end of (organized) religion. No room for popes or Allah, god, so on. Such things may remain but they must be shattered and transformed, first. How people exist in the scope of their religion and projection of that mindset, it's overall current meme, has to go. It can change, but the shattering of it has to come first, as it is a component of the world's decimation, and blocks the world's stepping into and expansion into what is coming.

Note the elitist control of such structures and their lack of desire to let go of their tools, methods, and ways.

Essentially, it means the people must feel comfortable, enabled, and their desires fulfilled. Which means each potential person who might individually "eat the world" through added comforts (houses, boats, planes, belongings, etc...and bearing many children.... must be calmed down, without the world eating expansion of personal belongings and desires being fulfilled to the limit of their underlying biological desires.

That their thoughts being controlled by their biological aspects, as it is now, that must be changed. So, some internal insanity is on the horizon, for each individual, as they go through a deep fundamental shift. (when reorganizing the mind on deep levels, it feels like and is a form of insanity, the mind is simultaneously tearing itself down and making it new, all while one exists and expresses through -and in it)

The idea of a universal income is nice but, I'm not sure how it integrates into the problems that humanity faces at this time.

[Carmody]

meanwhile, in the so called real world, which is utterly meaningless horse****, that is completely disconnected, and spends it's time arguing over things that mean nothing..you've got this sort of thing. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/busted-telemundo-caught-staging-nevertrump-protesters-news-photos-video/)

Or this sort of thing (http://observer.com/2016/03/europe-is-again-at-war/), or this (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/politics/chinese-military-jet-lands-on-island/).

And it's drivel. All of it is drivel. Lives begin and end with it, lives shift with it and people all stare and pay attention and talk about it..but it is drivel. Meaningless disconnected drivel, that has no connection to any of what are the real problems we are facing, in what is, let's face it, a holographic reality, that is on one plane of reality--out of many. One where the connection to it as being singular and all that is, is being forced, via making a self locked loop, out of the conditions that exist within it.

So people talk about universal incomes or not, it's complications regarding finance and resource...the world at war, newspapers, starvation, murder, insanity..etc, but really, it has nothing to do with reality but as a block on understanding reality.

I just see blinded rats in a cage (controllers are inclusive), setting themselves on fire, banging into the walls, falling into the water and drowning, and so on.

does a universal income help end this issue and marching process which seems hell bend on cliff type endings?

Well, it depends. It depends on a lot of things. One thing for sure... No universal income can be viewed or considered in isolation. It's context has to have meaning, it's execution has to have meaning, a motion into something else, is what it can be. A universal income is not a destination, it is a transition point, in a sequence of events - at best.

[Mike]

A basic supply of food, water..and a roof over one's head should not be considered a privilege. It's a right. One *should* feel entitled to such things. There is no sensible reason why anyone should not be extended these basic dignities...whether they "earn" them or not.

This insidious idea of having to earn everything is a very distorted and perverted take on the ol protestant work ethic. But people, especially here in the states, embrace it and revere it....even tho its been manipulated to the point of keeping many of them in poverty.

There will always be so called unproductive people. There are many, many reasons for this...reasons those of us typing in the comfort of our cozy homes will never understand. It's EASY to sit here and spit statistics and throw around terms like "entitlement"....but ask yourself: have you ever been totally broke? Down and out? Homeless? Starving? In these conditions, its all empty rhetoric.

Im not suggesting we give everyone a mansion and a ferrari. Just the basics. Far from encouraging laziness, I believe these "unproductive" people would surprise us. Sure, some people would take advantage of a basic income, but others - having been extended some dignity for the first time in their lives - would thrive. Computers aside, its much easier to apply for a job with a full belly and clothes that don't double as rags.

So yeah, i'm all for it..even if the money is coming out of my pocket. I'm hardly pious, but maybe it's the catholic in me.. I dont know. Only on earth would this be considered a nuisance. On more evolved planets it would likely be seen as a spiritual opportunity.

[Rocky_Shorz]

As Trump says I would be crazy to pay taxes if I'm not forced to.

These are the people you would put in charge of creating money?

That's why the answer is state controlled banks who create the money to pay employees.

In a system that all basic necessities are met, people will want more and that drive is what brings them to productivity.

This would also allow starving artists and musicians to survive and put their energies into being creative.

What Avalon has spoke of since the beginning is the age to follow our current system.

The golden age leaves all poverty behind.

How do any of you think this would happen without caring for the poor?

[onawah]

According to some researchers ( http://marijagimbutas.com/ ) in so-called "primitive" matriarchal societies, the first priority was that everyone was provided with the necessities of life, and those societies were peaceful, respectful of the Earth, and probably a lot happier than modern societies.
Certainly, it is a different world now, but there are still tribes that live that way, I believe, and the assumption that basic human nature is not designed to live peacefully and in harmony with Nature is not supported by that research.
And I think that is a factor that should be taken into consideration, even though the probable increased ET population here has no doubt complicated things since those early times (and some of those (positive) ETs now here may be far more "human" than the average Earth human is, and the negative ETs far less human).

[Eram]

A basic supply of food, water..and a roof over one's head should not be considered a privilege. It's a right. One *should* feel entitled to such things. There is no sensible reason why anyone should not be extended these basic dignities...whether they "earn" them or not.

This insidious idea of having to earn everything is a very distorted and perverted take on the ol protestant work ethic. But people, especially here in the states, embrace it and revere it....even tho its been manipulated to the point of keeping many of them in poverty.

There will always be so called unproductive people. There are many, many reasons for this...reasons those of us typing in the comfort of our cozy homes will never understand. It's EASY to sit here and spit statistics and throw around terms like "entitlement"....but ask yourself: have you ever been totally broke? Down and out? Homeless? Starving? In these conditions, its all empty rhetoric.

Im not suggesting we give everyone a mansion and a ferrari. Just the basics. Far from encouraging laziness, I believe these "unproductive" people would surprise us. Sure, some people would take advantage of a basic income, but others - having been extended some dignity for the first time in their lives - would thrive. Computers aside, its much easier to apply for a job with a full belly and clothes that don't double as rags.

So yeah, i'm all for it..even if the money is coming out of my pocket. I'm hardly pious, but maybe it's the catholic in me.. I dont know. Only on earth would this be considered a nuisance. On more evolved planets it would likely be seen as a spiritual opportunity.




bump

bump

bump

All trial versions of a basic income in Europe prove your points Mike.
unemployment, criminality and depression goes down, happiness, dignity and social contacts go up.

[Mike]

Hey thanks Eram.

Ya know, in my every day life I'm so used to people disagreeing with me that I could hardly remember what it was like to be on the same page with somebody.:) well, it feels pretty good actually!

I had no idea about the trial in Europe, but I appreciate you mentioning it.

[shaberon]

A basic supply of food, water..and a roof over one's head should not be considered a privilege. It's a right. One *should* feel entitled to such things. There is no sensible reason why anyone should not be extended these basic dignities...whether they "earn" them or not.


I tend to agree with this, moreso than the monetary aspect. I would extend it to placing a huge honor on the ability to give, compared to what we have now is a huge honor to profit. If taking care of people is not the number one priority, then you really don't have civilization.

Labor for purposes of direct charity should be the standard.

It should all be about getting those bricks, cabbages, and pants where they need to go; perhaps by a system of rationing instead of free money. I would tend to think money should be reserved for something that's not a "basic need", such as, you want to ride a roller coaster at a theme park, it costs something. And in turn, perhaps you are required to work x number of hours as charity, before you are able to make any money.

I don't really have an answer for all the details of it. But I do know that if money was not such a huge obstacle, I would have no problem cranking out some work for free.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Money is slavery.

The indigenous peoples of the world do not use money. They seem to do all right, until they meet members of our tribe that is.

Of course everyone has the "right" to basic necessities. It is only that no money needs to be exchanged.

I think that productivity is another lame horse to trot out for the public. What does inflation do to your money? What do fat cat bankers do with their money management? Remember the libor rate scandal? The tax havens for the rich? How about the Cabage Patch Kids fiasco? Productivity is abominably low in the entire world because the value of all goods is tampered with. Interest on every dollar in circulation also steals productivity. Productivity is a measure of the output of a population and their return on that output. But what if what is produced is bombs, war machines and guns? That does not meet my criteria of productivity. Right now we go to work for forty hours every week. Thirty percent goes to taxes. Twenty to the car and related expenses. Another forty percent goes to the house and its maintenance. That leaves the average person with ten percent for their discretionary use. Does that sound productive? Four hours of every forty for personal use, the rest goes to house, car, taxes. If you want more you need to find a mate so that you can send them off to work too. Does this make sense? Does that sound productive?

The productive go to work to support the rich and their opulent lifestyles. No matter who you are, no matter how much you make, those above you made more from your sweat and labor. It is not productive to go to work for less than half what you are worth. It might be productive for the company or country but not for the individual.

While the ptb control the money, make the rules, enforce their strategies, and kill and maim innocent people any handout is detrimental and enabling.

Give us the technology that has been sequestered, give me my flying car and FE and now I`d be ready to consider handouts for those who wish to sit about and let others lead the way forward. But I will not be one of the targeted beneficiaries because I will not need anything from anybody ever again. Except for companionship and partying!

I say stop looking for crumbs from our masters and let`s get the real show on the road. Until then you can keep your stipends and handouts and entitlements. I`ll just hustle from the sidelines and make do with less.

[Hughe]

@Ernie Nemeth


Money is slavery.

The indigenous peoples of the world do not use money. They seem to do all right, until they meet members of our tribe that is.

Of course everyone has the "right" to basic necessities. It is only that no money needs to be exchanged.

I think that productivity is another lame horse to trot out for the public. What does inflation do to your money? What do fat cat bankers do with their money management? Remember the libor rate scandal? The tax havens for the rich? How about the Cabage Patch Kids fiasco? Productivity is abominably low in the entire world because the value of all goods is tampered with. Interest on every dollar in circulation also steals productivity. Productivity is a measure of the output of a population and their return on that output. But what if what is produced is bombs, war machines and guns? That does not meet my criteria of productivity. Right now we go to work for forty hours every week. Thirty percent goes to taxes. Twenty to the car and related expenses. Another forty percent goes to the house and its maintenance. That leaves the average person with ten percent for their discretionary use. Does that sound productive? Four hours of every forty for personal use, the rest goes to house, car, taxes. If you want more you need to find a mate so that you can send them off to work too. Does this make sense? Does that sound productive?
Well said. I totally agree with you.

I realized that money is slavery. Civilized society don't require money. Human civilization exists on exploitation which is abomination against Nature. This is main reason why labor works to produce goods for the necessities of survival has been freaking hard, difficult and dangerous. Typical example is conventional farming. In early spring of each year the first thing farmers do is to destroy soil, kill many life forms in massive scale. Few scientists discovered Natural farming in middle of 20th century but the governments and corporations do not encourage it yet. Why? Natural farming / Permaculture is spreading though out of necessity.

Productivity is joke. The market is flooded with garbage products that would be replaced within few years not a decade. Manufacturers love Obsolescence policy when they design new products to maintain profit margin. When you include resource management and total energy consumptions and human labors into productivity, building a quality product makes sense.


I`ll just hustle from the sidelines and make do with less.
Yes. Buckminster Fuller often emphasized it. "Do many with little effort." This perspective is against the capitalistic economy. So they marginalized him. Rather than living under mortgage debt for entire life, people should start build decent house under few thousands dollars. Driving a car whose fuel mileage is barely 10km/L, drive a tiny car that goes 100km/L. Each person in a developed country would save half million dollars by making alternative choices.

Free Energy? Average folks have to actualize it by themselves through the collective effort. The government and establishment will resist, prevent disrupt technologies to the end.

I wrote a short story (http://wp.me/p1fjgj-2fr) about a future society that people live free. It can be done if few capable individuals work together, then spread the solution to people as a turnkey package. I named them as "Civilization builders".

[T Smith]

Let's assume, for sake of argument, the basic income is a right. Let's assume, as a society, we have developed an algorithm to quantify this right. (This is no easy task, but let's just assume we have mastered the equation and have somehow determined how to quantify the right).

This discussion is all mute until such time when we abolish the central banks that are sucking productivity from everyone, indigent to the well-to-do. The indigent are simply on the unfortunate end of the continuum and are affected in-proportionately, so naturally we're focusing on that end and trying to fix what we see. The woes of the well-to-do don't concern us. So they have to settle for a 40 foot yacht instead of a 50 foot yacht. Who cares? So what we overlook is the elephant in the room. The problem is systemic... it has nothing do with what is a right, privilege, etc.

But let's put this in very simple terms:

When you create 10 dollars out of nothing, dole it out to society, and then demand society produce 11 dollars for the favor, there will always be some poor schmuck without a dollar at the end of the day. That's how our monetary system works. It doesn't matter how we hem and haw and try to redistribute the 10 dollars to accommodate the down-and-out. This is a shell game, a ponzi-scheme. There is always someone without a dollar. But people have a very hard time grasping this very simple concept. All they see are fat cats with all the money and privilege, become outraged at the injustice, and demand the fat cats give some of their spoils to the indigent. It's all very reasonable, in theory, until you understand we are all being played. Those who fall prey to the solution of forced redistribution do not understand the problem. It makes no difference if you take the money from the top and redistribute it down. At the end of the day you can't redistribute what's not there.

A very good example of this is Obama care. Yes, I agree health care is a universal right. I'm not arguing that it isn't. But you can't force the system (as it stands currently) to pay for this right, any more than you can demand the sand of an hour glass to fill up its bottom half without taking from its top. I grant in the abstract this is a hard concept to grasp, from the electorate to the politicians to the bureaucrats who devise these schemes. So what do they do? They appeal to the emotions of the masses, who also agree health care should be a "right" and not a privilege, and then cajole the masses to adopt a system that ultimately increases health-care prices across the board by 13% a year. The result? For the first few years there is universal health care and everyone is happy (albeit with longer lines and lesser quality for all). No matter, it is still more fair than the system that denied health care to some, and those who can afford the increases grumble a little about it--some happily, as they are assured that their cost increases are providing health care to all--but what happens when prices increase another 13% the following year, and then another 13% the year after? Soon employers cap their contributions and pass on the increases to their employees to bear (the alternative is to go out of business), but no matter, everybody has heath care. Until those who are actually paying for the heath care can no longer afford the premiums. Then the entire system cracks. And nobody has health care. This is exactly where we are heading with the system in place now.

The bottom line, it's not sustainable. It may take a few years, but the system will crack. As long as the Federal Reserve is issuing the currency, no social welfare scheme will ever work. Period.

I'm all for the basic income, but I'm sorry, you can't issue the currency, as debt, and redistribute. Someone has to extinguish the debt.

[onawah]

An issue that leaps to my mind when considering the possible benefits of a guaranteed annual income is that it might help to eliminate jobs that marginalized people are forced to take just to survive--jobs that benefit no one, such as working in filthy chicken houses, slaughter houses, in jobs ripping flesh and fur from live animals or down from live geese--jobs that dehumanize people and torture innocent animals and create terrible karma for the whole planet.
The premise is akin to the saying: "what if they gave a war and nobody came?"
If nobody showed up for these kinds of jobs, those industries would either have to completely change their way of operating, or close down.
And if young people who thought the military was a good option had an option to go to school and train for something that didn't support war instead, by living on a guaranteed annual income while they trained for something better, we probably wouldn't have anymore wars.

[Daozen]

Why would we need governments to give us our own money?

[Ernie Nemeth]

Michael Tellinger recounts a story about money and its illusory effect on stimulating productivity. I wont retell it here, but it is worth contemplating its meaning. The story is about a hundred dollar bill that gets passed around the neighbourhood paying off debts before returning to the unsuspecting owner of the note.

Money is based on perception and belief and trust. That is why anything can be used as money - even worthless paper. Even counterfeit money. A million dollars in counterfeit money has the same effect on the economy as real money does. Money is not a representation of value, it is the perception of its value that has value - and anything can represent that perception. If value was placed where it belongs, in people and life and tangible goods, money would not be needed. Money is an intermediary that can be used by savvy individuals to control markets, states and the masses. Remove the middleman and the control structure cannot be hidden from view because they would have to control the actual valuable assets themselves overtly. The way it is we just shrug because the rich have all the goodies because they are rich (ie. have money). If the idea of "rich" were removed we would wonder why certain individuals have so much more than us - and we would not put up with it! The way things are we just shrug because with any luck one day we might be in the same position to enjoy more than we deserve. That is the carrot they dangle just out of reach so we will continue to strive for something we already deserve.

Michael also talks about the fact that we don't charge our kids for the food they eat or the cloths they wear or any other thing we supply them with. Why should society charge for the same thing? We can do this, we can create a world of plenty for all. And we can do it without money.

[East Sun]

Whatever happened to Credo Mutwa?

Sorry -- off topic.............

[christian]

A basic supply of food, water..and a roof over one's head should not be considered a privilege. It's a right. One *should* feel entitled to such things. There is no sensible reason why anyone should not be extended these basic dignities...whether they "earn" them or not.

If you don't work for it, and you want to consider it a right, somebody else must work for it while you reap the rewards. That's called a system of slavery.


This insidious idea of having to earn everything is a very distorted and perverted take on the ol protestant work ethic.

Well, mankind is on Earth. We gotta build shelters, plant food, weave clothing, power our heating systems… And we gotta work for all that, nobody is doing it for us. Would you call that insidious? Working to live. Having to do something in order to live, survive and thrive? Isn't that how nature works? Should we appeal to nature and argue with it to satisfy all our basic needs without us having to work for anything? Or who is gonna provide for us? The government? The politicians? The corporations? The people? All of them? Some of them? Which ones?


There will always be so called unproductive people. There are many, many reasons for this...reasons those of us typing in the comfort of our cozy homes will never understand. It's EASY to sit here and spit statistics and throw around terms like "entitlement"....but ask yourself: have you ever been totally broke? Down and out? Homeless? Starving? In these conditions, its all empty rhetoric.

Im not suggesting we give everyone a mansion and a ferrari. Just the basics. Far from encouraging laziness, I believe these "unproductive" people would surprise us. Sure, some people would take advantage of a basic income, but others - having been extended some dignity for the first time in their lives - would thrive. Computers aside, its much easier to apply for a job with a full belly and clothes that don't double as rags.

So yeah, i'm all for it..even if the money is coming out of my pocket.

There will always be 10 bazillion kinds of unproductive people. Those who are in a desperate situation of no fault of their own. Those who are willing to contribute to work their way out. Those who are broke because they are lazy and anti-social. Those who are indeed feeling entitled. You wanna support all of them with the same basic income? Go ahead, but not with my money, please. I'm for supporting those in need, but not for supporting or encouraging abusive behavior.


All trial versions of a basic income in Europe prove your points Mike.
unemployment, criminality and depression goes down, happiness, dignity and social contacts go up.

There have been some trial versions on a small scale in small environments that already had a relativeñy strong amount of social capital. Yes, there have been some good results.

If you wanna look at trial versions on a larger scale, look at any Socialist country in history.

[onawah]

Buckminster Fuller said:"We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living."

[ozmirage]

A basic supply of food, water..and a roof over one's head should not be considered a privilege. It's a right. .... Only on earth would this be considered a nuisance. On more evolved planets it would likely be seen as a spiritual opportunity.

All trial versions of a basic income in Europe prove your points Mike.
unemployment, criminality and depression goes down, happiness, dignity and social contacts go up.

Ignoring all the gawful side effects of "benevolent" socialism (like destroyed families, declining birthrate, invasion by overpopulated neighbors, and restrictive governments), let us mandate that everyone should be entitled to be equally wealthy instead of equally poor.

BASIC INCOME?

If lack of money was the real problem, then why can’t we just credit everyone with 22 billion billion quatloos, more money than they can ever spend, so they never need money again?

Everyone is equally ‘wealthy.’ Since no one NEEDS money, no one bothers to work, farm, mine, fabricate, transport and produce goods and services. No one is bothering to grow food, distribute water, or build houses. All that money is useless, worthless, and civilization collapses... and even the starving child is in no “need of money.”

WAKE UP... for real.

MONEY is not reality. It is a tool for people to control others who are money mad. And assuming that giving everyone a "basic income" will solve poverty is utter madness.

To GIVE everyone a "basic supply" requires everyone to PRODUCE usable goods and services. Otherwise, some will get the goodies, while others get the misery.

Who do you suppose will enforce such a paradise?
[/sarcasm]

P.S. - you might inquire as to the source of European 'money' - as in who has the power to create it, value it, and spend it into circulation.

[ozmirage]

A basic supply of food, water..and a roof over one's head should not be considered a privilege. . . It's a right. . .
This insidious idea of having to earn everything is a very distorted and perverted take on the ol protestant work ethic.
If you think "earning everything" is perversion, then you must approve of predation - taking what you need from others, by force of government or whatever.

You might have an endowed right to life, but that does not include compelling others to work and sacrifice for your survival.

Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.

Do not embrace the nonsense of wealth redistribution. If poverty was caused by “needing money,” never needing money again should end it - but it doesn’t. If everyone woke up tomorrow with their bank accounts showing 22 billion billion quatloos - more money than they could ever spend - or need - what will they “spend” it on?

If everyone is equally rich - and no one “needs money” and therefore does not go work, farm, manufacture, transport, nor trade goods and services, what’s available to buy? NOTHING. Unless people are productive, all that money is worthless, useless and meaningless.

The carefully crafted scam of money madness keeps us striving to acquire the scarce money token, and paying interest for credit, so that we are perpetually enslaved. To add insult to injury, using government to TAKE from one to GIVE to another, is a perversion... and needs a police state to enforce.

Prosperity is not based on money. Prosperity is based on production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services. Doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.

If you see a society with UNMET NEEDS, UNEMPLOYMENT, UNUSED FACTORIES, etc, you have to question the sanity of the people.

If you ask why are there unemployed, unused factories, and people in need, the universal answer is - "No one has enough money."
But I just showed that having more than enough money doesn't do diddly for prosperity.

Can you see the remedy now?

It's not redistribution, it's not wealth, and it's not collective ownership.

What is stopping the unemployed from "working" at some useful task?
What is stopping the production and trade of usable goods and services?

Fear of inequitable trade.
Fear of being cheated and robbed.

When you figure out how to account for equitable trade without the bottleneck of money madness, parasites like usurers, and government, civilization might be saved.

[shaberon]

If you don't work for it, and you want to consider it a right, somebody else must work for it while you reap the rewards. That's called a system of slavery.


Mostly we go on an almost unspoken assumption that children and the elderly are going to be given some stuff. There used to be an ideal that women should remain in non-productive domestic work. Then we wanted armies and police who produce nothing. Then the mentally and physically ill should be given some stuff. There's already a substantial agreement to give stuff to a whole bunch of people. Except to the worker.

And you can take Mr. Fuller's chain of thought much further: there is someone insuring the health of someone who educates someone to do studies to inform someone how to make rules about the person making instruments for an inspector to inspect an inspector. A lot of the labor pool goes to superfluity.

The problem is almost entirely one of distribution. I would have no problem if, for example, 25% of my labor was a straight giveaway so that all persons could have the basics, regardless of whether they "deserved" it. I do have a problem that a similar portion actually does go to "debt service", "defense", the federal entity in any way, in fact, almost everything that taxes are applied towards, except for a few roads and energy subsidies.

If the dollar had retained its original value, with the "progress" of industry, we would now be able to make a living by working about ten hours a week. Yet we live in houses that would not be allowed in Germany, since they are designed to fall apart and require expensive repairs, therefor giving someone work that would not even be necessary if it was made with quality in the first place. Winchester put themselves out of business by making rifles that outlived the owner; too bad for the profiteers, but that shouldn't really be important.

I would go so far as to say, that providing for the well-being of everyone, whether by a money system or otherwise, would be mankind's first achievement.

[MorningSong]

Next week, Switzerland will be voting a referendum on this very topic:

http://www.basicincome2016.org/

I think we all need to really dive into this and try to see the potential wolf-in-sheep's-skin -OR- utopian paradise this may be. I thank everyone on the thread for think-tanking this topic that is very lkely to become a reality in our lifetime.

I personally fear that it is a trick to truely enslave us all, but that's just my gut feeling of mistrust in all I see nowadays...


Here are more sites/news from the web:

http://www.bin-italia.org/what-if-we-just-gave-poor-people-a-basic-income-for-life-thats-what-were-about-to-test/

http://www.bin-italia.org/

http://www.basicincomecanada.org/

http://citizensincome.org/

http://www.usbig.net/

...the list goes on...

[Iloveyou]

I suppose that the majority of people here (including me) are privileged and live in the comfort zone, more or less. With privileged I mean basic education and having had the opportunity to develop a basic trust in life, a critical mind and creative capabilities, too. Easy to theorize from this position.

Wouldn't you like to make the thought experiment and imagine (in detail) how your own and the life of people around you (family, neighbours, people you don't know but who you run across regularly) would change with basic income?

In the country where I live there's a large (and growing) portion of the population who have retired (with state pension in their mid/ late 50 s, and who - one should think - would enjoy a content, fulfilled life without the struggle to make ends meet from month to month, for the next 30 years, maybe even ready to help others. Far from it. Jealousy, envy, self-righteousness are widespread among these people, most are desillusioned, broken inside. Why? A lifetime of SLAVE WORK from their early youth on. Forced into a life of struggle for food and shelter from age 14, 17 or if they'd been lucky, from their mid 20s on. Now, at 50, 60 years it's too late to start from anew. Break people at a young age, and you will not have to worry about them challenging the system, later.

Human beings love to be social, creative, productive, they love to deal with challenges and even to work hard, as long as it is their own, self-determined decision. Modern slave work produces 'people'. And I'm not talking about Third World countries' life-threatening slave work - and living conditions in a much more literal sense. That's a different thing, though the same on a different level.

Basic income will not be a solution for all problems - but it could be a start to set people free, to breathe free for the first time, to contemplate their life, their existence.

I'm all for it :)

(And yes, others, 'lazy' ones, would probably profit from my work. So what? As long as I love my work and have a good life, too - I very much hope that wouldl be the case.)

[Carmody]

When technology is held back from us, when the discoveries are held back from us, the ones that create the groundwork for a rich resource backdrop, those are the origins of the problem of moving from Darwinist-capitalist-viciousness... into the idea of a peaceful open money-free social structure.

But that is only part of the complex issue. A small part. Critical, but small.

A Darwinist/capitalist/etc resource poor life environment self limits over expression and emotionally driven living. It allows for animalism to drive the body into extremes, as the system itself provides ultimate limits as ultimate controls. (and vice versa)

In order to move into a resource rich environment for a money free society and culture, the roots of the emotionally driven life must end in their entirety. In totality. Period. No exceptions.

An open world with unlimited resource..for it to survive or have chance at all, requires the end of all animal driven thinking of any kind.

This means a mass change in consciousness and intelligence tied to such idea of moving into a new physicality. For it is not just a new socio-cultural environment, it is a new mental-physical environment.

Such a system is coupled to the unlimited resource idea, at the root. No need for monies, also requires no controls on resource and no controls on resource ...means over unity energies and over unity systems, which means no scientific controls on people, which means potentials for ultimate destruction are in the hands of all individuals.

In the middle phase of such a transition, lies the rub, as it were. the quandary, the issue, the mess. The place we stand, right now.

This means, first steps involve things likened to.... extreme observation and control of all peoples, integration of all peoples, and the end of all divisive tactics such as regionalism, and specifically, the idea of religion. (war, division, and so on)

A step into a form of universal awareness as a key component of lighting a fire into a new intellect that is world wide in scope. a time of reformation, a mental confusion, an essential and real madness of all peoples and individuals.

A thing that causes a total change in all psychology in all people in all ways, all done simultaneously. (sound like the alien reveal strategy? Why not, for it has to be universal and universal life changing, for all, in all ways)

Such a scenario is just one facet of what a drive into a universal income can be and would have to be.

What we have now, the animal drive to survive, cannot co-exist with a universal income. The animal drive will eat the world into non-existence very quickly, if it is given a universal income environment, which is akin to giving unlimited resource to a cancer. The explosion would consume the planet.

This is why a universal/basic income could only be a transition point, not a end point.

a basic universal income would also require a parallel drive in a mode of a strict control and the strict control must also include the dissolution's of all falseness in people, and that includes all racism, low intelligence eradication, eradication of all dogma and religion, all war mentality and violence in people..all this.... must end in all ways.

The end roll out is the roll out of unlimited resource via over unity and free energy systems.

First, the transformation of the people from a shotgun/chainsaw cancer in an explosive turmoil of unlimited growth...into peaceful thinking expanding people.

Some feel that is a drive toward creating lifeless automatons, and they may be correct.

But, an open world with unlimited resource also requires the end of all mental and physical modes of living as a uncontrolled expansionist animal cancer.

People do and will self limit their expansion (limit children and resource consumption), in a complementary environment, yes, but it is the transition that is the problem. The shift itself is uncontrollably and unpredictably messy. The initial expression into that area is explosive and pressured. To shift from being a terminal world eating cancer of animal thinking and being, into comforts... and a rising caring thinking intellectualized human.

One way to ensure a future for such a system is to implement a separate experiment where intellectually gifted people, and technologically adapted and enabled people...where they expand, in a rigidly controlled environment.... and step off the planet.

Separately, secretly, outside of the Darwinist animal masses, outside of the knowing of masses who do not possess self control or awareness. and to make sure those masses do NOT make a mess out of the attempt to do this, by enforcing their ignorance, to the point of killing their explorers and motions into a world of uncontrolled open resource.

When far enough away from that mess of religion, low intelligence, animalism, etc.... then try and introduce some modicum of change into it. begin the process of making the attempt of helping it change. Instead of the prior effort of holding it back.

Holding it (the masses) back to ensure (ultimate exact fail-safes and perfected plans/conditions-ie, military paranoia) some form overall human survival in the face of alien observation as a perceived potential threat. The ending of the use of the unaware masses as a cover, as the other plan and act is far enough along, as being wholly separated as a form of an ark, unto themselves. They themselves still captivated by the residuals of their own animalism as it enabled their rise into a secretive and separated new world. Basically, they feel they've equalized their technology to meet any potentials their own animalism feels might be contained/hiding in the 'alien threat'.

To restate---- to hopefully clarify....All while having plan B fully in existence. All while Plan B (the breakaway high technology unlimited resource group) has it's own issues with residual animalism and violence in it's given factions. All while Plan B (Or plan A group, depending on where one stand and thinks) is dealing with the perceived threat of alien systems outside of that, alien systems which already exist (and rub against the unaware masses - an enforced unawareness), in their given alien levels and ways of intellectualism or animalism, depending on how that given alien group/life/etc came into being in their particular circumstances.



Sound familiar?

[Eram]

There will always be 10 bazillion kinds of unproductive people. Those who are in a desperate situation of no fault of their own. Those who are willing to contribute to work their way out. Those who are broke because they are lazy and anti-social. Those who are indeed feeling entitled. You wanna support all of them with the same basic income? Go ahead, but not with my money, please. I'm for supporting those in need, but not for supporting or encouraging abusive behavior.


All trial versions of a basic income in Europe prove your points Mike.
unemployment, criminality and depression goes down, happiness, dignity and social contacts go up.

There have been some trial versions on a small scale in small environments that already had a relativeñy strong amount of social capital. Yes, there have been some good results.

If you wanna look at trial versions on a larger scale, look at any Socialist country in history.

Christian,
To compare a basic income on a large scale with a socialist country is seriously flawed.
What type of socialism are you talking about here, ...the communistic form of socialism?
There is a host of reasons why such state forms have failed and a basic income (only for those who cannot provide for themselves) has never even been part of such a system.
To provide the same income for all is hardly comparable with a basic income, not to mention all the other factors that made communism fail.
The big difference being the financial incentive still present to go out and find your own (bigger) income if you want to have more (of whatever), which was not there in the historical communist countries.

In fact, there is not one significant argument to think of why a trial version on a small scale (a few hundred thousand people in a city) would not work nation wide.

Your main argument for opposing a basic income is that you don't want to pay for lazy people.

Well, you are already paying for so called lazy people through the welfare system, healthcare, crime fighting and jails that are part of most if not all Western countries.

Number crunchers estimate (based on the trial versions) that a basic income would save money in comparison to the current welfare systems and the hidden costs of higher criminality, healthcare, drug abuse etc.

[christian]

The problem is almost entirely one of distribution. I would have no problem if, for example, 25% of my labor was a straight giveaway so that all persons could have the basics, regardless of whether they "deserved" it.

It's about distribution, that's correct. It's very noble of you that you'd be willing to give some of your income to everybody, but a basic income implies that you want the property of others redistributed (not just your own). What gives you or anyone the right to take the property or produce from someone who worked for it? Can't you see how legalizing to forcefully take people's property will breed ill-will and myriads of calamities in society?

How about no taxes and let each person decide for him or herself where to put his or her money? Sovereignty?


I would go so far as to say, that providing for the well-being of everyone, whether by a money system or otherwise, would be mankind's first achievement.

Absolutely. But this has nothing to do with a basic income that's redistributed by force, because that will lead to a development that we can see in any planned economy. Provide for the well-being doesn't mean just giving people stuff by taking from productive people by force. That's not helping the well-being of everyone, cause many people will be less self-reliant while at the same time you disincentivize innovation and production. That's not helping with the well-being of a society.

Providing for people voluntarily, yes. On a personal level, yes. But not through some government authority through force and the threat of violence. Can you see the difference?


To compare a basic income on a large scale with a socialist country is seriously flawed.
What type of socialism are you talking about here, ...the communistic form of socialism?

I talk about the state controlling sectors of the economy and redistributing property. The more of it, the more Socialism, which essentially means a state-controlled economy. Communism is the same taken to the extreme. Total control by force and then suddenly everybody will be happy and nobody will need the state anymore cause they all just got it. That's what the Communist Manifesto says.


In fact, there is not one significant argument to think of why a trial version on a small scale (a few hundred thousand people in a city) would not work nation wide.

Your main argument for opposing a basic income is that you don't want to pay for lazy people.

Well, you are already paying for so called lazy people through the welfare system, healthcare, crime fighting and jails that are part of most if not all Western countries.

Number crunchers estimate (based on the trial versions) that a basic income would save money in comparison to the current welfare systems and the hidden costs of higher criminality, healthcare, drug abuse etc.

If you have a basic income on a small scale where people know, trust and respect each other, they care for each other. They don't tend to be abusive. If you have a basic income on a large scale, it becomes anonymous. You're not receiving money from your neighbors any longer, whom you trust and value, but from the state, a faceless giant. Then you will see people somewhere else, far away, who appear to be lazy. You will think it's not fair that they receive what they get while others whom you like more work much harder to provide for them. See where that goes?

Societal dynamics are not just numbers. You have to take into account what any given system of redistribution does to the minds and motivations of the people. You cannot leave that out of the equation. That is my main argument. With a basic income you don't just pay for the lazy people. You incentivize consumerism while at the same time punishing creativity. You take from creative people to give to consumers. Can't you see how that is doomed to fail? Who would want to produce anything? That's why there's toilet paper shortages in Socialist countries. It's the same dynamics.

And yes, the current system in the Western world is already very Socialist, and you can see what mess it is. It breeds cronyism and parasitism. Such a system cannot be taken over by "good people" as the Bernie Sanders crowd suggests. The reason is simple: Don't give anybody power over other people and their property, it will encourage abuse. Let each person be sovereign and it will encourage self-responsibility. Same is true for a basic income.

[Ernie Nemeth]

The concepts I adhere to and espouse are post-transition and so they sound strange and unworkable to our contemporary minds. I fully understand that we cannot live in that world as we are today. That type of future world comes with an inner sense of responsibility we do not, as a collective, yet share. I was trying to show why by pointing to the occulted information this world is famous for - in almost all areas of study. This is where improper thinking and conclusions are drawn. This is why most people are essentially good. We have to make sense of the world with faulty and misleading information. But we did not know it was incorrect and we based our beliefs on good faith that those with the information were divulging all the facts to the best of their ability. This leads to frustration when our view of the world is challenged by superior facts we didn't have access to, for whatever reason.

When the truth comes out we are going to go crazy, like Carmody says.

That is why I suggested a ten year party where we can blow off some steam in some sort of semi-official sanctioned goof-off period of adjustment. Don't worry, the responsible ones will still do what needs to be done, like they always do anyway.

I'm a lazy person, I admit it. But I still like to apply myself on my own terms. I still get caught up in my own projects and can easily spend 24-36 hours non-stop if I have a mind to. I study every day, new research and ideas, here and elsewhere. And I write. I even almost like to hustle for my daily bread, except for the stress it creates living so close to the edge all the time. But go to work 40 hours for another to get rich off me, nope - too lazy. I'll do it for a stretch to climb out of the hole but that's it. And I hate how a job makes me think. I suddenly need to be there every minute so I get a full paycheck every week. And I begin thinking about the future and how to make my money grow, where to invest it, that sort of thing. I find that to be the most unnatural thing in the world and I hate it. Worrying about my credit. Worrying about car payments, insurance payments, extraneous payments created by working, and on and on. Worrying about how to get in with boss and job security, which there is none. And at the end of the day, even my very best day, coming to the conclusion that: I can never have enough money! To me it has always been insane and unnatural and not worth pursuing. And I resent being in a society that forces me to do it despite my best efforts not to. The punishment for not being a hard-working man, for being my type of lazy is, of course, destitution. It's taken me a long time to carve out this niche that is almost suitable to my sensibilities, but it is far from perfect.

I know there is better way. In time maybe we will find it.

[shaberon]

It's about distribution, that's correct. It's very noble of you that you'd be willing to give some of your income to everybody, but a basic income implies that you want the property of others redistributed (not just your own). What gives you or anyone the right to take the property or produce from someone who worked for it? Can't you see how legalizing to forcefully take people's property will breed ill-will and myriads of calamities in society?

How about no taxes and let each person decide for him or herself where to put his or her money? Sovereignty?


Well, I don't suppose I have any right to force you to do something like that, but, so far we have made it through a system that forces redistribution on us anyway--unfortunately it mostly went to usury and warfare. I'm guessing that the "calamities" that would result from investing this cash in general well-being are of a lesser order than the things done with military and police to benefit the rich. The amount it would take, to provide...is really so small...that I can't quite see the comparison in "the government is going to violently prosecute non-contributors" any differently than it is now.

They currently want to charge me $700 for the privilege of working last year. I no longer work, because the company decided it couldn't afford its employees. As well-intentioned as I am, if this situation goes to its logical conclusion, I will turn into a predator overnight, and people can just suffer by my hand and then spend more of their hard-earned cash on "correcting" me. However, if a tax bill and unemployment was not pushing me towards homelessness and starvation, there would be no need to lash out.

Even under a "shariah" law the house would be paid for, and without usury it would have cost almost nothing to start with.

I tend to agree with sovereignty, and maybe the abolishment of taxes and/or money. In the colonial U. S., there was no real unemployment or poverty due to the use of colonial scrips instead of bankers' cash. Neighbors helped each other voluntarily all through the settlers' times. But what I see now is the rich swanning about in their gated communities, and the tax pool being used to ruin everything, with an attitude towards the poor that it's their fault and they should not have been born.

Here's capitalism: $500 million spent to establish a yogurt plant and a bunch of taxpayer money to deal with its massive water use. Small person like me looks for work there, what happened? It had already shut down in less than a year. There goes another creative, productive idea, and another few hundred people like me, who don't work, not because they're lazy, it's just not there. Production of a big empty factory, perhaps because there are not enough people who can afford the luxury of yogurt any more. And if you did work there, I think Ernie's points would apply pretty strongly.

[christian]

Well, I don't suppose I have any right to force you to do something like that, but, so far we have made it through a system that forces redistribution on us anyway--unfortunately it mostly went to usury and warfare. I'm guessing that the "calamities" that would result from investing this cash in general well-being are of a lesser order than the things done with military and police to benefit the rich. The amount it would take, to provide...is really so small...that I can't quite see the comparison in "the government is going to violently prosecute non-contributors" any differently than it is now.

In other words, you're not for abolishing institutionalized slavery, you simply advocate reorganizing who's on the giving and who's on the receiving end.


Here's capitalism: $500 million spent to establish a yogurt plant and a bunch of taxpayer money to deal with its massive water use. Small person like me looks for work there, what happened? It had already shut down in less than a year. There goes another creative, productive idea, and another few hundred people like me, who don't work, not because they're lazy, it's just not there. Production of a big empty factory, perhaps because there are not enough people who can afford the luxury of yogurt any more. And if you did work there, I think Ernie's points would apply pretty strongly.

I'm not sure if I can follow you on the details of what happened there. Companies on the market succeed or fail, that's just life. If it's true what you say about taxpayer money that supported that company, then you have an example of Socialism, not Capitalism. Capitalism is defined by (a) private property and (b) a free market. Taxes mean taking private property by force and distorting the market by arbitrarily redistributing that money. What you describe is Socialist intervention, a planned economy. The state gives resources to certain companies it favors. And what so often happens in Socialism, the company just doesn't cut it and goes bankrupt even despite the aid it receives. Planned economies tend to support failing companies, that's the point. They also tend to support failing schemes, such as the permanent redistribution of income as in a basic income.

[shaberon]

Almost all major companies, at least around here, while they may be capitalist ventures, receive some form of socialist benefits, whether as free land, tax subsidies, reduction of their tax, etc. Otherwise they would go somewhere else.

We could grandstand about how any law or tax is slavery. I didn't invent that stuff, I don't support it, all I am saying is the way it's being used is massively ineffective. I surfed around for a bit to survey some opinions, and yes, by the hundreds, they are: rich people should not have to give away their money, they worked hard for it. Some of them, of course, donate millions or billions to charities, like medical research or universities.

What I haven't found yet is anything that substantially alleviates the increasing situations of poverty. You could give a billion dollars to diabetes causes, or simply quit manufacturing the disease and use that billion to give the homeless a place to stay. Obviously, that's an extremely unpopular idea. I don't know why we're so entrenched against feeding, clothing, and housing the needy. But yes, as long as there is a taxation system in place, I will not flinch from saying that it's the priority over 90% of what goes on.

If we can dispose of money and government, that's fine too. It will still be the priority. You could drop all the honchos of that stuff into a wood chipper and I would look the other way.

What I would call "slavery" might be the sugar industry in Florida. "Third world" people come in under a special visa and never...really gain any egress; hurt themselves with machetes or snakes; make next to nothing while doing some of the hardest work in the hottest heat. The corporation then gets rich, while charging Americans three times the average price for sugar, which of course we don't need very much. If this is the same condition as redirecting money from warfare and usury into food and housing, it's a pretty broad concept.

I don't know why the particular Chobani yogurt plant folded so quickly; no, we don't have "pure" capitalism, but it was an investment by individuals seeking greater fortune. What it was not, was any kind of way to make sure that people could have a cup of yogurt every day. I don't see this happening on a voluntary basis, though its entirely possible, nor on a taxation basis, which is also possible.

I never had much, but I gave away at least $10,000 of free housing to a few people because they were destitute. I will lose the ability, since I don't work because: the company gave the upper-management "Director" to some guy from the outside about twenty years younger than me, I guess because he came from a rich family. Couldn't do the basics of the job including hygiene, screwed up the business making a bunch of angry customers leave, then adjusted the bottom line by disposing of employees. I guess that's "the market" and "that's life", and about all that will keep me going is one person willing to give me a hideout a little further down the road.

I will probably never pay those taxes and will wind up giving my time to the food bank or something like that. But just knowing there are many others who have no safety net, they still have the same needs as me, and since it's not handled in any meaningful way, changing the operations of a system that I did not invent or agree with, would just be working with what's available. Meanwhile, those with largesse clinging to it because "it's mine" is very disappointing. If I need to be viewed as a slaver because I believe everyone deserves some minimal basics, then so be it.

[onawah]

Exactly! How is wage slavery or service in the military any different than any other kind of slavery? It's just legitimized.
[QUOTE=shaberon;1071902
Well, I don't suppose I have any right to force you to do something like that, but, so far we have made it through a system that forces redistribution on us anyway--unfortunately it mostly went to usury and warfare. I'm guessing that the "calamities" that would result from investing this cash in general well-being are of a lesser order than the things done with military and police to benefit the rich. The amount it would take, to provide...is really so small...that I can't quite see the comparison in "the government is going to violently prosecute non-contributors" any differently than it is now.
[/QUOTE]

We all know that many huge corporations now which are basically running our governments are getting permission from those governments they have bought to appropriate public lands (sometimes ousting the indigenous peoples who live on them) to use up finite natural resources which rightfully belong to everyone, then charging for the products they produce to make huge profits.
In the process, they destroy human lives, wildlife, and pollute the environment, then make the public pay for the cleanup.
Look at fracking--according to whistleblowers, it's basically just one more Reptilian agenda to disrupt the natural energy grid to make us all less connected to the Earth and therefore more vulnerable and easily controlled.
To add insult to injury, it pumps toxic chemicals into the water supply and poisons whole communities with almost complete impunity so far.
And there are technologies already in use that make the whole process totally unnecessary which are also much less costly in dollars as well as cost to the environment and population.
If that's what capitalism has led us to, you can have it.

As for the cost of dealing with the homeless and otherwise disenfranchised, some communities have found that it's much less costly and certainly more humane to provide them with food, shelter, medical care and social services that actually help them than it is to leave them on the streets or living in squalid surroundings, served only by inadequate social services or charities.
For one thing, they become productive again much more quickly, need less medical care in the long run, commit fewer crimes, cease being public nuisances, and add to the health, pride, hope and morale of their communities, instead of being a source of shame and guilt.

I have a very bright and capable 26 year old young friend who confided to me the other day that her generation is BORED.
CAPITAL B-O-R-E-D.
This is someone who sees through the matrix, knows there is something very nefarious going on, knows that "we are not alone", is trying her best to focus on getting an education that could put her intelligence and talents to good use, but senses that she is unlikely to end up being anything but another cog in the machine.
She's bright enough to qualify for a scholarship if there were enough of them to go around (there aren't), so she will probably have to work herself to the bone at two jobs to pay for her classes and her living expenses, jeopardizing her health and her peace of mind, so her debts won't be insurmountable once she gets a degree.
And she'll probably never be able to devote much time to studying anything that truly interests her, because more and more, the system only rewards people who are willing to do things that the system considers essential.
She knows she's being dumbed down by the toxins in the air, food water, technology, and she's already got health problems that may prevent her from succeeding in her schooling.
Yet she continues to struggle with faith that things will change, that somehow she will succeed, that it's all worth the effort.
We live in a system that fails to consider what is true wealth, but continues to squander and waste and destroy and pillage and pollute, and let's face it, it was not a system created to preserve our planet for future generations, or to benefit the human race, but a different race and agenda altogether.
The whole system needs to be redesigned, and designed to serve the people, not the system.
I feel for my young friend, and I try hard to encourage her and share what wisdom I have gleaned from my own struggle.
I certainly hope that her generation will be more successful than mine in effecting change, because it may be that in my next life, I will be facing the very same challenges she is facing, and possibly worse, if things don't start changing for the better soon.

[robinr1]

each and every one of your posts in this thread have been fantastic. please continue sir







Well, I don't suppose I have any right to force you to do something like that, but, so far we have made it through a system that forces redistribution on us anyway--unfortunately it mostly went to usury and warfare. I'm guessing that the "calamities" that would result from investing this cash in general well-being are of a lesser order than the things done with military and police to benefit the rich. The amount it would take, to provide...is really so small...that I can't quite see the comparison in "the government is going to violently prosecute non-contributors" any differently than it is now.

In other words, you're not for abolishing institutionalized slavery, you simply advocate reorganizing who's on the giving and who's on the receiving end.


Here's capitalism: $500 million spent to establish a yogurt plant and a bunch of taxpayer money to deal with its massive water use. Small person like me looks for work there, what happened? It had already shut down in less than a year. There goes another creative, productive idea, and another few hundred people like me, who don't work, not because they're lazy, it's just not there. Production of a big empty factory, perhaps because there are not enough people who can afford the luxury of yogurt any more. And if you did work there, I think Ernie's points would apply pretty strongly.

I'm not sure if I can follow you on the details of what happened there. Companies on the market succeed or fail, that's just life. If it's true what you say about taxpayer money that supported that company, then you have an example of Socialism, not Capitalism. Capitalism is defined by (a) private property and (b) a free market. Taxes mean taking private property by force and distorting the market by arbitrarily redistributing that money. What you describe is Socialist intervention, a planned economy. The state gives resources to certain companies it favors. And what so often happens in Socialism, the company just doesn't cut it and goes bankrupt even despite the aid it receives. Planned economies tend to support failing companies, that's the point. They also tend to support failing schemes, such as the permanent redistribution of income as in a basic income.

[shaberon]

As for the cost of dealing with the homeless and otherwise disenfranchised, some communities have found that it's much less costly and certainly more humane to provide them with food, shelter, medical care and social services that actually help them than it is to leave them on the streets or living in squalid surroundings, served only by inadequate social services or charities.
For one thing, they become productive again much more quickly, need less medical care in the long run, commit fewer crimes, cease being public nuisances, and add to the health, pride, hope and morale of their communities, instead of being a source of shame and guilt.


So Americans actually do have the option of personal sovereignty, you can take that and opt out of income taxes. If you get in a bind after that, you won't receive any free stuff--but the choice is there. Begging is also a spiritual practice and you could do it by choice (although its mostly pros that do it and then drive home in a Mercedes). Forcing you to do it would be a state religion.

But to agree with Onawah, yes, it generally costs about 1/3 as much to simply house a person, as it does to keep processing them through jail, which sometimes they use for a shelter. There are employed people who are homeless, but not many. The reduced burden and the return to well-being diminish that 1/3 cost by untold amounts. We already have the program set up to provide housing, but it is unfunded; it hooked up a few veterans and then got the goose egg. So far, the private party who has actually done it, isn't Bill & Melinda Gates, it's the Mormons.

There are about six places in the world that do not agree you have a right to food: Myanmar, a few African countries, and the United States.

Most places agree you have a right to housing, but the U. S. is "exceptional" there too.

A lot of them are probably too poor to deliver the goods, but every time I've looked at quality of living, it's always dominated by Scandinavia, which has about the biggest "nanny" states and highest taxes to be found. You can escape income taxes in the richest places like Monaco or the Cayman Islands, provided you invest $150-500,000 there, so no poor person is going to migrate for the better deal. But if a few Scandinavians want to come on and say the quality is a lie and their system is evil (aside from migration issues), that would be worth a listen.

You could set up housing in conjunction with farms and workshops. We've spent many years replacing humans with machines; maybe reverse that? And you don't have to be homeless to qualify. If you look at what the poverty trap really is, if you even go a little above poverty and compare wages to the cost of living, it's ridiculous. "Trickle-down" was probably intended to lead to this, so the bluffers could get away with it for a few more years. For the thousands of dollars that have been gouged from me without permission and maybe without legitimate right, I'll back down if some 70-80% of it is actually used for something that "represents" my opinion. Give away a bunch of basically no-frills apartments, and then, if a few years down the road, someone can create a private economy that turns those places into ghost towns, I'll be impressed.

This was nowhere near as major before the 1980s, and we can still fix it. As for the many places world wide that actually want to do it but are unable to, the I. M. F. won't do you much good; looks like the Chinese might. I wonder what the equivalent of our hundreds of international military bases would be, in terms of food and housing. Probably would have put every single person on earth in a good place.

[ponda]

The advancement of technology eg robotics and AI are probably going to be the main reason imho for the need for a 'basic income' because eventually there probably won't be many jobs that can't be done by technology.




Basic income may be needed to combat robot-induced unemployment, leading AI expert says.

The rise of artificial intelligence could put millions of human workers out of jobs - could a basic income be a solution?

source (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/basic-income-artificial-intelligence-ai-robots-automation-moshe-vardi-a6884086.html)



Giving people free money could be the only solution when robots finally take our jobs.

http://static3.techinsider.io/image/57041dde91058423008bacd3-3079-1540/rtx1dgh4.jpg

source (http://www.techinsider.io/basic-income-could-be-the-only-solution-in-a-robot-economy-2016-4)




Autonomous Vehicles Will Replace Taxi Drivers, But That’s Just the Beginning


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-06-10-1433970616-7054662-Autonomousvehiclejobdisruption.PNG


source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-tracy/autonomous-vehicles-will-_b_7556660.html)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knoqs-lV8uo

Published on Jun 2, 2016

Every week Max Keiser looks at all the scandal behind the financial news headlines.

In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max and Stacy discuss whether ‘the system’ can survive robots and whether a man can stand on his own, as the military industrial complex provides much of the technology behind the biggest success stories in Silicon Valley. In the second half, Max continues his interview with Professor Robert McChesney about his book, People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/People-Get-Ready-Citizenless-Democracy/dp/1568585217/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464877115&sr=8-1&keywords=People+Get+Ready%3A+The+Fight+Against+a+J obless+Economy+and+a+Citizenless+Democracy.).

[christian]

What I haven't found yet is anything that substantially alleviates the increasing situations of poverty.

The answer is quite simple. Establish economic freedom. Let people do business freely. Get rid of institutionalized slavery, aka taxation. This is what increases wealth. Not uniformly, as the Socialists like to have it, but still across the board while Socialism in the ends always leads to inefficiency, shortages and poverty. Give people incentives to produce, then there will be more wealth. The main incentive is that they can decide themselves what they produce, how they do it and what they do with what they produce. And of course the needy will benefit from that. You can see historically that the average person was richer and needy people were better taken care of in countries and regions with a high amount of economic freedom.


I don't know why we're so entrenched against feeding, clothing, and housing the needy.

I'm all for it.


If I need to be viewed as a slaver because I believe everyone deserves some minimal basics, then so be it.

Not at all. But because you want some institution to take the minimal basics from productive people by force and then redistribute them as that institution sees fit. If you'd argue for providing for the needy voluntarily, we'd be on the same page.

[risveglio]

"Trickle-down" was probably intended to lead to this, so the bluffers could get away with it for a few more years.


"Trickle-down" doesn't exist. You make some interesting points but then when you write "trickle-down", you sound like a crazy leftists.

The 'Trickle-Down' Lie
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/07/the_trickle-down_lie_121142.html



... but every time I've looked at quality of living, it's always dominated by Scandinavia, which has about the biggest "nanny" states and highest taxes to be found.
...
But if a few Scandinavians want to come on and say the quality is a lie and their system is evil (aside from migration issues), that would be worth a listen.


Guest intro starts at 6:30
r-gadp15Vgc


These might be worth a read
The Sweden Myth - https://mises.org/library/sweden-myth
How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden - https://mises.org/library/how-welfare-state-corrupted-sweden

[Ernie Nemeth]

McCarthy sure did a job on the American psyche. Communism is not on the table, at least not in my universe. Capitalism will always be around in some form or another for quite a bit longer, as the least of all evils. Socialism may have the right idea but it is tainted now with all kinds of extremism. So what's left?

Institutionalized anything leads to abuse and strong-arm tactics - and favoritism.

All of these forms of governance focuses on central control. Maybe decentralizing is the way to go. Focus on community and towns.

[bluekungfoo]

I am seeing things as needing to be two fold instead of just entirely focusing on basic income; if the income Is there, but the hours to work a job are not, then I would think, one would still not be making very much money in the long run.

More over, there are no right to work laws any where. So maybe someone is hiring for someone to work a basic register at a grocery store, but if that store owner doesn't want to hire me, what good is it to me knowing there is a basic wage waiting ? People who work on an hourly basis constantly get screwed over by shady managers at Walmart and the like, those managers who know that an employ is close to making over 40 hrs for the week an either manages to erase a few hours, or decides to cut that persons week short so those 40 hrs are not reached. It is shady either way, what ever the reason, legal or not.... Or what about people who own their own small business , but for what ever reason, are not making ends meat... then what ?
I suppose they could sell what ever their product is to the government for something, but would the government even be required to buy said products....

[Carmody]

McCarthy sure did a job on the American psyche. Communism is not on the table, at least not in my universe. Capitalism will always be around in some form or another for quite a bit longer, as the least of all evils. Socialism may have the right idea but it is tainted now with all kinds of extremism. So what's left?

Institutionalized anything leads to abuse and strong-arm tactics - and favoritism.

All of these forms of governance focuses on central control. Maybe decentralizing is the way to go. Focus on community and towns.

And there's the rub, the nut of it. In a way.

It's tied to this aspect, I mentioned a few years back in the here and now thread. The magic number of approximately 10,000. Something I had noticed, tied to how human psychology works. How, when we as humans, with our unconscious (thus unrecognized) expressions into and of life...get to the point that we cannot recognize a certain person, in name or overall minor connectivity.

When a community exceeds a population of approximately 10,000 persons, we begin to notably fall into the process of running into strangers. It is there where the sociopathy has a chance to begin the process of infiltration (or arising in people) and silently digging in. Where the common person, the average person begins to really lose track of what the immediate and loose associations are.

In the real world, those two items, of personal knowing vs the beginnings of selfish sociopaths running under the radar, where those two cross on the chart in general averaged terms (not always the same, depends), the flip is at approximately 10,000 individual humans, in a given secluded/separate group.


The tragedy of the commons, a concept described by ecologist Garrett Hardin, paints a grim view of human nature. The theory goes that, if a resource is shared, individuals will act in their own self-interest, but against the interest of the group, by depleting that resource.

Yet examples of cooperation and sharing abound in nature, from human societies down to single-celled bacteria.

In a new paper, published in the journal Scientific Reports, University of Pennsylvania researchers use game theory to demonstrate the complex set of traits that can promote the evolution of cooperation. Their analysis showed that smaller groups in which actors had longer memories of their fellow group members' actions were more likely to evolve cooperative strategies.

The work suggests one possible advantage of the human's powerful memory capacity: it has fed our ability as a society to cooperate.

"In the past we've looked at the interactions of two players to determine the most robust evolutionary strategies," said Joshua B. Plotkin, a professor in Penn's Department of Biology in the School of Arts & Sciences. "Our new analysis allows for scenarios in which players can react to the behaviors and strategies of multiple other players at once. It gives us a picture of a much richer set of social interactions, a picture that is likely more representative of the complexities of human behavior."

Plotkin collaborated with Alexander J. Stewart, then his postdoctoral researcher and now a Royal Society research fellow at University College London, on the work, which builds on years of game theory examinations by the pair.

In their earlier works, they used the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma scenario, in which two players face off and can choose to either cooperate or not, to understand what circumstances promote the rise of generosity versus selfishness.

In the new paper, they added two levels of complexity. First, they used a different scenario, known as a public-goods game, which allows players to interact with more than one other player at a time. The set-up also enabled the researchers to vary the number of players in a given game. In the public-goods game, a player can contribute a certain amount of a personal resource to a public pool, which is then divided equally among all players. The greatest shared benefit comes when all players contribute generously, but that also puts generous players at risk of losing resources to selfish players, a tragedy of the commons scenario.

The second added level of complexity was imbuing players with the capacity for long memories. That is, players could use the actions of their opponents from multiple earlier rounds of the game to inform their strategies for subsequent rounds. If a player repeatedly encountered a player in a group that frequently behaved selfishly, for example, they may be more likely to "punish" that defector by withholding resources in future rounds.

In addition, the populations of players were permitted to "evolve," such that more successful players, those that achieve greater payoffs, are more likely to pass their strategies on to the next generation of players.

Stewart and Plotkin found that the more players in a game the less likely that cooperative strategies could win out. Instead, the majority of robust strategies in large groups favored defection.

"This makes intuitive sense," Plotkin said. "As a group size increases, the prospects for sustained cooperation go down. The temptation to defect and become a freeloader goes up."

Conversely, their findings showed that giving players a longer memory, the ability to remember and base decisions on as many as 10 previous rounds of their opponents' actions, led to a greater relative volume of robust cooperative strategies. Part of the reason for this, the researchers said, was because greater memories allowed players to develop a broader array of more nuanced strategies, including ones that could punish individuals for defecting strategies and ensure they didn't take over the population

"A stronger memory allowed players to weed out the rare defector," Plotkin said.

In a final set of experiments, Stewart and Plotkin used computer simulations that allowed the memory capacity of players to evolve alongside the strategies themselves. They found that not only were longer memories favored, but the evolution of longer memories led to an increase in cooperation.

"I think a fascinating takeaway from our study," Stewart said, "is that you can get a set of circumstances where there is a kind of runaway feedback loop. Longer memories promote more cooperation and more cooperation promotes longer memories. That kind of situation, where you go from a simpler system to one that is more complex, is a great example of what evolution does, it leads to more and more complexity."

As a next step, Stewart and Plotkin would like to use human subjects to evaluate their mathematical findings.

"We have all these results about what kinds of strategies are successful that take into account different features of players' actions," Stewart said. "We'd like to run an experiment with people to figure out what they are actually paying attention to when they're playing. Is it their payoffs? Is it their opponents' payoffs? And see how those strategies match up to those we see in our analyses."


http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2016060118430077.html

Thus, above that level of size community, the selfishness rises to an unacceptable level and co-operation begins to slide into serious collapse, and systems fail.

Selfishness and co-operation can happen anywhere, and do, but social and cultural cohesion are more ephemeral, more group related in the undercurrent of interaction, they are not the immediate, not of the specific internal constant conscious awareness of self. The aspects of community and co-operation are more of the unspoken unconsciousness of self.

And that inter-personal cohesion tends to begin the process of falling apart when a given community begins to reach a size where strangers can be seen by most people. Unknowns, like a virus, can arrive, and infiltrate, and so on.

Essentially, one cannot speak about the idea of realities about basic income or no basic income, or capitalism, socialism and so on, without taking into account the aspects of the unconscious in mind and expression; How the undercurrent of people function in a group.

For example, a system of population positioning on the physical surface of the correct or closer to the mean of this 10k thing, combined with governance that takes this sort of methodology to heart in it's operation, in division of governance systems, etc, we find the co-operation required to stabilize the smaller and larger group, so that social cohesion can allow for a basic income that is effectual. Not a handout to seeming abusers who are left bereft of all other integration and isolated (and the same for those paying), but a system that possesses social and cultural cohesion for the ones handing out and the ones who are recipients. basically that the one receiving and the one giving, all of them are literally aware of each others existence, in some minimal personal or minimally connected way.

In the places where the idea of basic income is seen as a probable failure mode, those places probably have large population centers and no overall social and cultural cohesion, nor any widespread personal connectivity, except for the sociopathic capitalism (or whatever moniker 'selfishness' in that locale may wear) that they already possess.

These undercurrents of structure need to be recognized as the root issues that they are, instead of being unrecognized by individual and group. Since social structure is largely an unconscious thing, people tend to not include it in their understanding of the origin of the issue in this given argument of being for or against a basic income.

For example, in a given large grouping of people, in the millions, we can get to systemic abuse of a basic income, via the politics and corporations/individuals tied to it. where selfishness can infiltrate and parasitically feed off the attempt at a social construct. The multiple levels create complexity and distance..which make strangers of the entire chain and system.

At such point.... trust has to be entertained by all (due to complexity and distance creating indeterminism for individuals), and the parasitical selfish have their doorway by which they can enter the system and remain in hiding, and feed themselves or hide control and infiltration aspects. The same goes for any large complex system.

Whereas with the smaller grouping, they have no place to hide their attempts at sociopathic selfish parasitical feeding of themselves or their given corporate or fascist/oligarchical structure.

Ie, Iceland tells the bankers to **** off. Approximately 250,000 people in Iceland. They definitely have community and connected awareness.

Parasites and sociopaths require large human structures. Otherwise, they cannot easily control and be in hiding in the complexity of the systems. This is not specifically true in all cases, but in many to most cases, it is true. With respect to getting people to commit to obvious insanity. It is very specifically true when systems of oligarchy recognize these aspects and actively and continually infiltrate and bend these systems in a step by step advancing manner.

As the cities and large population centers have risen into existence, so has the extremism of the parasitical controlling structure which manipulates humanity.


Today, 54 per cent of the world’s population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 66 per cent by 2050. Projections show that urbanization combined with the overall growth of the world’s population could add another 2.5 billion people to urban populations by 2050, with close to 90 percent of the increase concentrated in Asia and Africa, according to a new United Nations report launched today.

The TV gets personal ----- your neighbor is a stranger. And you're ****ed.

It's not specifically about the idea of return to rural or pastoral living.... but recognizing the root aspects, combating the holes in this newer societal urban structure where such problems can arise and hide. I'm not entirely confident that it can be done, though. We've seen many examples where there are smaller constructs within the whole and they can -and have been- 'turned' so to speak, into very messy selfish parasite enclaves. such things tend to have to do with the fact that an external sheath or cover can be drawn over the smaller grouping and it can be hidden within the still greater overall complexity. (a societal cyst, if you will-- eg: The Beltway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Beltway). Within the beltway itself, we find an enclave of parasites in long term co-operation, as the the above study notes can emerge/happen. Parasites are deeply concerned about groupings and co-operation, as this is how they function. So they know exactly how to deny it [cohesion and memory] to you.)

[Ernie Nemeth]

I've been in the city so long I've forgotten I hate the city. But 10,000 is too small. I like around 50,000 , so I can go hide when I need to. Of course if I could generally trust those around me to be aware of and respect my boundaries and to be in conscious co-operation with me, then maybe I wouldn't need to recharge so often.

[risveglio]

Almost all major companies, at least around here, while they may be capitalist ventures, receive some form of socialist benefits, whether as free land, tax subsidies, reduction of their tax, etc. Otherwise they would go somewhere else.

Then that is not really capitalism.

[risveglio]

McCarthy sure did a job on the American psyche. Communism is not on the table, at least not in my universe. Capitalism will always be around in some form or another for quite a bit longer, as the least of all evils. Socialism may have the right idea but it is tainted now with all kinds of extremism. So what's left?

Institutionalized anything leads to abuse and strong-arm tactics - and favoritism.

All of these forms of governance focuses on central control. Maybe decentralizing is the way to go. Focus on community and towns.

McCarthy has very little to do with this. I was born and raised here, my parents barely knew enough English to understand anything going on during that time as they just immigrated here. I was taught about all the wonders of how great things would be if we only became socialists in US public schools. I entered my adult hood, thinking if only we had a mixed economy that worked. My opinions on socialism changed by reading history and talking to people that left socialists countries. The IT field has a ton of Eastern Europeans and they all despise socialism. Two programmers from Brazil claim socialism ruined their country. A dutch analysts saying socialism has destroyed Amsterdam and a few Scandinavians that are glad that socialism is started to retract in Sweden since it did so much harm.

As for Capitalism, when are we getting Capitalism? The idea that we have Capitalism is ludicrous if you know what Capitalism is supposed to mean. So yes, decentralization is the way to go and what is left is Capitalism. It is the morally superior and when allowed to function correctly it does wonders in lifting people out of poverty and giving them some self respect. Even the crony form that you call Capitalism has removed over a billion people from extreme poverty over the last 20 years.

So I vote for Capitalism and small local governments or no government at all. I have a right to live my life as I please as long as I do not harm others. You should not get the right to harm me because there are more of you and you don't like the way I live.

The number of family members that came over here with nothing and succeeded with no help from government is mind boggling. Maybe it is because of what Zig Zigler says about foreigners getting to experience the US for the first time, they see the opportunity while entitled US citizens are looking for handouts. I don't know.

I also do not buy into this selfishness, at least not here. The American people give vastly more in philanthropic donations on a percentage basis than anyone in the world. This is the best-kept secret in American textbooks. I know very few socialists but from my experience, they are the selfish ones.

[ozmirage]

If the dollar had retained its original value, with the "progress" of industry, we would now be able to make a living by working about ten hours a week.
That statement is typical of money madness.

The value of the money token has zero congruence with the marketplace of goods and services.

FWIW - a "dollar bill" (paper) is NOT a dollar (coin). Since 1933, a "dollar bill" has had no par value (worthless), whereas a dollar coin is still worth one dollar. Finding an equitable trade between worthless paper and a dollar coin is another topic entirely.

As to the notion that we could "make a living by working about ten hours a week" - that, too, is an artifact of money madness.

Why?

Based on coining all the gold in the world (5.6 billion ounces, approx), there would be $16 per capita. (Divided by 7+ billion people)

How does possessing $16 equate to "making a living by working about ten hours a week"?

Money is not prosperity.

Prosperity is based on the production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services.

Now, if one can produce sufficient surplus to trade for all his needs, in about ten hours a week, regardless of only possessing $16 in gold coin, that's fine. But there is no correlation between the volume and value of money and the marketplace of goods and services.

[Fredkc]

Some comments... but 1st:

Begin with Freedom. If that doesn't trip your trigger, then one of us is in the wrong country.

"Well, freedom is relative". - Bull. "Freedom is the ability to do as you damn well please - And to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke

In short, unless someone sees, or can prove I've committed a serious breach of the peace (murder, rape, robbery, fraud), what I do, say, who I know, or talk to, where I go, is none of anyone else's damned business. especially government's!

Lets deal with a few non-starters:
Communism:
First. Communism is kinda cool. Some people gather together, pool their stuff, and their work, and everyone gets by. All is well.

Then comes the dawn (and human nature). Example:
3 commies go out drinking on a Wednesday nite. Drunk as hell, they stagger home & go to bed. Next morning 2 get up feeling like hell, and go to work. Commie #3 has an "Aha! moment". "If I get up and go to work, I'm gonna feel like crap all day long. But, if I stay home & nurse my hangover, I'm gonna get the same paycheck those other two fools will get."

Here ends productivity, and along with it, over-production, the seed from which cometh all the goodies everyone wants to give to the less fortunate. in the end, everyone becomes less fortunate.

Second, I did say its "kinda cool", but here's the problem: Communism does NOT scale up.

It can work for a group of, say, 5-25 families. Might even rope a few doctors, nurses, etc in to the mix and build yourself a whole community. But then you run into the fatal flaw...

At some point (long before you reach the size of a county/parish) you're going to need someone to "manage" the agreement. Someone whose job it is to make sure the productivity/production, and whatnot, continue, and are equally divided, so that well-being & growth continues.

At some point this will become a full time job. Your perfect world is now dead.
Dead because what you now have in your midst is a bureaucrat. This person is not involved in the business of production, in any way. He is removed from the situation; time and human nature, will do the rest.

If things grow further, you will have more of these, and they will need some way to ... more than advise... "coerce" maintenance of the status quo.

This is government (the form is irrelevant) and it will need "power". Two reminders:
"Government IS force." - G. Washington
"Power attracts the corruptible." - Frank Herbert

Sooner or later, you wind up with a corruptible force, able, and most willing to diddle with your every daily move. And given the choice between doing that, and going back to work at... whatever... here again I remind you of the facts of human nature.

R.I.P. Communism.

Socialism:
Socialism is just Communism with manners. It does have one or two benefits over a completely market-driven society.
1. LOCAL, publicly owned water supply.
2. LOCAL, publicly owned generation & distribution of electricity, or whatever replaces it.



Democracy:
After some study, I've decided I'm not much of a fan of "Pure Democracy". Eventually you wind up with "tyranny of the majority". Human nature, again. Given the chance to vote on it, what everyone will want is... everything. And they'll have a government that will go steal it for them... for awhile. Greece comes to mind, here. Greece is the victim of two things: Democracy, and "Fiat money". But it took both to get them where they are.

In a pure democracy, elected reps are bound to go get what the majority wants.

One of the basic differences in a "representative republic" is that the elected are also allowed to exercise their own good judgement. I prefer this system. Though we haven't used it in decades, it is what was set up in the US Constitution. Madison did provide one warning, though:
"The Constitution is designed to provide freedom, and government for a moral people, and totally unsuitable for any other kind."

Good time to bring this up, by the way...:
NEVER confuse, assign to, nor expect morality from government. No government of any kind is, has or ever will be moral (See G. Washington quote above).


But relying on government to impose compulsory charity (socialism) is not wise.
Charity is best left to local means, and manpower. Just my belief but, once you steal the money, any notion of it being "charity" becomes null. Secondly, I think some special value is kept in the exchange, if the person who wants had to look the person who gives in the eye. Not an ego thing... call it a "reality check".

How to generate this "largess"?
A good ol' market-based economy; free of government crap, AND "Fiat money".
"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." - Thomas Jefferson

Despite its many frailties, human nature can be surprising, too. An event from back in the early 70's, I think it was in Texas. Some government program distributing to the needy was about to be phased out. The local folk rallied, vowing to replace the program with stuff donated from the people themselves. What turned up was nearly 10 times the goods the gov't. program had supplied in the past.

Unfortunately, no matter how noble it sounds, providing a "guaranteed income to every soul just isn't viable in a market economy. Sooner or later, the marketplace will absorb the entire stipend, and you'll forever be calling for a "renewal" of some sort. Just like how the US does "immigration reform" every 10 years, but nothing changes.

This is a corollary to the notion that it is impossible to tax a corporation.

You're gonna hate this, but, sometimes even someone you're trained to hate, is right:
"Remember, that a government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is also powerful enough to take it all away" - Ronald Reagan

Anyway, FWIW, my thoughts on this:
Fred

PS: Best line in this thread, so far:

Daozen;
Why would we need governments to give us our own money?

[Fredkc]

So I vote for Capitalism and small local governments or no government at all. I have a right to live my life as I please as long as I do not harm others. You should not get the right to harm me because there are more of you and you don't like the way I live.

Risveglio; you posted while I was typing, damnit. Could've saved myself a lot of time. ;)

People do change with age, too. Attributed to Winston Churchill:
"A young man who isn't a liberal, has no heart. An old one who isn't a conservative has no mind."
Fred

[risveglio]

So I vote for Capitalism and small local governments or no government at all. I have a right to live my life as I please as long as I do not harm others. You should not get the right to harm me because there are more of you and you don't like the way I live.

Risveglio; you posted while I was typing, damnit. Could've saved myself a lot of time. ;)

People do change with age, too. Attributed to Winston Churchill:
"A young man who isn't a liberal, has no heart. An old one who isn't a conservative has no mind."
Fred

Thanks Fredkc though I don't think I will ever be a conservative, at least not by today's definition.

Here is the one from Muhammad Ali along the same lines. - "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life."

[onawah]

I was very inspired back in the 60s and 70s by the hippie back-to-Earth movement though from a more spiritual perspective, and lived for about a year in a combination Zen Center/commune in the mountains of Virginia which was life-changing.
And I was further inspired a few years later by Dr. Christopher Hills
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hills
in particular one book called Christ Yoga of Peace, in which he framed a blueprint for transforming the world through intentional spiritual communities.
He founded such a community himself, the University of the Trees, which was quite successful and lasted until Dr. Hills' death.
I spent some time there too, and lived nearby, though I never actually lived there.
I don't think the world at large was quite ready to put the blueprint to use, but I don't think the blueprint was at fault, and it certainly was useful to other communities.
There is still a growing movement towards creating intentional communities founded not only on principles of sustainability, but on spiritual principles as well, and it is not a lifestyle that everyone would choose, certainly, but I think it's rewarding for those who do, though challenging as well.
I see some young people in the area where I live now following their own back-to-the-Earth blueprint, and it's encouraging to me.
I think their ideas about spirituality are going to be much different than my generation's, however.
They seem to be suspicious of anything that is too organized, and want to blaze their own trail.


McCarthy sure did a job on the American psyche. Communism is not on the table, at least not in my universe. Capitalism will always be around in some form or another for quite a bit longer, as the least of all evils. Socialism may have the right idea but it is tainted now with all kinds of extremism. So what's left?

Institutionalized anything leads to abuse and strong-arm tactics - and favoritism.

All of these forms of governance focuses on central control. Maybe decentralizing is the way to go. Focus on community and towns.

And there's the rub, the nut of it. In a way.

It's tied to this aspect, I mentioned a few years back in the here and now thread. The magic number of approximately 10,000. Something I had noticed, tied to how human psychology works. How, when we as humans, with our unconscious (thus unrecognized) expressions into and of life...get to the point that we cannot recognize a certain person, in name or overall minor connectivity.

When a community exceeds a population of approximately 10,000 persons, we begin to notably fall into the process of running into strangers. It is there where the sociopathy has a chance to begin the process of infiltration (or arising in people) and silently digging in. Where the common person, the average person begins to really lose track of what the immediate and loose associations are.

In the real world, those two items, of personal knowing vs the beginnings of selfish sociopaths running under the radar, where those two cross on the chart in general averaged terms (not always the same, depends), the flip is at approximately 10,000 individual humans, in a given secluded/separate group.


The tragedy of the commons, a concept described by ecologist Garrett Hardin, paints a grim view of human nature. The theory goes that, if a resource is shared, individuals will act in their own self-interest, but against the interest of the group, by depleting that resource.

Yet examples of cooperation and sharing abound in nature, from human societies down to single-celled bacteria.

In a new paper, published in the journal Scientific Reports, University of Pennsylvania researchers use game theory to demonstrate the complex set of traits that can promote the evolution of cooperation. Their analysis showed that smaller groups in which actors had longer memories of their fellow group members' actions were more likely to evolve cooperative strategies.

The work suggests one possible advantage of the human's powerful memory capacity: it has fed our ability as a society to cooperate.

"In the past we've looked at the interactions of two players to determine the most robust evolutionary strategies," said Joshua B. Plotkin, a professor in Penn's Department of Biology in the School of Arts & Sciences. "Our new analysis allows for scenarios in which players can react to the behaviors and strategies of multiple other players at once. It gives us a picture of a much richer set of social interactions, a picture that is likely more representative of the complexities of human behavior."

Plotkin collaborated with Alexander J. Stewart, then his postdoctoral researcher and now a Royal Society research fellow at University College London, on the work, which builds on years of game theory examinations by the pair.

In their earlier works, they used the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma scenario, in which two players face off and can choose to either cooperate or not, to understand what circumstances promote the rise of generosity versus selfishness.

In the new paper, they added two levels of complexity. First, they used a different scenario, known as a public-goods game, which allows players to interact with more than one other player at a time. The set-up also enabled the researchers to vary the number of players in a given game. In the public-goods game, a player can contribute a certain amount of a personal resource to a public pool, which is then divided equally among all players. The greatest shared benefit comes when all players contribute generously, but that also puts generous players at risk of losing resources to selfish players, a tragedy of the commons scenario.

The second added level of complexity was imbuing players with the capacity for long memories. That is, players could use the actions of their opponents from multiple earlier rounds of the game to inform their strategies for subsequent rounds. If a player repeatedly encountered a player in a group that frequently behaved selfishly, for example, they may be more likely to "punish" that defector by withholding resources in future rounds.

In addition, the populations of players were permitted to "evolve," such that more successful players, those that achieve greater payoffs, are more likely to pass their strategies on to the next generation of players.

Stewart and Plotkin found that the more players in a game the less likely that cooperative strategies could win out. Instead, the majority of robust strategies in large groups favored defection.

"This makes intuitive sense," Plotkin said. "As a group size increases, the prospects for sustained cooperation go down. The temptation to defect and become a freeloader goes up."

Conversely, their findings showed that giving players a longer memory, the ability to remember and base decisions on as many as 10 previous rounds of their opponents' actions, led to a greater relative volume of robust cooperative strategies. Part of the reason for this, the researchers said, was because greater memories allowed players to develop a broader array of more nuanced strategies, including ones that could punish individuals for defecting strategies and ensure they didn't take over the population

"A stronger memory allowed players to weed out the rare defector," Plotkin said.

In a final set of experiments, Stewart and Plotkin used computer simulations that allowed the memory capacity of players to evolve alongside the strategies themselves. They found that not only were longer memories favored, but the evolution of longer memories led to an increase in cooperation.

"I think a fascinating takeaway from our study," Stewart said, "is that you can get a set of circumstances where there is a kind of runaway feedback loop. Longer memories promote more cooperation and more cooperation promotes longer memories. That kind of situation, where you go from a simpler system to one that is more complex, is a great example of what evolution does, it leads to more and more complexity."

As a next step, Stewart and Plotkin would like to use human subjects to evaluate their mathematical findings.

"We have all these results about what kinds of strategies are successful that take into account different features of players' actions," Stewart said. "We'd like to run an experiment with people to figure out what they are actually paying attention to when they're playing. Is it their payoffs? Is it their opponents' payoffs? And see how those strategies match up to those we see in our analyses."


http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2016060118430077.html

Thus, above that level of size community, the selfishness rises to an unacceptable level and co-operation begins to slide into serious collapse, and systems fail.

Selfishness and co-operation can happen anywhere, and do, but social and cultural cohesion are more ephemeral, more group related in the undercurrent of interaction, they are not the immediate, not of the specific internal constant conscious awareness of self. The aspects of community and co-operation are more of the unspoken unconsciousness of self.

And that inter-personal cohesion tends to begin the process of falling apart when a given community begins to reach a size where strangers can be seen by most people. Unknowns, like a virus, can arrive, and infiltrate, and so on.

Essentially, one cannot speak about the idea of realities about basic income or no basic income, or capitalism, socialism and so on, without taking into account the aspects of the unconscious in mind and expression; How the undercurrent of people function in a group.

For example, a system of population positioning on the physical surface of the correct or closer to the mean of this 10k thing, combined with governance that takes this sort of methodology to heart in it's operation, in division of governance systems, etc, we find the co-operation required to stabilize the smaller and larger group, so that social cohesion can allow for a basic income that is effectual. Not a handout to seeming abusers who are left bereft of all other integration and isolated (and the same for those paying), but a system that possesses social and cultural cohesion for the ones handing out and the ones who are recipients. basically that the one receiving and the one giving, all of them are literally aware of each others existence, in some minimal personal or minimally connected way.

In the places where the idea of basic income is seen as a probable failure mode, those places probably have large population centers and no overall social and cultural cohesion, nor any widespread personal connectivity, except for the sociopathic capitalism (or whatever moniker 'selfishness' in that locale may wear) that they already possess.

These undercurrents of structure need to be recognized as the root issues that they are, instead of being unrecognized by individual and group. Since social structure is largely an unconscious thing, people tend to not include it in their understanding of the origin of the issue in this given argument of being for or against a basic income.

For example, in a given large grouping of people, in the millions, we can get to systemic abuse of a basic income, via the politics and corporations/individuals tied to it. where selfishness can infiltrate and parasitically feed off the attempt at a social construct. The multiple levels create complexity and distance..which make strangers of the entire chain and system.

At such point.... trust has to be entertained by all (due to complexity and distance creating indeterminism for individuals), and the parasitical selfish have their doorway by which they can enter the system and remain in hiding, and feed themselves or hide control and infiltration aspects. The same goes for any large complex system.

Whereas with the smaller grouping, they have no place to hide their attempts at sociopathic selfish parasitical feeding of themselves or their given corporate or fascist/oligarchical structure.

Ie, Iceland tells the bankers to **** off. Approximately 250,000 people in Iceland. They definitely have community and connected awareness.

Parasites and sociopaths require large human structures. Otherwise, they cannot easily control and be in hiding in the complexity of the systems. This is not specifically true in all cases, but in many to most cases, it is true. With respect to getting people to commit to obvious insanity. It is very specifically true when systems of oligarchy recognize these aspects and actively and continually infiltrate and bend these systems in a step by step advancing manner.

As the cities and large population centers have risen into existence, so has the extremism of the parasitical controlling structure which manipulates humanity.


Today, 54 per cent of the world’s population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 66 per cent by 2050. Projections show that urbanization combined with the overall growth of the world’s population could add another 2.5 billion people to urban populations by 2050, with close to 90 percent of the increase concentrated in Asia and Africa, according to a new United Nations report launched today.

The TV gets personal ----- your neighbor is a stranger. And you're ****ed.

It's not specifically about the idea of return to rural or pastoral living.... but recognizing the root aspects, combating the holes in this newer societal urban structure where such problems can arise and hide. I'm not entirely confident that it can be done, though. We've seen many examples where there are smaller constructs within the whole and they can -and have been- 'turned' so to speak, into very messy selfish parasite enclaves. such things tend to have to do with the fact that an external sheath or cover can be drawn over the smaller grouping and it can be hidden within the still greater overall complexity. (a societal cyst, if you will-- eg: The Beltway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Beltway). Within the beltway itself, we find an enclave of parasites in long term co-operation, as the the above study notes can emerge/happen. Parasites are deeply concerned about groupings and co-operation, as this is how they function. So they know exactly how to deny it [cohesion and memory] to you.)

[ozmirage]

One of the basic differences in a "representative republic" is that the elected are also allowed to exercise their own good judgement. I prefer this system. Though we haven't used it in decades, it is what was set up in the US Constitution. Madison did provide one warning, though:
"The Constitution is designed to provide freedom, and government for a moral people, and totally unsuitable for any other kind."

Short reply:
Actually, Americans are promised a republican form of government.
A republican form of government is NOT synonymous with a "representative republic" nor is it a "constitutional republic." (Those refer to the indirect democratic form of government)

Long reply here:
Republican Form
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90212-Republican-Form-of-Government

Birthright of Sovereignty
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Americans-Squandered-Their-Birthright-of-Sovereignty

[christian]

Communism is not on the table, at least not in my universe. Capitalism will always be around in some form or another for quite a bit longer, as the least of all evils. Socialism may have the right idea but it is tainted now with all kinds of extremism. So what's left?

Institutionalized anything leads to abuse and strong-arm tactics - and favoritism.

All of these forms of governance focuses on central control. Maybe decentralizing is the way to go. Focus on community and towns.

"Maybe decentralizing is the way to go. Focus on community and towns." — That's exactly what Capitalism is :)

The system today could be called an oligarchy, a corporatocracy, something like this… Capitalism is defined by (a) private property with no such thing as taxes or regulations on what you can and cannot own, but communities and towns etc may establish their own regulations here, and (b) a free market, no government robbing Peter to pay Paul or whomever.

As for Socialism and Communism, I like Ayn Rand's take on it: "There is no difference between Communism and Socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: Communism proposes to enslave men by force, Socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

World Communism—total control by some government institution—is being assembled as we speak. State control of anything in the US is higher now than it has ever been in history.

Communism today doesn't call itself Communism very openly, but don't mistake what's happening now for anything else.

Are we seeing government bureaucrats promoting individual liberty, aka Capitalism? Or are we seeing them promoting state control, aka Communism?

I think the answer is obvious. People just tend to confuse the words and actual meanings.

See for example this: Millennials Reject Capitalism in Name – but Socialism in Fact (Terminology Confuses Real Preferences) (https://fee.org/articles/young-people-reject-capitalism-in-name-socialism-in-fact/)


The American people give vastly more in philanthropic donations on a percentage basis than anyone in the world. This is the best-kept secret in American textbooks. I know very few socialists but from my experience, they are the selfish ones.

There seems to be a basis to that claim (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026442/Dont-listen-liberals--Right-wingers-really-nicer-people-latest-research-shows.html).

"Those surveyed were asked: 'Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?' Of those describing themselves as 'conservative', 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed. To the question: 'Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of your own?', 55 per cent of those who said they were 'very conservative' said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were 'very liberal'. […] When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the Left were nearly twice as likely to say No. […] Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers. Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say 'after good health, money is the most important thing', and agree with the statement 'there are no right or wrong ways to make money'."

[Daozen]

Exactly what Christian says^^^^. (And Fredkc, Onawah, Ernie Nemth etc.) Next time someone says they hate capitalism, ask them if they hate Ebay, online selling, digital money transfer, Kickstarter, AirBnB, Farmer's co-ops, Etsy, Paypal, Bitcoin, local markets, cash in hand labour, Craigslist, private tuition, the free press, concerts, online books and counselling...

I agree with the 'rejecting in name, but embracing in spirit' article. It's something I noticed for a long time but could never put succinctly.

I had this conversation a few times:

Someone else: "I'm sick of capitalism."
Me:" Maybe, what we need is a free market without government intervention. "
Them: "Yes! Down with capitalism, we need a free market "

!

I only heard bad things about Ayn Rand growing up. People said she was a 'Rothschild disinformation agent', but her "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal" is one of the best books I ever read. It explains in detail why minimum wage is doomed to fail. Ask any Wendy's employee who just got replaced by a robot if she was right.

A true free market would (eventually) minimize governments, pharmaceutical giants and the military industrial complex. Or, minimizing govs, big pharma and the MIC would eventually give rise to a free-market. This would free up trillions of dollars per year. Where does surplus money flow? To businesses, investment, goods, the service industry etc. Billions of jobs would be created. It's not perfect but it's workable. If we wanted to eradicate poverty we could focus on building simple systems which provided food, water and energy at a household level, freeing people from the rat race. Then, and only then, could we free ourselves from the burden of debt. But that decision has to come from ourselves. Gunpoint charity is unsustainable.

If people truly want a world without money they will have to spend billions of dollars to get there.

[Ernie Nemeth]

What happens when robots replace half the jobs in the economy? What happens when the people are not needed to do the labor? What happens to people who are no longer employable? We are already at the place where corporations and big business rake in monumental profits but the related jobs are in decline. There is a growing group that is exactly that - unemployable. The only way to ensure employability is to pay for higher levels of schooling. But the schooling programs your mind and erases individuality. Not to mention how you must start out in your professional life in debt. Debt that never vanishes and only grows. Debt that can be used to control you and manipulate you and steal from you.

Capitalism will not help then, being amoral at best. Also, capitalism is about secrecy and misdirection. It has to be. There is no other way of capitalizing on another unless the other is in some way at a disadvantage in terms of information or contacts. So we get information hoarding and patent applications for every little idea. Everyone wants to capitalize, wants to take advantage, wants to outcompete and destroy their adversaries. Anne Rand be damned. She is an elitist, and in her mind, justifiably so. She doesn't get it, neither do the other elitists. Mankind is being driven and corralled into a life that is unnatural. We judge too harshly because we use the criteria of our masters, who judge the vast majority as virtually useless. And yet our health services will pay any amount to keep one individual alive.

Then there is the notion of the "example". The example is the person who is used to show others what will happen if they transgress. This is where you get the "nothing personal" attitude as they throw the book at you. It is not about the disproportionate harshness of the sentence, they say, it is that others must be shown the severity of the offense. I've been caught in that one at least a dozen times.

True that communism and socialism does the same sort of thing, in a world of unbridled capitalism the unfair use of laws to curtail free market forces is hypocritical. At least in the alternates there is some lip service paid to the inalienable rights of citizens. Capitalism makes no such claims. Supposedly the motto is: "You sink or swim by your own hand." Umm, some don't know how to swim.

Some just want to wander through life doing what others would say is nothing. But in another world, in another time that is exactly what we all did: wandered through the world plucking fruit off of trees. Just because some are ambitious, the rest of us have to fall in line. And the sad part is that the others don't even know there is another way. We don't need jobs. We need lives. We don't need money. We need all the things money can buy. In fact we need very little, the rest we were trained to want.

I have no problem working - FOR A CAUSE and TOWARDS a FUTURE! In this society all co-operative ventures are vested interests - and there is no goal other than to win at the game. If some good spins off from that degenerate lifestyle it is only accidental and fully unintentional - and will eventually be used to curtail your freedoms even more.

There has to be another, entirely different, way.

I say give me the tools to live completely independently from all of modern society. Give me the tools to ignore the unfair laws and go about my business without fear of reprisals. then, in a generation or so, I'll be in a position to help others get free.

Until then, I oppose every proposal by the establishment and reject any and all handouts, claw backs or legislative fixes.

[shaberon]

If I need to be viewed as a slaver because I believe everyone deserves some minimal basics, then so be it.

Not at all. But because you want some institution to take the minimal basics from productive people by force and then redistribute them as that institution sees fit. If you'd argue for providing for the needy voluntarily, we'd be on the same page.

Sure, that would be much closer to my personal value: voluntarily give your time, labor, and stuff to those in obvious need. The most recent example I was able to find, was maybe not "the Mormons" but at least a particular Mormon who housed several hundred people in Utah.

The more I argue for someone to do something voluntarily, the more it becomes compelled behavior.

I don't want an institution. As long as there is one, getting it to take care of actual needs instead of usury and warfare, would be an improvement; killing it is also an option.

With the early United States, yes, there was a system of almost no government interference to the business world, and it was prosperous, without rampant hunger, homelessness, crime, and so forth. Even without the "relative" slavery of taxes and regulations, it thrived on actual slavery: the ownership of another's body and the confiscation of 100% of their productivity. For that reason, I'm not sure the world has ever seen an example of free market capitalism; and the questions I have about that, would be based from that it appears to cater to selfish interests as opposed to selfless giving; and that the only "capitalists" would be those who had a lot of money to make investments expecting a return. If we had equal rights, nobody would have anything to offer except their hands; I've always seen the wealthy telling the poor to take out the trash.

Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned trickle-down, there may be no such thing, but for a while it was at least a story provided by the institution as "hopium" I guess.

[Yetti]

Agree, the issue here is: what about the lazy people , the ones who has no desire to thrive, I know many of them! why they should be bail out? , what would be the incentive for those who believe in earn their living means thru hard and honest work?
I do not think a bail out giving people money just because they are there on earth , is any solution, but to invest in a sustainable way to live on this earth, integrating small business allowance without gov controls and regulations to the bone, could help, what I'm saying is LET THE PEOPLE WORK, stop draconian corporations to take over the whole thing ( including politicians). go back to the small village economy, farmers market, education instead indoctrination.. but this is just my idea.... thanks !

[Yetti]

Thanks Daozen. Yes, Gunpoint charity is not the answer. A huge Re-education program must be implemented and the free market solution is the one that seems to work the best. I saw small examples to this and let me tell you it works and not in a long term, the result is on a short- medium term, market adjust according to demand and offer.
People has the ultimate word on this so they will pay the goods according to their economic possibility. So any goods on the market with a price too hi will not find sale, bur a healthy competition will delivery the goods to the people at a better price.. And all this promote small business, and workforce, people busy have no time for drugs, crime, and sheer stupidity !

[Wind]

In a just society people would never ever have to worry about money. Sure there would be some work which people would love to do, but most of the time they would spend creating and doing the stuff they want, educating themselves. Freeloaders will always be there, so what. What we currently have is enslavement indeed. Wage jobs are mostly enslavement, while the elite gets away with the riches they certainly don't deserve. Middle classes are disappearing, poor people are getting poorer while rich are getting extremely rich.

In third world countries people are dying of starvation while here in the western countries extremely rich people keep on partying. Rain forests are chopped down and (especially endangered) animals are killed by the masses. What kind of a insane society supports that? Bear in mind that I live Scandinavia and here people still have some sense of fairness and equality although those too are being taken away, but without the governments help many people would have been in the dumpsters. They are considering the option of basic income, but I don't know if they will ever implement it country-wide.

Something much better than this needs to invented. People should not be seen as objects, statistics, slaves/worker ants which do their masters bidding meaning their bosses and the government, people are much more valuable than that. Everyone should have equal rights and we don't have them. Most people are slaves without even realizing it.

I would like to know what people think about what it truly means to be free in a just society where others are not controlling them or putting them to prisons for doing "crimes", which should not even be considered as crimes, like for example expansing your consciousness. That is the one thing the government doesn't want you to do, because then you might become a critical thinker who starts to question things and will think outside the box. Why are not innovations encouraged like they should be, but instead resisted by big government and corporations?

https://hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/buckminster-fuller-earn-living-technological-breakthrough.jpg

[Ernie Nemeth]

In this society we have an excuse: we don't know we are enslaved, or at least we can claim that.

I wonder about past societies where it was conscious knowledge that they were slaves. How do you live in that world with that understanding? I know how I would do it. I would fight until I was captured or killed. In this society I can be forgiven for not taking a stand to action because I can not be sure of my premise. But in a world where it is common knowledge a person like me would have no choice, I would have to fight. So here I straddle the fence, sometimes going along just to get along. Then other times I resist my jailers, test their limits and resolve until I get caught and fined, then back to conforming to climb out of the hole. Then I resist again until smacked down again.

It is crazy. A crazy way to live. I resent it immensely, and my part in it.

[Daozen]

There's no one size fits all solution to this problem. What we need is 10,000 experiments, where people go off on their own and live in the way they think is best. It's easy enough to knock down someone's ideas, but if you don't provide a viable alternative that can be acted upon, the conversation stays stagnant and theoretical. Intellectuals have been decrying the current system for centuries (I agree it's terrible) but many haven't *proven the concept* of something better. If you don't give examples, you're just an armchair visionary.

This conversation will just be mindless theory unless people start giving solutions. I think the answer to our problems is not so much political or economic, but grassroots technology.

*

What would you do if you had 25,000USD and a plot of land to design your ideal homestead? How would you build it so it could be scaled modularly in 10, 1000, or 10,000 units?

If ppl don't post actionable solutions that can be built from the ground up, no one will read, and no one will care. The timeline I'm building is "Lord of the Rings with Laptops" but other people might have different ideas.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/G2_Global_model_Earthship_Taos_N.M..JPG
http://www.designweneed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/earthships-water-treatment.jpg

[Ernie Nemeth]

Really great and uplifting Doazen. Nice

If all that was to be part of the "basic income for all", I would not be here posting.

I am trying to point out the danger of instituting a "basic" income. Like a minimum wage, "basic" income is a crutch and not a solution. The question of "Why are there jobs that cannot support the worker?" and "Why is there a need for basic subsistence in this world in the first place?" cannot be swept under the rug or it will just remain festering out of sight.

The solutions are there and we are talking about them. But they are not what we have ever encountered before. They are revolutionary. They are cultural shattering and paradigm busting in their scope. And they naturally feel uncomfortable during the transition. We have to grow into them and it is discomfiting at best. Still, we have to guard against half measures, warn against dead ends. If not the paradigm will never shift. So far, it would rather snap back and move the other direction toward totalitarianism. We have to ease it along, stretching seeming credulity until we reach the plateau.

It is not all intellectualism, either. There are diverse areas of research, from energy to propulsion that have revealed a new science or an extension to scientific inquiry that will, as we all know, soon catapult our technologies into unknown territory and make our present economic system obsolete. The elite wish to police this transition. We need to free it.

As Wade always says, patience is his bane (paraphrased). I think patience is what we need to practice now. No one can envision the transformational power of this paradigm shift.

A new world is just over the horizon. It will be either a paradise or a hell, which is not for any of us to decide alone.

We just have to wait and see.

[Daozen]

Glad you liked it, Ernie.

But how do we know that any of this will happen "soon"? Or that it is "just over the horizon".

We need basic subsistence because we are not skilled or focused enough to start providing the essentials of human life (food, water, medicine) in our own local areas. So we remain tied to the beast. I think you are right basic income won't fix an already broken system.

Why would we have to "wait and see?"

Any change we've seen over the past 20 years have come from engineers, whether that's agricultural, software, media or architectural. While I agree that we need a new paradigm, few posters in this thread have given examples of how to get there.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I think in terms of parallel indication, or counterintuitive behavior. The exceptions are where the answers are. Why? Because the exceptions are unexplored, or collapsed, potentials.

(The same can be said of the questions as you posed them. Each of those questions are collapsed potentials with reams of data pertinent to the discussion that are essential in order to make or attempt an informed decision. How do we know it will happen soon asks how long can the public remain blissfully unaware of true current events. How do we know it is just over the horizon is because we can feel and imagine it but it is not yet here. Therefore it must be over the horizon but close. We must wait and see because we have and are doing all that can be done, personally - right? We have to wait and see what the others decide, I guess.)

When collapsed potentials are looked at closer they expand in detail and reveal unexpected behavior. They eventually interlock with known behavior and are reconciled with accepted reality. In this case, the reality will be busted completely and the strange behavior will become the norm.

It cannot be predicted because we interpret the world with today's paradigm and that paradigm will no longer be the guiding force of tomorrow's culture. All bets are off on predicting anything, even what will stay the same.

On a side note: lazy people seem to be a common theme, especially in a secret slave society like ours. Lazy people are lazy because they can be. Lazy people in past ages were the soon-to-be dead people! Or they turned to parasitic behavior...
If we want to be open and honest, we could also demand that lazy people be rounded up and shot. That is our right. But to single them out and persecute them and try and make it about them does not serve any useful purpose. Some say they have nothing against charity, if it is not forced on them but at the same time they are alright with the lazy being forced to work, as if to prove the old adage misery loves company, or something like.

I am pretty sure it is not lazy people's fault, or the poor, or the minorities, or the stupid or the intellectual either. Most of us used to be engineers-by-necessity before the designation was subsumed by the profession so it cannot be their fault. It could be this or that race's fault but that seems sort of..well..racist.

We got to be fair does not include divvying up the pie according to the hours one put into it. Every moment of a life is a contributing potential, no one can predict the value of that.

It is the pioneering spirit that has been quenched in this society. There are no more open spaces and vast expanses to conquer, to subdue. The American "can do" attitude has died. That is what will be revived.

That is what will save us.

Even the lazy will participate in that, trust me.

[MorningSong]

The Swiss vote is in.... but only about 23% of the population voted yes:

Results can be seen here:

https://www.admin.ch/ch/f/pore/va/20160605/det601.html


World | Mon Jun 6, 2016 1:22am EDT
Related: World
Swiss reject free income plan after worker vs. robot debate

Swiss voters rejected by a wide margin on Sunday a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for everyone living in the wealthy country after an uneasy debate about the future of work at a time of increasing automation.

Supporters had said introducing a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,563) per adult and 625 francs per child under 18 no matter how much they work would promote human dignity and public service.

Opponents, including the government, said it would cost too much and weaken the economy.

Provisional final results showed 76.9 percent of voters opposed the bold social experiment launched by Basel cafe owner Daniel Haeni and allies in a vote under the Swiss system of direct democracy.

Haeni acknowledged defeat but claimed a moral victory.

"As a businessman I am a realist and had reckoned with 15 percent support, now it looks like more than 20 percent or maybe even 25 percent. I find that fabulous and sensational," he told SRF.

"When I see the media interest, from abroad as well, then I say we are setting a trend."

Conservative Switzerland is the first country to hold a national referendum on an unconditional basic income, but others including Finland are examining similar plans as societies ponder a world where robots replace humans in the workforce.

Olivier, a 26-year-old carpenter who works on construction sites and runs a small business designing and building furniture, said he voted "yes".

"For me it would be a great opportunity to put my focus on my passion and not go to work just for a living," he said.

SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?

Champions of the plan portrayed a more automated future in a poster bigger than a soccer field asking "What would you do if your income was secure?" They had also marched as robots down Zurich's high street and handed out free 10-franc notes.

"I voted 'yes' because money does not really have its place in this world, it is so arbitrary and linked to power games," said Ronnie Lehmann, 37, who makes less than 4,000 francs a month as a bicycle mechanic. "But I'm not surprised the proposal got rejected, the world is not ready for it yet."

A woman named Meleanie said she reluctantly voted "no".

"I find that it is a real danger that once people just get their basic needs covered society doesn't feel responsible any more to look after the ones who can't really handle the situation on their own", she said.

In a separate vote on Sunday, Swiss voters clearly rejected a proposal to require state-controlled companies, such as Swisscom (SCMN.S), not to seek to make a profit.

The government had warned that accepting the initiative would hurt the companies' competitiveness and could lead to higher taxes.

Employers heaved a sigh of relief that Switzerland, where unemployment is only around 3.5 percent, had not become the first country to embrace the guaranteed income measure.

The Swiss government had urged voters to reject the campaign, saying the scheme would cost too much and undermine social cohesion.

Interior Minister Alain Berset said the vote showed Swiss voters supported the economic and social system in place "and that this system works well."

The plan included replacing in full or in part what people got from social benefits.

The government estimated the proposal would have cost 208 billion Swiss francs a year, significantly weakened the economy and discouraged people, especially low earners, from working.

Much of the cost could have been covered by existing social security payments, but sharp spending cuts or tax increases would have had to make up a remaining gap of 25 billion.

An advanced social safety net already supports people who cannot pay for their own livelihood. Fewer than seven percent of people lived in poverty in 2014, official data show.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-vote-idUSKCN0YR0CW

[Yetti]

Right Daozen, but now the most effective system to deal with water as an example ,is the grey waters management, before to go to the septic is recicled back to the toilets , that save a lot of water in a regular home.
It is obvious that we need to move to the green side of living better sooner than later .

[Daozen]

I think there are many solutions to water and sewage. I support all experiments. Let's just try everything and learn from each other's mistakes.

BTW, the Swiss said no to UBI with a healthy margin.

[Mike]

Ultimately its a spiritual issue, I think.

There is a great apathy that has settled into the hearts of millions of people. They may not know what the "illuminati" is, but they are very aware that the deck is stackly largely against them.

This idea, this so called american dream is largely a myth. People are finally finding out. Their best efforts - even if they work very very hard - rarely if ever result in what they had envisioned.

The game is rigged. So why play? Why knock yourself out? I take walks most nights in a lovely little village near a lake, populated mostly by nice but modest homes..and I often think about how pleasant it would be to own one..that is until I consider all the work involved. Those people worked themselves ragged for those modest little homes...and they don't even really own them...in most instances, the banks do. Thats no dream..thats a nightmare.

Me..i'd rather work some easy, sh!tty little worry free job, go home to a small studio apartment and drink myself to sleep. At least it gives me the freedom to think. Besides, you work hard all your life...blood.sweat n tears...and then theres an orchestrated crash and youre no better off than me anyway. A part of me has always viewed my so called unproductivity as clever...and I still do. I take a certain pride in it.

Ever work a commission based job? Great job Mike, you hit your numbers. Well done. but then they just keep raising the numbers. They become impossible to hit. And when you don't hit them you get demoted. Thats your reward for hitting your numbers the first time. Most jobs are like this...if not literally than metaphorically.


Ultimately there are no "ists" "isms" or "ocracy" that will change the hearts of men. No matter how seemingly fair and equitable a so called solution seems to be...there will always be someone there to corrupt or take advantage of it.....no matter if its capitalism, socialism, marxism so forth.

As long as our hearts are impure, none of it will matter. Our economic systems should ideally reflect our pure hearts...but instead they try to compensate for our moral deficiencies..and there are just way too many for any "ism" to even begin to contain.

The human race needs to evolve. quickly.

Meanwhile i'll be enjoying my unproductivity...

[onawah]

There is a perspective on human evolution that is being channeled by a group of people called "The Micheal Teachings", which I've found very interesting.
http://www.michaelteachings.com/
I haven't really checked it out for a few years, but they are still going strong apparently.
Hopefully they haven't been invaded by Archons or whatever it is that has happened to many other channelers who used to be giving out pretty good information, but I do know that the information the Teachings used to disseminate was very helpful to me and a number of other people I've known over the years, and that basic info can still be found online.
One of the things that I found to be very illuminating has to do with Soul Ages. http://www.michaelteachings.com/soul_age_index.html
It's complicated, but to break it down for this discussion, the Teachings divide up basic human soul ages (levels of development) into Infant, Baby, Young, Mature, Old, Transcendental and Infinite, and there are certain characteristics of each stage.
One might assume that Old souls would have it all together and ascended to the upper strata of society having experienced so much, but in fact, in the way that the Teachings describe them, Old souls often don't care at all about worldly success or having it all, they have a sort of "been there, done that" attitude as far as the outer world goes and they aren't ambitious in that way--it is the inner world that interests them, and they will often take up easy, menial jobs just so they can think their own thoughts and not be bothered with worldly clamor, and won't seek worldly power or influence unless they really think they can do some good.
So the concept of "laziness" takes on a different aspect when you looks at things from that perspective.
Some Old Souls might be judged "useless eaters" by some, but how do you measure a soul's worth--is it only by what they tangibly produce, the income they make?
Old souls can offer a lot that other levels don't have, even if they aren't particularly productive in the usual sense of the word.
But the world would certainly be a poorer place without them, and that should be taken into consideration.
With "the system" the way it is now, I think all too often such people can easily fall through the cracks, and that is a tragic waste.

[Mike]

I thought i was the only one who read that book Nat;)....I found it buried in the "occult" section at my local used book store.

Fascinating book. Never read anything quite like it.

The ouija board group, right?

Everything about it seemed dubious from the beginning...until it began making relentless logical sense. It was so involved and so detailed and reasonable that it ultimately won me over.

I agree with everything you said.

[11one]

it should be like pro sports. theres a minimum everyone gets and theres a maximum. i dont believe that horse**** that people will be sapped of their creativity, motivation and drive if there are parameters set in place for this game we are playing. being a lazy bum is its own punishment, anyone whos been that and we all have know what im talking about

[Wind]

One of the things that I found to be very illuminating has to do with Soul Ages.

One might assume that Old souls would have it all together and ascended to the upper strata of society having experienced so much, but in fact, in the way that the Teachings describe them, Old souls often don't care at all about worldly success or having it all, they have a sort of "been there, done that" attitude as far as the outer world goes and they aren't ambitious in that way--it is the inner world that interests them, and they will often take up easy, menial jobs just so they can think their own thoughts and not be bothered with worldly clamor, and won't seek worldly power or influence unless they really think they can do some good.
So the concept of "laziness" takes on a different aspect when you looks at things from that perspective.

Some Old Souls might be judged "useless eaters" by some, but how do you measure a soul's worth--is it only by what they tangibly produce, the income they make?
Old souls can offer a lot that other levels don't have, even if they aren't particularly productive in the usual sense of the word.

I always found that material fascinating and noticed that I fit well with the Old souls group. I think also Michael Newton talked about soul ages in his books. By societies standards I probably would not be a very productive member (not that I really give a damn about it), but then again I've always had my physical problems anyways which have resulted in weariness (old soul symptoms). Most of my life has consisted of studying, mostly spiritual and esoteric things. Inner work. Perhaps that information will one day somehow serve others too.

I was always wondering if the less mature baby/infant souls were the more aggressive, ego-driven and judgemental ones, while the old ones can just more easily not judge others and see the beauty and interconnectedness in everyone and everything. Souls who are just more focused on "being" than rather doing. Why compete? What's the rat race really all about? Not saying that some doings should not be done, but it's about the focus. Not getting attached to the wheel of karma more anymore, completing the cycle, serving others in our own unique ways. No one can put a prige tag on that.

[onawah]

I'm not sure which book you are referring to, Mike.
Is it "Messages from Michael" by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro?
There have been quite a few books about the Michael Teachings, and more coming, no doubt. See:
http://www.itstime.com/michael.htm
If you google Michael Teachings, you will find lots of articles, books, links to different teachers, etc..
There is a whole network, worldwide, though I think mostly concentrated in California.
There used to be a chat group and a forum too (and probably still is) where you could direct questions to various of the teacher/channelers, who would take turns answering.
The entire subject matter is fascinating, imho, and worthy of pursuit.


I thought i was the only one who read that book Nat;)....I found it buried in the "occult" section at my local used book store.

Fascinating book. Never read anything quite like it.

The ouija board group, right?

Everything about it seemed dubious from the beginning...until it began making relentless logical sense. It was so involved and so detailed and reasonable that it ultimately won me over.

I agree with everything you said.

[Mike]

this one Nat:

http://a3.img.bidorbuy.co.za/image/upload/user_images/494/400494_111007192316_2011-10-06THEGOODDOCTOR_%28109%29.JPG

[onawah]

Yep, that's a good one, Mike! :nod:

[Carmody]

Ultimately its a spiritual issue, I think.

There is a great apathy that has settled into the hearts of millions of people. They may not know what the "illuminati" is, but they are very aware that the deck is stackly largely against them.

This idea, this so called american dream is largely a myth. People are finally finding out. Their best efforts - even if they work very very hard - rarely if ever result in what they had envisioned.

The game is rigged. So why play? Why knock yourself out? I take walks most nights in a lovely little village near a lake, populated mostly by nice but modest homes..and I often think about how pleasant it would be to own one..that is until I consider all the work involved. Those people worked themselves ragged for those modest little homes...and they don't even really own them...in most instances, the banks do. Thats no dream..thats a nightmare.

Me..i'd rather work some easy, sh!tty little worry free job, go home to a small studio apartment and drink myself to sleep. At least it gives me the freedom to think. Besides, you work hard all your life...blood.sweat n tears...and then theres an orchestrated crash and youre no better off than me anyway. A part of me has always viewed my so called unproductivity as clever...and I still do. I take a certain pride in it.

Ever work a commission based job? Great job Mike, you hit your numbers. Well done. but then they just keep raising the numbers. They become impossible to hit. And when you don't hit them you get demoted. Thats your reward for hitting your numbers the first time. Most jobs are like this...if not literally than metaphorically.


Ultimately there are no "ists" "isms" or "ocracy" that will change the hearts of men. No matter how seemingly fair and equitable a so called solution seems to be...there will always be someone there to corrupt or take advantage of it.....no matter if its capitalism, socialism, marxism so forth.

As long as our hearts are impure, none of it will matter. Our economic systems should ideally reflect our pure hearts...but instead they try to compensate for our moral deficiencies..and there are just way too many for any "ism" to even begin to contain.

The human race needs to evolve. quickly.

Meanwhile i'll be enjoying my unproductivity...

"Intelligence is applied laziness."

[Fredkc]

DaoZen;
1. Thanks Fredkc though I don't think I will ever be a conservative, at least not by today's definition.
2. If people truly want a world without money they will have to spend billions of dollars to get there.

1. YW. ;)
Sadly, In modern times, the term "conservative", basically means "member of Republican party". Trouble is, almost the entire Repub. party, (and about half the Dems) are really just Fascists. Basically the group who now populates the halls of US govt. Why delse would it appear that a military presence in 140 of the ~180 countries abroad is considered to be an un-debatable necessity? It's Fascism in action. Or what was originally called, by Mussolini, "Corporatism". it needs to be gone.

2. Look back at the time of Churchill, and the quote I put up, and before, and you'll see that Conservative meant something very different. So different that the terms "Conservative", and "Liberal" were synonymous.

What these people were "Conservative" about, was the interference by government in anything. What they were "Liberal" about was the application of decisions, favoring personal freedom, liberally, whenever possible.

Kinda explains why I decided, 25 years ago, I'd never belong to either party again.
___________________________

Also cool you plugging earthship.com (http://earthship.com). I've long been a fan of Michael Reynold's stuff. Read and seen most of it, and gave away several of his books as Xmas presents, & such. Mostly he, and most sustainable ideas, get treated like pestilence among the bureaucracy. After all, a system that doesn't need government, just... doesn't need government, so it must be bad. ;)



Ernie N.
1a. What happens when robots replace half the jobs in the economy? What happens when the people are not needed to do the labor? What happens to people who are no longer employable?
1b. We are already at the place where corporations and big business rake in monumental profits but the related jobs are in decline.

2. There is a growing group that is exactly that - unemployable. The only way to ensure employ-ability is to pay for higher levels of schooling.
1a: I spent 15 yrs doing the programming, setting up and operating of said computer controlled machinery. Lathes, mills, & robotics. All of it paid 3-5 times what operating a drill press ever did.

Then I spent another 5 years traveling/teaching people how to do same. It took me to all but 4 US states, got to 3 Canadian provinces, and once around the world. End result was that nearly every place I went, I left behind people who were worth more to their employers, themselves, more free to move up, and/or out on their own, with a better job. I get a lil warm & fuzzy when I think of it, so it isn't all a bad thing.

oh! By the way... the programming, setting up, operation of, maintenance, and repair of, said automation, all pay much better than running a drill press ever could, or will. ;)

1b, & 2. I agree with much of what you say, here.
I, like you (if I recall aright), am what I term a "left-over hippie". Couldn't find a term in use for the rest of my sympathies so I use the term "Rabid Anti-Corporate Capitalist".

Basically I am worth, whatever the market will bear. When that is not enough, I will find either a better place to do that, or find something better paying to do with my time. I work to live, I do not live to work. Pretty well sums up my over-all sympathies.

Corporations, and their resultant infection are what is wrong with what has become of the US. A very telling question I once heard about the plague of corporations:
"Tell me what in nature:
a) never dies, and
b) grows at an annual rate of 5%, forever? ... And why?"
(No, kudzu doesn't count!) ;)

Incidentally...

For an interesting speech on what to do about Corporations, try:
Richard Grossman
Revoking Corporate Charters (http://fredsitelive.com/reference/papers/corp_charters.htm)
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, February 13, 1997
Richard Grossman is co-director of the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy. He is co-author of Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation. He was the director of Environmentalists for Full Employment.Fred

[Ernie Nemeth]

FredKC
Then I spent another 5 years traveling/teaching people how to do same.

If I could have fallen into a training position, I might be far happier now. But then I would be in an untenable position because I would be supporting a system I do not endorse. The point for me is to not support this world with my efforts. Unfortunately, that has meant I must make do with far less than most. The upside is I don't have to work too much to pay my bills. The downside is I often can't pay my bills on time - no credit to get me by. Avalon donations have suffered recently, for example.

I envy your choices and applaud your journey. I wish I could go back and make different choices and come to different conclusions. But at the time I did not have all the facts I have today - or the support of the like-minded. I was very much on my own for many decades. All excuses, I know.

Those jobs, fixing robots and related equipment, will not be plentiful enough to keep everyone employed. A high tech world implies a world freed of much physical labor. That physical labor has been the backbone of the middle class. What of them?

[Carmody]

"Intelligence is applied laziness."

to expand on that, what I mean by that, I'll say a good friend of mine, did, what.... 10 years of university? Never really held a job in my knowing.

Instead, he created a unique niche and never works, except for when the phone rings. The rest of the time is his own, which comes in at about 95% of the rest of the year. He could have went to the big city and made millions, if he worked hard. Instead he took the time to live the way he wanted to and to hell with the rat race.

I did sort of the same, but took the low road, in order to arrive at the same destination. Welfare, low paying jobs, lots of unemployment, and so on. I could have easily went to university and received multiple degrees, but that seemed like too much work.

I spent my free time doing mostly the same as he did. Listen to music, think, ponder, learn more....and enjoy the air and the world. Why work like a frikin' hamster on a wheel? To what point? More hamstering on a wheel? Piss on that, I said, when I was 12. Not ****ing happening. Walk away before the circular argument even begins.

When I was 36, I decided to not be poor anymore. So I looked around me, figured out an avenue and then took it. I worked at it for about 5-6 years overall, and then removed myself from the process and offices, and let it run on it's original system, before I became involved.... and let it, with it's new inclusive product.... pay me a minimal monthly wage. And I've not worked again, in 11 years, now.

Probably +250 million (probably more) have seen what I did, but have no idea of what I speak of at all. And I'm not willing to clarify.

I could have worked like a dog for the past 11 years, and I'm not sure I'd really be any 'richer' for it. More than likely - not. I would have gotten in considerably more traveling, but I'd be full of every known vaccine, in the meantime.

I wasn't completely lazy in the intervening 11 years, as I ended up creating another unique consideration.. and put it on the market. One utilizing unique physics. As usual, the entire market is against it, as like the first one, which took over, in it's own way (probably over a 2-3 billion was spent due to it's existence allowing changes in that market).... it is changing the root paradigm, and would crash all others down... and out of existence.

Intelligence gets little to no respect, in this world, for the most part. Only if it satisfies the extant common paradigm, which is not a thing of intelligence..as it is of the common nature. The common nature being one of a more instinctual dance, outside of thought. The most intelligent are generally loners, not by choice but by the reality of the bell curve of life. One could be angry and try to eat the world as a pout driven penalty for the situation, but that's not good....

So, intelligence is applied laziness? Yes this is true. The same comes back, in a way, in different form... from Max Planck, the father of the quantum science:

"Scientific discovery and scientific knowledge have been achieved only by those who have gone in pursuit of it without any practical purpose whatsoever in view."

Would a basic minimum income engender more intelligence in people and ultimately be a benefit?

I Like to think it would. Not enough data. One thing for sure, is that the fundamentals could not be the same as they are today. A universal basic income cannot be considered in the current world mentality, no siree. Not gonna work.

The trick, the rub... is if the world could carry this whole thing while it shifts... and the question is how long.... and how well would the world shift into it? Would we be more unique or more like automatons in a frozen state?

[Fredkc]

Those jobs, fixing robots and related equipment, will not be plentiful enough to keep everyone employed.

Remember a poster called "Desiderata" ? It starts off:
"Go peacefully amidst the noise and confusion.... etc"
It was a point by point list of things to strive for, to lead a peaceful life in this madness.

Well, never willing to leave a good thing alone, the National Lampoon published a satire called:
Deteriorata (http://fredsitelive.com/fun/deteriorata.htm)
it starts off:
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.

Your statement reminded me of one of its lines:
Be comforted, that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment, and despite the changing fortunes of time, there is always a big future in computer maintenance.

I am what I call a "throwaway" in the job market. My specialty now is design, and implementation of SQL databases, and web interfaces for same. The sad truth is that, what I can do in one pass @ $50-&70 per hour, 8 hrs/day, can also be done in 18 hrs/day by 2 18yr olds tweaked outa their minds on Red Bull, Monster, & Doritos for $20/hr each.
Guess who gets hired?
Fred

[Carmody]

Being the wise man, Fred, who knows that 'fecal happens' and it is just a matter of time, and that no job comes off perfectly, I'll take you first.

Because there are GOING TO be problems. It is inevitable. Red bull, COD, and bad porn... does not trump experience.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Yes. That is the niche I fill, too. Experience trumps youth and bravado every time. I'm a wizard at my trade. Want magic? I got magic.

Some get it, and value that.

[ozmirage]

I, like you (if I recall aright), am what I term a "left-over hippie". Couldn't find a term in use for the rest of my sympathies so I use the term "Rabid Anti-Corporate Capitalist".

Basically I am worth, whatever the market will bear. When that is not enough, I will find either a better place to do that, or find something better paying to do with my time. I work to live, I do not live to work. Pretty well sums up my over-all sympathies.

Corporations, and their resultant infection are what is wrong with what has become of the US. A very telling question I once heard about the plague of corporations:
"Tell me what in nature:
a) never dies, and
b) grows at an annual rate of 5%, forever? ... And why?"
(No, kudzu doesn't count!) ;)

You're close to the meat...

Due to pervasive indoctrination, most people are misled to blame "capitalism" instead of the real culprits : usury and collectivism.

...
Capitalist Principles
...


CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY

PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217


If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".

= = = CAPITALISM is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by INDIVIDUALS and operated for their individual profit. = = =


If you think about it, American capitalism is an endowment to be secured by government. There is no government privilege involved in absolute ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and of the gain derived. Nor can capitalism be subject to an excise tax, since no government privilege is involved.

This definition does NOT include usury, gambling (underwriting), speculation, extortion, limited liability artificial persons (government privileged) or other predatory practices usually attributed to "capitalism". Coincidentally, such practices are subject to an excise tax, for they are revenue taxable privileges.

Since the introduction of national socialism via "Social Security", no one has absolutely owned a thing. The government can and will tax away anything and everything. This illustrates that no one owns private property - for any taking of private property must be compensated for (5th amendment, USCON).


From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

BTW - "estate" and "private property" are mutually exclusive.
That is why government can tax "real estate" but cannot tax "private property."
(Do not believe me. Read the law for yourself.)

Summed up, in the 1930s, the U.S. government went collectivist, abolishing private property. . . and thus real capitalism.
Coincidentally, banking and corporations both exist in "anti-capitalist" communist countries.

Blaming "Capitalism" for the woes created by "Collectivism" and "Usury" are examples of the success of the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

[christian]

What happens when robots replace half the jobs in the economy? What happens when the people are not needed to do the labor?

Look back at the industrial revolution, automation. Suddenly, lots of jobs weren't necessary anymore.

What happened then? More jobs were created than were lost. Hard manual labor went back, jobs in health care and education were created. Here's the source (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/17/technology-created-more-jobs-than-destroyed-140-years-data-census) for that.

Of course, it's more complicated than comparing that to today. But still, technological progress always offers new opportunities that are often quite unforeseen by many!


Also, capitalism is about secrecy and misdirection. It has to be. There is no other way of capitalizing on another unless the other is in some way at a disadvantage in terms of information or contacts.

Capitalism is a free market. Free markets are about transparency. On a free market, you earn something by offering something of value to another. Customers want transparency about products, they would choose a transparent business over an intransparent one.

What we have is a corporatrocracy. It's about intransparent laws and loopholes that favor certain cronies. These cronies earn something by purposefully disadvantaging others. Certain corporations influence the government to benefit at the expense of most others, and they prefer to do that rather secretly.


I'm not sure the world has ever seen an example of free market capitalism; and the questions I have about that, would be based from that it appears to cater to selfish interests as opposed to selfless giving; and that the only "capitalists" would be those who had a lot of money to make investments expecting a return. If we had equal rights, nobody would have anything to offer except their hands; I've always seen the wealthy telling the poor to take out the trash.

Of course, wealthier people always pay poorer people for work they don't want to do themselves. I don't see anything wrong with that. Talking about equal rights, the most important in my opinion would be the right to one's own body and one's own property. The paradoxon: No government institution can ever achieve this, cause governments live off of taxation, or the confiscation of property. Hence, equal rights can only be assured voluntarily. For that, it takes spiritual and practical maturity.

A free market always caters to an environment where everybody is encouraged to satisfy the needs of others, because that's how you make money on a free market. The only way people give you money or anything on a free market is if you provide something of value to them.

That kind of giving on a free market is not necessarily selfless, as Adam Smith noted: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Selfless producing is not even necessary. It's perfectly legitimate to follow your own interest of seeking payment for your goods and services. On a free market, this ensures that both you and your customer or employer will benefit.

There are some examples of free market Capitalism in history, like in medieval Ireland (https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/9000-years-of-anarchy-in-ireland/), Iceland (https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government) and Cospaia (https://ancap.liberty.me/the-anarchist-republic-of-cospaia-2/).

[leavesoftrees]

The end of capitalism has begun

this is an extract from Paul Mason's book Post capitalism

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun

... Once you understand the transition in this way, the need is not for a supercomputed Five Year Plan – but a project, the aim of which should be to expand those technologies, business models and behaviours that dissolve market forces, socialise knowledge, eradicate the need for work and push the economy towards abundance. I call it Project Zero – because its aims are a zero-carbon-energy system; the production of machines, products and services with zero marginal costs; and the reduction of necessary work time as close as possible to zero.

… The main contradiction today is between the possibility of free, abundant goods and information; and a system of monopolies, banks and governments trying to keep things private, scarce and commercial. Everything comes down to the struggle between the network and the hierarchy: between old forms of society moulded around capitalism and new forms of society that prefigure what comes next.

[risveglio]

Capitalism just did more for the obese in America in 24 hours than Michelle Obama and the government have done in 8 years. We don't need an end of capitalism, we need more capitalism and an end of government which would end big corporations.

Don't fear technology. This thread is starting to sound like, "But, who will pick the cotton?"


The end of capitalism has begun

This is funny. Two socialists counties that the socialist were praising just a few years ago are on the brink of total collapse.

Similar to the Republican Party, 99% of Socialists are either naive or evil.

[Baby Steps]

All giant hierarchical institutions whether governmental or privately owned tend to become self serving at the expense of the common good

they all need checks & balances and transparency.

Communism fell because large sections of the economy became value destroyers.
We had a financial crisis when Government & crony banks teamed up for short term gain at the long term expense of all of us; by laundering bad debt into triple A - sub prime mortgage debt. This also was a huge value destroyer.

Basic income depends operationally on tax income for whatever agency implements it.

In the burgeoning sharing economy, activity is transacted in an un recordable form-and un-recordable means un taxable, so the direction we are travelling in, which includes technological facilitation of greater local and individual economic self reliance will become a direct challenge to the state. It will undermine the state's ability to raise tax.

If you go to helicopter money, and hand it out, you get rampant inflation, so any basic income scheme needs to be based on tax income. If the level of basic income is too high, the indivual will become less economically active and, again, tax revenue falls.

I still believe Basic income is possible in a developed social democracy, but in the future basic provision may devolve down to smaller community units if the state shrinks and cannot raise tax.

[risveglio]

I still believe Basic income is possible in a developed social democracy, but in the future basic provision may devolve down to smaller community units if the state shrinks and cannot raise tax.

Depending on what you are including as "Basic income", I think you probably could find examples in history. Strong societies without the manipulation of government can and probably would have a basic income, though it wouldn't be as described. You just would be guaranteed not to end up homeless and starving, might have to do some menial labor. Churches did a great job of this past, often needing to expand into orphanages due to an ill or war struck society.

We have done a pretty good job at removing poverty over the centuries without government. Government has just made everything so expensive that even the most successful of us fear that we will not have enough to live. Just a basic (and crappy) education costs thousands / student and all they really teach is obedience to a false God.

A free society could implement a basic income but that is a different topic. I don't think it would be worth it if we have to have a "social democracy", isn't that pretty much what we have now and it has only slowed down progress.

[Dennis Leahy]

I still believe Basic income is possible in a developed social democracy, but in the future basic provision may devolve down to smaller community units if the state shrinks and cannot raise tax.

Depending on what you are including as "Basic income", I think you probably could find examples in history. Strong societies without the manipulation of government can and probably would have a basic income, though it wouldn't be as described. You just would be guaranteed not to end up homeless and starving, might have to do some menial labor. Churches did a great job of this past, often needing to expand into orphanages due to an ill or war struck society.

We have done a pretty good job at removing poverty over the centuries without government. Government has just made everything so expensive that even the most successful of us fear that we will not have enough to live. Just a basic (and crappy) education costs thousands / student and all they really teach is obedience to a false God.

A free society could implement a basic income but that is a different topic. I don't think it would be worth it if we have to have a "social democracy", isn't that pretty much what we have now and it has only slowed down progress.hahahahah No, the USA does not have "social democracy" now. We have nothing even resembling democracy in the US, and 2016 should be the year where most people finally figure that out (due to overt election fraud and the clown car candidates chosen for us to choose between.) The "social"/socialist aspects of US society - which, by the way, are not paid for by government but are paid for by the people (taxes) - have eroded greatly, and the criminals in office have even sold off public assets (roads, bridges, ports, etc.)

I guess Carlin's "it's a big club, and you ain't in it!" even applies to small-time capitalists who want the advantages afforded to the anarcho-capitalists at the top of the pyramid. I'm not sure if the correct or most accurate term to describe the actual form of current US government is anarcho-capitalism, corporatocracy, kleptocracy, oligarchy, or fascism - but the one thing it is not is any flavor of democracy. [An aside: I think it is funny when those who fear democracy describe it as "mob rule", but these same people accept oligarchy, a small mob that will never consider your interests. When the "mob" - in theory - expands to include everyone (democracy), it become frightening?]

But, back to the subject of a basic income, where does the money come from is my key question. A 'cut' of arms/munitions sales? Oil, gas, and other mineral leases? Timber extraction permits? Selling off US national monuments? Cocaine and heroin sales profits? I mean, other than monies collected in taxes, what does the US federal government actually have to sell? Where would they get enough money for a basic income without taxation? If 300 million checks for $20K are written, that's $6,000,000,000,000.00 per year. (6 trillion) I think only about 1 trillion gets collected in the US per year in taxes now, and as we know, the US military gets about 2/3rds of that money.

The same greed and power-driven people who currently own/control the USA will never look out for the interests of the other 99.9% of the population that they financially rose above. It is ridiculously ignorant to believe that this 'Mob' would remain "in charge", and that they would somehow implement a basic income and/or other strategies to help others. (Insert Ray Kroc hose/drowning quote here.)

[TargeT]

I think only about 1 trillion gets collected in the US per year in taxes now, and as we know, the US military gets about 2/3rds of that money.

Federal Taxes Set Record in FY 2015 with $3,248,723,000,000 collected. (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/3248723000000-federal-taxes-set-record-fy-2015-21833-worker-feds-0)

Hasn't been in the 1tril range since the '80s
http://www.cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_100p/s3/federal_tax_receipts-chart.jpg?itok=xDHAERyK

The same greed and power-driven people who currently own/control the USA will never look out for the interests of the other 99.9% of the population that they financially rose above. It is ridiculously ignorant to believe that this 'Mob' would remain "in charge", and that they would somehow implement a basic income and/or other strategies to help others. (Insert Ray Kroc hose/drowning quote here.)

Actually, from my experience the BEST way to ruin a people and dominate an area is very simple: give them free money (aka basic income)

Look at what it did to the native american populations in the lower 48.. they are a great long term example, for a shorter term example look at what is happening to the native population of Alaska.. both were given free money and free land & both turned to substance abuse & physical/sexual abuse at high rates.


I think "basic income" would be a very attractive population control methodology based on what I have experienced from peoples receiving "free money".

[Baby Steps]

My angle is a bit different. Set it at quite a low level, but increase marginal tax rates above that level.
It would not be a way of providing new life choices to people.
It would simply be a way of cutting out all the entitlement bureaucracy , so people would never lack the very basics.

We are having in the UK a boom in food banks. This has been caused by a policy of benefit sanctioning that is far more draconian than went before. Its so sad to realise that all the person-hours involved in ADMINISTERING the sanctioning and disbursements, the entitlement assessments and interviews - cost more than just handing over the money.

So I am suggesting that the huge governmental entitlements programs including state pensions can be rolled into one simple payment.
It has the potential to alleviate alot of suffering.

[TargeT]

It has the potential to alleviate alot of suffering.

From my experience the worst suffering (mental, though IMO all "suffering" is mental & based on perspective) is caused when humans have no resistance to push against.

If you make things too easy, people make bad decisions; I don't know that there is any level of income that wouldn't foster this at some level, the US has this & it is abused regularly and in a lot of cases encourages people to stay "on the roll" instead of getting off it.

I don't think encouraging people to be lazy is the right idea.

I'd rather see something like "beautification squads".. I do this with my kids.. if they want money I have a running list of common things that always " need done" and a value next to it. My kids can decide to, or decide not to do these extra things.. they get no "allowance" (no free money) and have chores that we teach "are a part of living" (ie: keeping your room clean, taking care of animals, etc.. ) so if they want to do anything above and beyond they have the option.

Now, so far as I can tell this hasn't altered the decision making process on money expenditure for the younger ones, but the pre-teens and teens get it & start to budget (depending on personality, my son is much better than my pre-teen daughter currently) & make more thoughtful decisions with their money (it's not all candy and toys like it is for the 9 year old.. haha).

These may be anecdotal, but I value real life experience over thought experiments any day.

[Yetti]

THANKS OZMIRAGE, THE WHOLE IDEA IS UNVIABLE, BECAUSE OF THE FACTS YOU EXPLAIN BEFORE. wHAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IS ELIMINATE THE INCOME TAX, THE PROPERTY TAX, ELIMINATE THE MANDATORY INSURANCE ( WHERE IS OUR RIGHT TO SAY NO?) AND THE MEDICAL TAXES.
LET THE PEOPLE DEAL WITH THEIR MONEY AND LIFE AS THEY WISH, AND JUST PAY A MINIMUM MUNICIPAL TAX TO PAY ROADS,FIREFIGHTERS AND EDUCATION. GOVERNMENT? DEAL WITH A MINIMUM WAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE AND VOLUNTARY WORK, ANYWAY THEY DO CLAIM TO BE THERE TO HELP THE PEOPLE......

[Mike]

I think only about 1 trillion gets collected in the US per year in taxes now, and as we know, the US military gets about 2/3rds of that money.

Federal Taxes Set Record in FY 2015 with $3,248,723,000,000 collected. (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/3248723000000-federal-taxes-set-record-fy-2015-21833-worker-feds-0)

Hasn't been in the 1tril range since the '80s
http://www.cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_100p/s3/federal_tax_receipts-chart.jpg?itok=xDHAERyK

The same greed and power-driven people who currently own/control the USA will never look out for the interests of the other 99.9% of the population that they financially rose above. It is ridiculously ignorant to believe that this 'Mob' would remain "in charge", and that they would somehow implement a basic income and/or other strategies to help others. (Insert Ray Kroc hose/drowning quote here.)

Actually, from my experience the BEST way to ruin a people and dominate an area is very simple: give them free money (aka basic income)

Look at what it did to the native american populations in the lower 48.. they are a great long term example, for a shorter term example look at what is happening to the native population of Alaska.. both were given free money and free land & both turned to substance abuse & physical/sexual abuse at high rates.


I think "basic income" would be a very attractive population control methodology based on what I have experienced from peoples receiving "free money".



Native Americans have never recieved anything remotely resembling a basic income. What exactly are you talking about?

Besides, they were ruined long before anyone gave them "free money". I think most people would agree that it probably had more to do with the cultural genocide that took place in early 20th century:). I know the natives would anyway....both of them.


Your statement that humans worst suffering occurs when they have no resistance to push against reads a little sanctimonious and naive, no offense. In my experience, humans' worst suffering occurs when they have no food:). There's a time and a place for challenging people to be their best, and a time and a place for immediate assistance...know what I mean?

Have you ever been poor and desperately hungry? (Not a rhetorical question)

[Baby Steps]

Jack Monroe went through hell with unemployment, being a single mother, and experiencing benefit sanctions. It turned out well for her , however, as she invented a way of cooking well , but extraordinarily cheaply. She has a cook book out and is a TV personality.


A Girl Called Jack: "By cutting welfare lifelines, the state is the abusive parent"
Here's ace blogger Jack (A Girl Called Jack) Monroe's speech she delivered to the Green Party Conference this afternoon as part of a panel chaired by Leader Natalie Bennett:
An article in the Guardian recently claimed that ‘austerity has been hijacked by the moralisers’ – and judging by George Osborne’s latest announcement that ‘austerity works’, it seems they were right. As though it’s all just ‘cosy frugality’, as though we are all just living in a snapshot of a nostalgic poster of post-War Britain. I’m surprised the posters haven’t made a reappearance, unaltered, to back up the chancellors claims.
Eat less bread. Food is a weapon. Your own vegetables all year round. Dig for victory. Home grown food. Make do and mend. Keep calm and carry on.
But there’s nothing cosy and nostalgic about missing days of meals, turning the heating off for two consecutive winters and every bloody day and night in between.
There’s nothing cosy and nostalgic about unscrewing the light bulbs so you can’t accidentally turn them on, or selling your son’s shoes, or drinking the formula milk that the food bank gave you because there’s nothing else. If that’s cosy frugality, the moralisers and apologisers ought to try it. For a month. Or six. Or eighteen.
Turn off the fridge, because it’s empty anyway. Sell anything you can see lying around that you might get more than a quid for. Walk everywhere in the pouring rain, in your only pair of shoes, with a soaking wet and sobbing toddler old trailing behind you. Drag that toddler into every pub and shop in unreasonable walking distance and ask them if they have any job vacancies. Try not to go red as the girl behind the counter appraises your tatty jumper and dirty jeans before telling you that they have no jobs available. “For you”, you add in your head, and you drag that toddler home, still soaking, still unemployed, to not-quite dry out in your freezing cold flat.
Put two jumpers on that you’ll wear all week, to keep washing to a minimum. You sit at home in your coat anyway, and nobody’s there to notice.
Drag yourself to the cooker to pour some tinned tomatoes over some cold pasta, and try not to hurl it across the room in frustration when your toddler tells you he doesn’t want it. I want something else, Mummy. But there isn’t anything else. But aren’t we supposed to just keep calm and carry on?
You get up the next morning and give your child one of the last weetabix, mashed with a little water, with a glass of tap water to wash it down with.
Where’s mummys breakfast? He asks, all big blue eyes and innocent concern. You tell him you aren’t hungry, but you weren’t hungry last night either, and sooner or later he’ll notice that mummy never seems hungry any more.
Hunger hurts. Hunger distresses, and depresses. Admitting that you cannot afford to feed your child is both terrifying and humiliating. Professionals that signpost people to food banks for help often report that they are reluctant to go, because it feels like begging. And my god, it feels like begging.
And you think if you admit to skipping meals, to feeding your child the same cold pasta for nights on end, you think if anyone notices the badly damaged wrists from your recent suicide attempt, that you might lose your son. He might be taken into care. And despite the cold and the despair and the mind raging with doubt and fear and uselessness, there’s a little boy that relies on you to provide his meals – no matter how rubbish they are – and to put his jumper on before he goes to bed at night. So you say you’re fine. But you’re not. You’re full of rain and heartache and anger and it’s starting to seep through the cracks in the kept up appearances. But don’t you just keep calm, and carry on?
My circumstances were not unique to me. The Oxfam report – Walking The Breadline, published in June this year, states that half a million people in the UK rely on food banks. Yet the Government puts their fingers in their ears, blaming feckless parenting and scroungers. Half a million feckless parents. Half a million scroungers. They claim that there is no link between cuts to welfare and the growing demand for food banks.
Lord Freud claims that people ‘turn up for free food’ – painting a picture of people waltzing in and topping up the Ocado delivery with a few battered fruits and some dented tins of tomatoes. Such comments display a complete disconnect from reality. You can’t just ‘turn up’ to a food bank. You need to be referred – by a childcare professional, a health visitor, social services or similar agency. Someone needs to recognise that your household is at serious risk of going hungry if they don’t intervene. And intervention is a feared word. So people become adept at pretending they don’t need help.
Michael Gove blames child poverty and hunger on reckless parenting – with no acknowledgement to the fact that many people using food banks are doing so because of benefit delays, sanctions, low income, and unemployment. No acknowledgement that many people who use food banks are IN WORK. What sort of a society do we live in where people who go out to work to support their families, need emergency food handouts?
Many parents tell of going to bed hungry themselves in order to feed their children. Gove would call that reckless parenting. And they repeat, they bleat, that food bank use has nothing to do with welfare cuts.
So here’s a figure.:
Since April 2013, and the introduction of the Bedroom Tax, food bank use in the UK has increased 175%.
The number one reason cited for food bank referral is cuts or delays to benefits, including sanctions and Bedroom Tax.
And while food banks are meeting a real and desperate need for half a million families in the UK, surely the responsibility for feeding the poorest and most vulnerable lies with the Government, not with charity? Isn’t that the entire point of the welfare state?
So in terms of feckless parenting, it is the state that is sending its children to school, to bed and to work hungry.
By cutting welfare lifelines, the state is the abusive parent.
By casting around to blame anyone else, by ignoring the cold hard face of true poverty in the UK, it is the state that is feckless.
By refusing to tackle poverty at its root, it is the Government that is being neglectful.
But until they change housing benefit to monthly payments in line with people’s rent and mortgage payments, until they commit to a living wage legislation that is not age discriminatory, until they reinstate the crisis loan, revoke the bedroom tax – we need to carry on talking about it. Get angry. Get noisy. Use the collective voice of 6 million union members to lobby and campaign and not stop until children are not going to bed hungry any more.
As Desmond Tutu said – there comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.

[Baby Steps]

OK so the USA spends $1.2 trillion per annum on 'social security, unemployment & labor'. Assuming 250 million qualify for basic income they get $4,800 per annum or $92 per week.

It would be very interesting to study how much of the current $1.2T goes on administration, and the infrastructure to disburse. A lot more than just processing a weekly payment methinks.

If the average person suffered a tax hit of LESS than $92 per week, they would still be better off, and the Federal budget could end up GAINING from this , even after allowing for some higher levels for vets & pensioners.

Its not an argument about giving people more, its a proposal for efficiency.

It is also a statement by we the people- however inept and lazy someone is, we are not prepared to see their condition sink below a certain level! WHAT WOULD JESUS DO??

Then it could be argued that the increase in personal economic security would lead to a reduction in crime...

[TargeT]

Have you ever been poor

Yep, grew up that way


and desperately hungry? (Not a rhetorical question)

In the US? nope.. I've been to countries where power isn't even a consideration and real hunger is.. but we aren't talking about hunger are we.. in the US death from malnutrition is not anywhere near common.

I thought we were talking about basic income, not food; if it's just food that's an easy fix that we already have a fairly good handle on.

I'm talking about a welfare system, which we already have & does little good for it's recipients.


Besides, "basic income" and capitalism cannot co-exist. WHO does the income come from? WHO gets robbed at the point of a gun? That is all basic income comes down to in the end; taking from someone else to give to another person who did not earn it.

all social programs come from the barrel of a gun; I cannot support that.



Its not an argument about giving people more, its a proposal for efficiency.

Government =/= efficiency.... never has never will.

what you are asking is not only impossible (and proven through centuries of history) but really makes no sense if you look at current examples of governments handling..... ANYTHING.


It is also a statement by we the people- however inept and lazy someone is, we are not prepared to see their condition sink below a certain level! WHAT WOULD JESUS DO??

Then it could be argued that the increase in personal economic security would lead to a reduction in crime...

Great, but who are you going to steal from to accomplish your lofty goals? or does that part not matter?

[risveglio]

OK so the USA spends $1.2 trillion per annum on 'social security, unemployment & labor'. Assuming 250 million qualify for basic income they get $4,800 per annum or $92 per week.

It would be very interesting to study how much of the current $1.2T goes on administration, and the infrastructure to disburse. A lot more than just processing a weekly payment methinks.

If the average person suffered a tax hit of LESS than £92 per week, then the Federal budget could end up GAINING from this , even after allowing for some higher levels for vets & pensioners.

Its not an argument about giving people more, its a proposal for efficiency.

It is also a statement by we the people- however inept and lazy someone is, we are not prepared to see their condition sink below a certain level! WHAT WOULD JESUS DO??

Then it could be argued that the increase in personal economic security would lead to a reduction in crime...

A think $400+ a month would cripple most American's, that would be $800 for a family with two working adults

Jesus would not use the threat of violence to steal from all, have it funneled and robbed and then given to other's. Jesus would rather you hide the money from the taxman and give it to the poor yourself. Ideally, he would want you to give up all your earthly possessions and commit your life to helping.

[Baby Steps]

I share the anarcho-libertarian distaste for the arrogant state confiscating our assets as if it were theirs.

We do not need more of that

Just an acknowledgement that we are there now- its a socialist capitalist hybrid in the USA , not so far removed from the European model. It is redistributive. It advocates a safety net because a well run safety net provides for better social conditions for all.

For me also, children are important. They are born into a dysfunctional family, through no fault of their own. The social programmes attempt to help these disadvantaged children to do better, to make better choices than their parents.

That long term investment of resources should hopefully yield returns in terms of less mental illness, crime, and unemployment.

So at its best, basic income can assist the socialist paradise known as modern America to function better.

[Baby Steps]

OK so the USA spends $1.2 trillion per annum on 'social security, unemployment & labor'. Assuming 250 million qualify for basic income they get $4,800 per annum or $92 per week.

It would be very interesting to study how much of the current $1.2T goes on administration, and the infrastructure to disburse. A lot more than just processing a weekly payment methinks.

If the average person suffered a tax hit of LESS than $92 per week, then the Federal budget could end up GAINING from this , even after allowing for some higher levels for vets & pensioners.

Its not an argument about giving people more, its a proposal for efficiency.

It is also a statement by we the people- however inept and lazy someone is, we are not prepared to see their condition sink below a certain level! WHAT WOULD JESUS DO??

Then it could be argued that the increase in personal economic security would lead to a reduction in crime...

A think $400+ a month would cripple most American's, that would be $800 for a family with two working adults

Jesus would not use the threat of violence to steal from all, have it funneled and robbed and then given to other's. Jesus would rather you hide the money from the taxman and give it to the poor yourself. Ideally, he would want you to give up all your earthly possessions and commit your life to helping.

Hi, do you mean, when you say it would cripple them - it's not enough to live on (which is not the aim) , or it is enough to alter their economic behaviour, make them less productive or create dependency? If so then it is too high...

[TargeT]

I share the anarcho-libertarian distaste for the arrogant state confiscating our assets as if it were theirs.

We do not need more of that

Just an acknowledgement that we are there now- its a socialist capitalist hybrid in the USA , not so far removed from the European model. It is redistributive. It advocates a safety net because a well run safety net provides for better social conditions for all.

For me also, children are important. They are born into a dysfunctional family, through no fault of their own. The social programmes attempt to help these disadvantaged children to do better, to make better choices than their parents.

That long term investment of resources should hopefully yield returns in terms of less mental illness, crime, and unemployment.

So at its best, basic income can assist the socialist paradise known as modern America to function better.





Hi, do you mean, when you say it would cripple them - it's not enough to live on (which is not the aim) , or it is enough to alter their economic behaviour, make them less productive or create dependency? If so then it is too high...

I think he meant (he confused your numbers and thought it would cost 92$) the additional cost of 92$ a week (or 400 a month, 800 a month for a couple).



Though honestly the math doesn't work out right, since we only have about 100,000,000 employed


In May 2016, about 123.6 million people were employed on a full-time basis (http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/)

So the 123,000,000 with jobs have to pay for the other 127,000,000 who don't have full time employment?


There's no situation where this doesn't come down to robbery by force; I don't see a way out of this situation using current methods that is morally/ethically sound.

[risveglio]

OK so the USA spends $1.2 trillion per annum on 'social security, unemployment & labor'. Assuming 250 million qualify for basic income they get $4,800 per annum or $92 per week.

It would be very interesting to study how much of the current $1.2T goes on administration, and the infrastructure to disburse. A lot more than just processing a weekly payment methinks.

If the average person suffered a tax hit of LESS than $92 per week, then the Federal budget could end up GAINING from this , even after allowing for some higher levels for vets & pensioners.

Its not an argument about giving people more, its a proposal for efficiency.

It is also a statement by we the people- however inept and lazy someone is, we are not prepared to see their condition sink below a certain level! WHAT WOULD JESUS DO??

Then it could be argued that the increase in personal economic security would lead to a reduction in crime...

A think $400+ a month would cripple most American's, that would be $800 for a family with two working adults

Jesus would not use the threat of violence to steal from all, have it funneled and robbed and then given to other's. Jesus would rather you hide the money from the taxman and give it to the poor yourself. Ideally, he would want you to give up all your earthly possessions and commit your life to helping.

Hi, do you mean, when you say it would cripple them - it's not enough to live on (which is not the aim) , or it is enough to alter their economic behaviour, make them less productive or create dependency? If so then it is too high...

Most Americans that are not taking from the state and not in the top 20% are living pretty tight. $800 a month for a couple would be brutal. A lot of people struggle to pay their rent and they don't all drive BMWs. It's probably where you get the most distaste for the people on welfare. The janitor that worked at the school use to complain to me all the time. "So it's either ask my boss for a paycut or just stop working? Then they will help pay for her college? Is my landlord going to give me a discount?" The system is broke because it leads to a broke mind.

[Baby Steps]

OK but say you were a Janitor on sub average income, you would get your basic income from the state, PLUS your normal wages, minus a slightly higher tax bill

You would be much better off, and the economy would benefit rapidly from your increased spending...or saving...

[TargeT]

OK but say you were a Janitor on sub average income, you would get your basic income from the state, PLUS your normal wages, minus a slightly higher tax bill

You would be much better off, and the economy would benefit rapidly from your increased spending...or saving...

Would it though? or would it benefit more from the people who earned the money keeping it and spending it as they see fit (clearly they, on average, make better decisions as they do not need additional monies to support themselves)

What are you encouraging with these types of programs

& the REAL question:

WHO DO YOU TAKE FROM? <-- this cannot be ignored, you ARE suggesting that someone be taken from so that it can be given to another.... there is no level of efficiency that makes that acceptable.

REAL LIFE EXAMPLE:
I have two of my rescue volunteers living in my house right now at no monetary cost to them (electric, water, garbage, internet, toiletries etc.. included), they do a few things around my house in trade; no one forced me to do this but since I had the wherewithal to-do so; I did.. This couldn't be done via government program, not for how much it's "costing" me to do it.

If I were taxed more heavily I wouldn't be able to do things like that. Do you think my situation is unique? I don't.

Which of the two would you RATHER foster?

How about this:

instead of the government giving out money, the government can give out incentives for people who help like me which enables the person helping to do more? (and by incentives I mean taxed less) That would accomplish your goals but in a completely opposite way (NOT taking more from people to give to others, taking LESS from people so they can be human).

[Hervé]

I deleted 4 posts from this thread which contained various disrespectful invectives.

Further actions may be taken upon a consensus from a mod team quorum.

:focus:

[Baby Steps]

OK but say you were a Janitor on sub average income, you would get your basic income from the state, PLUS your normal wages, minus a slightly higher tax bill

You would be much better off, and the economy would benefit rapidly from your increased spending...or saving...

Would it though? or would it benefit more from the people who earned the money keeping it and spending it as they see fit (clearly they, on average, make better decisions as they do not need additional monies to support themselves)

What are you encouraging with these types of programs

& the REAL question:

WHO DO YOU TAKE FROM? <-- this cannot be ignored, you ARE suggesting that someone be taken from so that it can be given to another.... there is no level of efficiency that makes that acceptable.

REAL LIFE EXAMPLE:
I have two of my rescue volunteers living in my house right now at no monetary cost to them (electric, water, garbage, internet, toiletries etc.. included), they do a few things around my house in trade; no one forced me to do this but since I had the wherewithal to-do so; I did.. This couldn't be done via government program, not for how much it's "costing" me to do it.

If I were taxed more heavily I wouldn't be able to do things like that. Do you think my situation is unique? I don't.

Which of the two would you RATHER foster?

How about this:

instead of the government giving out money, the government can give out incentives for people who help like me which enables the person helping to do more? (and by incentives I mean taxed less) That would accomplish your goals but in a completely opposite way (NOT taking more from people to give to others, taking LESS from people so they can be human).

Hi, that sounds great too. People have to decide how to organise their own society, I'm sure we agree that we need a more benign and less intrusive state, and better conditions for the people. I think history shows that most state attempts to do something helpful are not in net overall terms helpful...

[TargeT]

Hi, that sounds great too. People have to decide how to organise their own society, I'm sure we agree that we need a more benign and less intrusive state, and better conditions for the people. I think history shows that most state attempts to do something helpful are not in net overall terms helpful...

That's the main issue with any "basic income" idea that I hear... it just involves more government (and very possibly causes dependency) & I cannot think of a single government program that did what it was intended to do with even an "acceptable" outcome.




I think humans (if they chose to be) are very resourceful and inventive. I do not think we need an external force (government) to solve our problems, we just have to get off our ass(es) and solve them ourselves!


BE the change you want to see... BE IT!

[xbusymom]

One idea but not the hole solution is to stop competing with each other, and help more than beat, aid instead of control. just removing competing aspect from society would be one step in riding of class division and restoring social harmony. No means will it instantly fix poverty or bring peace but got to start somewhere.:shielddeflect::bearhug::wizard::peace:

Also a great way to keep us completely stagnant.

I disagree with 'stagnant'... but if we can adopt a mindset of improving someones' ideas for the sake of helping mankind...

[Ernie Nemeth]

Right now, governments skim about a third of the average worker's income right off the top as source deductions. That's one hour of yours and my work for every three hours we work. For the average worker that translates into about 15 years of labor, or 30,000 hours. In Canada alone that works out to about 600hrs. * 10,000,000ppl. = 6 billion man hours per year! Are you telling me that with that sort of numbers, we can't provide for every man woman and child in our country? To keep it very obvious let's use actual numbers. You think maybe 2 billion hours for food production could fill every belly? How about 2 billion more for the construction of homes for everyone? 1 billion hours for schooling/ training? That still leaves another billion hours, maybe for government? Don't forget - that is every single year!

If a third of my own work was left for my own personal use, I could, in thirty thousand hours, easily build my own home from scratch with a shovel, saw and hammer. With plenty of time left over to grow a bit of food. I wouldn't even need the other two thirds! That just buys the extraneous stuff this modern world says I have to have but don't actually need - plus the fines, fees and licenses they have invented the better to fleece us with.

So, 30,000 hours worth of our work is consumed as taxes and now in their largesse they want to give a small portion of that back to us as a basic income? And we want to go for it? And praise our masters for being so progressive?

I think more time should be spent understanding just how much of our sweat is stolen from us in the first place.

[ozmirage]

THANKS OZMIRAGE, THE WHOLE IDEA IS UNVIABLE, BECAUSE OF THE FACTS YOU EXPLAIN BEFORE.

[1] wHAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IS ELIMINATE THE INCOME TAX, THE PROPERTY TAX, ELIMINATE THE MANDATORY INSURANCE ( WHERE IS OUR RIGHT TO SAY NO?) AND THE MEDICAL TAXES.

[2] LET THE PEOPLE DEAL WITH THEIR MONEY AND LIFE AS THEY WISH,

[3] AND JUST PAY A MINIMUM MUNICIPAL TAX TO PAY ROADS,FIREFIGHTERS AND EDUCATION. GOVERNMENT?

[4] DEAL WITH A MINIMUM WAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE AND VOLUNTARY WORK,

[5] ANYWAY THEY DO CLAIM TO BE THERE TO HELP THE PEOPLE......
[1] No government instituted to secure rights can tax endowed rights. Only government granted privileges ("civil rights", etc) are subject to taxation. And to be a subject citizen requires consent of the governed.

[2] That is already in the law.

[3] No municipality can tax endowed rights. Only privileges it grants can be subject to an excise tax.

[4] The controversy over the minimum wage is complicated by socialism and debauched money token system. The remedy is extricating oneself from that insanity.

[5] Governments were instituted to secure endowed rights. Without our consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

[Flash]

Our situation regarding basic earnings is pretty different in Canada from the US Ernie. We are more like Europeans, free healthcare, acess to welfare (food stamps + rent) which pretty much encompassess the basic human needs which are health coverage, roof and food - albeit none of this with quality since they are free basic coverage.

Therefore our 1/3 work life spent for others goes to the 1/3 of our workforce working in government positions with absolutley incredibly good coverage (salaries, health coverage and pension - I have calculated that when they retired, government employees in Canada, like secretaries and blue collar workers, worth more than 1.2 millions $ each of them if compared with the self employed and small firms employees (90% of the business market supplying the society's revenues) that has to put this aside in order to have the same pension - none of them realise how rich they are - cause nobody self employed is able to put that much aside in a lifetime and we pay for their extraordinary comfort)

And that 1/3 of our working hours also serve to give a minimum for living to those impoverished, if they do not drink/drug themselves. Not much left to them, just enough for bare survival.

So I would say that here, we have the minimum revenue for all. The scandal is not welfare, but the mismanagement of governments, the large contribution to all kinds of mafias (corruption) and in Quebec at least, the large power of workers Unions, mostly government workers Unions, making it impossible for the small medium size business employee to make ends meet, since we support it all.



Right now, governments skim about a third of the average worker's income right off the top as source deductions. That's one hour of yours and my work for every three hours we work. For the average worker that translates into about 15 years of labor, or 30,000 hours. In Canada alone that works out to about 600hrs. * 10,000,000ppl. = 6 billion man hours per year! Are you telling me that with that sort of numbers, we can't provide for every man woman and child in our country? To keep it very obvious let's use actual numbers. You think maybe 2 billion hours for food production could fill every belly? How about 2 billion more for the construction of homes for everyone? 1 billion hours for schooling/ training? That still leaves another billion hours, maybe for government? Don't forget - that is every single year!

If a third of my own work was left for my own personal use, I could, in thirty thousand hours, easily build my own home from scratch with a shovel, saw and hammer. With plenty of time left over to grow a bit of food. I wouldn't even need the other two thirds! That just buys the extraneous stuff this modern world says I have to have but don't actually need - plus the fines, fees and licenses they have invented the better to fleece us with.

So, 30,000 hours worth of our work is consumed as taxes and now in their largesse they want to give a small portion of that back to us as a basic income? And we want to go for it? And praise our masters for being so progressive?

I think more time should be spent understanding just how much of our sweat is stolen from us in the first place.