Non-Governmental Basic Income: Why not? And How?

from book: What we learned from the practice of Basic Income — A compendium of Writings and Data (Translation by Monica Puntel, Leonardo Puntel, Carolina Fisher and Revison by Tracy Halls. Art by Júlia Cristofi.)

Image for post
Image for post
buy the book and read more or…
just donate for us, and read more…

Will it be that Basic Income can only exist with state and tributary modules? Will it be that Basic Income can’t be conceived outside the state framework? Can’t basic income become an independent decentralized social security network?

It’s not only that it can, but it should. And it’s already being done.

This text is divided into two parts: unconditional basic income defense provided by free initiative without the governmental power intermediation; and the presentation of a model for its concretization. Both, theory defense and practical model, are based (beside my libertarian conviction), on my own experience acquired as co responsible by the project, independent from unconditional basic income of the small community of Quatinga Velho — Brazil. An experience which since it started in 2008 up until its end in 2014, paid unconditional basic income without government or corporate aid, direct from person to person.

However I won’t approach the positive results on the human social and economic development of Basic Income based on my experience [1]. Instead, exposing positive effects of Basic Income on who need it most — which prejudgment effects are obvious — I will focus on the exposition of the potential of basic income for the people who in theory need it on a lesser scale; those who with precisely a voluntary participation could contribute to its realization.

Though before defending why basic income should be a non-governmental social protection system, I will present the “how” to constitute it. Basic Income directly constituted by society and through free initiative without any aid from the coercive and sustained power as it should be only by the reciprocal social economic interest.

As I said, the model which we are proposing here came up from the basic income experience in Quatinga Velho. Basic income that event though it never received governmental or corporate resources it depended on individual donations, I mean depended, as today, basic income can also be financed through investments and loans on a community basic income fund.

An investment fund where profitability that pays basic income is the same that can gradually provide earnings to investors according to its profit, it even reaches sufficient amounts not only to pay the pre-established basic income, but to distribute the exceeding dividend between everyone — according to the contract.

In other words, a fund that aims at self-sustainability through its own riches produced by the capital invested in the community and investment motivated by the dwellers themselves. It is the motivation that is not gained by just the basic income increase, but for the interest of becoming the provider to its own social protection fund and remunerated investors of their own development

If basic income is capable of providing a less bureaucratic and more efficient system by itself; independently it is capable of making this public policy, which is already a minor tax burden, an investment of social interest. After all, the contributors are and always will be in any way the providers of all and any social protection. Take out the middlemen and let the contributors earn directly the not only social and economic earnings of this system, but also the financial (today centralized on the monstrous governmental budgets) which the services and goods protection and provision systems will continue to be in an eternal negative balance of bills to pay, in order to become future earnings inside the free social market.

A free social interest market that, without bureaucratic losses and the regular and irregular politic cost of the power centralization, has as much social economic potential as the common interests and vital necessities which do not meet demands breached by the state monopoly. And it is huge.

Securing common goods and its universal gratification can’t only, but should be done through a free social investment market, not only private but above all mutual. And the mutual investment funds of basic income could be the catalyzer of this socio economic development, guaranteeing simultaneously the vital minimum and larger earnings to those who voluntarily contribute to the social development, local and external investors that are paid through the solidarity according to the level of risk and participation.

The increase of basic income and the earnings of the investors are, therefore supported by the systematization of the vicious cycle of the development generated from initial capital injected on the immeasurable social capital of these communities. And the increase of riches and inequality is not only freed from the slavery logic of “who doesn’t work doesn’t eat”, but justified in the logic of productivity of whoever invests in solidarity will raise their capital.

Thus keeping the balance and growth of not only the funds, but the whole social economic system by the observance of the possible limit, in other words, keeping society away from the breaking point by guaranteeing permanently vital minimum provision to all.

Yes, we can guarantee and perform universal assurance of the fundamental rights not only on paper, but in fact without the monopoly of the central powers over the common good through voluntary participation systems on the earnings of the properties for all if the dividends of the economic development are paid proportionally to the risk and amount invested to whom it is due: those who, in mutual society take on the guarantee social cause of these universal rights as their voluntary social duty and associative goal. Arrangement constituent not only of free systems and societies, but also from the central power and budget expansion limitation of the available resources to the governments for their totalitarian adventures.

Mutual investment societies in universal basic income are based on a very simple equation: equitable contributions (proportional to earnings) for equal earnings. Everyone contributes with a percentage of their earnings so that a fund will pay the social dividend regularly (as planned on the social contract), and the exceeding amount will be distributed between all investors. However, eradicating the middlemen isn’t enough; it is necessary that the social system be independent and be self-sustainable. That is why, it’s important that each person be

free to form and adhere the protection network which interest them as it could, at any time cease to be a mere beneficiary and becomes a provider of their own basic income harvesting the dividends of their own social development.

However, so that basic income has its economic potential maximised you cannot exclude nor coerce anybody from the comprehensiveness territory of the social protection network. Nobody should be obliged to contribute on account of having a lot of money or solidarity, neither can they be excluded from the vital minimum for having no money or solidarity. [2]

There shouldn’t be cohesion for privation, but incentives for earning possibilities. And this, is not only by moral issues, but from praiseworthy selection, because anyone is moves for obligation and necessity, but few are able to move voluntarily for solidarity and responsibility and their own initiative and not from the submission of the majority depend. And this is only a problem in the case of the obstruction of who is more intelligent and being able to win competitively with his solidarity capability to directly invest in human beings.

Lack of capital doesn’t imply a lack of commitment nor does it imply in lack of interest, each person that invests should win along the community development. Therefore the solidary investors should be paid not only for a justice cause, but sustainability; pay additionally with the exceeding amount each one according to their voluntary social contribution.

Yes. The best way to invest your money is directly in humans; purchasing participation in Basic Income funds of communities. Which will be capitalized by the own deposit from members of the community through consigned microcredit in Basic Income (another experience aggregated to the Quatinga Velho model [3]). This model even though still referenced by locality and territories, doesn’t need to be restricted to small populations; the communities can create protection networks without borders providing mutual security even between cities. The same fund can invest in multiple communities accordingly the arrangement between the investors’ expectations and the community’s emancipation and capitalization projections.

With this model of common good provision free market, the end of poverty becomes more viable not only because we eliminated the political and economic agent system which literally won over the impoverishment, rarefaction and protectionism, but by the fact that without help from the state and the inequality and privilege system of opportunities the best return for long term investments are precisely where there is greater demand for capital: the poorest communities, whose costs of living are lower and the social capital larger. Communities where the biggest demand is precisely the trade means [4] capable of boosting the free initiative potential.

What these Mutual Funds can provide isn’t just the vital minimum, but the emancipation of the people and not only from these communities, but from the entire world, by the fundamental rights provision of not only mutual or common interests monopolized by nation states but universal and decentralized voluntary duties for peoples and free societies.

Not just a real free market, but a real free world. A real free market not only capable to decapitalize the political and economic powers which pay and win with reiteration system of opportunity inequality, but to give power to the communities and poor people not only materially speaking, but cultured by the supremacy idolatry of the politic economic powers.

Utopia? Absolutely, but a network utopia which already has its mark on the map; it doesn’t matter how much life exists on Mars, as long as there is life. It is an experience that can be embraced and replicated. A new social economy, in its first steps and that now can be financed by a risk fund for the social innovation constituted by crowdfunding. Yes. Today it is possible to invest in Basic Income economy of a small place, not theoretically or experimentally, but accomplished and with desire to continue. Create your Quatinga Velho, start an Unconditional Basic Income experience. But why? Why on earth not?

I will not limit myself to make the distinction between independent and governmental basic income. Not just because I expect that the reasons that I will present for independent basic income be self-explanatory, but because governmental Basic Income is more than theory incoherence, it is a pipe dream which if it comes to reality will be as an idea aberration, and a contradiction to its ideal.

Universal Basic Income should be in effect by free initiative without a central power distortion. It should be perfectly provided by a safe social system based in cosmopolitan societies constituted by everyone’s disposition. It should be financed by mutual social investment funds which would pay proportionally the invested capital. In fact guaranteed fundamental rights by mutual voluntary admitted to solidary commitments with the possibility of earning future financial earnings and politic and economic earnings correctly and immediate.

Such funds could support the provision of vital means, even if before the collapse of state monopolies — or even sooner than that. But the question is why should we do this while there’s still the state to do it for us?

Of course the possible future ratability of basic income isn’t a sufficient incentive to whoever drives toward this type of interest, nor for others who have different values for the meaning of life. What the return of the social investors promotes is constitution of a new mutual and competitive system of social protection of a new socioeconomic. The question that needs to be asked isn’t, therefore “why do people take on such responsibilities by their own free will and spontaneously?” The question that needs to be asked is “ why invest in social funds and not exclusively in financial funds?” or more precisely: “why people should take on such responsibilities by their own free will and spontaneously when there is the state to do it for them, leaving them “free” to make other investments even more profitable and immediate?”.

The answer to this question is the denial of the assumptions that it’s hiding. This is a trick question based on assumptions that mislead. The state does not, under no circumstances release the people from paying taxes in order to pretend to do what they don’t do, nor allow that no one else do it. The question, thus, correctly formulated is: why should we allow the governments to ‘take care’ of basic income and its funds provision through taxes and its state machine? Or even better: why there are those people who — without enjoying the privileges or being completely alienated- still defend the state monopoly over the common good? If the state isn’t capable of managing a pin factory which isn’t a common good, what about provision systems and common goods and vital minimum guarantee?

The necessary resources to peaceful self-preservation and social rights fulfillment, vital means, should be pursued to not only as fundamental rights on paper, but as in fact unconditional provisions, in a way to guarantee liberties that support the peace state and legitimate property acquired in free negotiation, or has state propaganda and idiots showtime reached the limit for us to really believe that all private and public properties are maintained by the coercive state power against all society? Does it belong to them and not us? Have we started believing in the propaganda? What is the matter that maintains the social fabric ? Is it the state coercion power by the armed forces and politics and not by of what remained of the tactical recognition of the common while still being minimally beneficiated from what is produced?

So the real question isn’t why don’t we let vital minimum provision be in the hands of the state, but why in sane consciousness we abandoned our common good to the state? States are institutions projected to perpetuate properties and earnings in a selective and discriminate fashion, or what means the same as, prevent the enjoyment of natural and common property to all. In other words, the state is the obstruction institute of the socio self-organization and guarantee of freedom to all.

Outside the cult of central power, the why of independent Basic Income is an answer more obvious, as well as a necessity. Outside of the state culture, universal Basic Income needs to be a voluntary and independent associated initiative not only so that the states won’t take ownership even further of the common and natural goods and corrupt once again the mutualistic systems, but so that the universal guarantee of the vital means may finally exist in fact and not as mere declarations of intent.

State cost isn’t just economic, but politic is immensely larger than any other benefit coming from exclusive outsourcing of social and public responsibilities to the state monopoly. States don’t do what is necessary and that which no one wants to do; states pretend to do the necessary and prevents society from doing so.

States supports themselves by taking the social responsibilities for themselves for which society is constantly disabled and repeatedly prevented by its own nationalization of strength and culture. States perpetuate themselves by dissemination of dis-intelligence and dis-voluntarism of the masses that support the bureaucracy and corporate grants as well as by coercive blocking of non-conformity to the nationalization of life and nature.

It’s the prevention of rights and mutual duties constitution by imposing handouts and obligations that prevent people from naturally support by free and spontaneous will their own socioeconomic system without paying tribute to the supremacy of power.

Governments don’t exclusively act on the dis-intelligence and dis-solidarity; also they expand their domain in this social void without filling it up nor release it so that it can be filled up by free initiative.

More than a monopoly executing an absolutely necessary task in coercive and antisocial form, more expensive and without any competition, the state is strictly the fictional representation of its execution as if were the only realist and possible alternative to the world.

The state is incapable of promoting common good and vital minimum to all, because the state is a system projected to avoid that from happening.

The state machine wasn’t designed to support the abundant creative capitalism, but for servile “voluntarily” work and rarity where the person turns out to be an object of the job and study of the alien world not for what the richest person has to offer, but for everything that lacks for the poorest ones: total absence of natural property rights and basic income. The state monopoly, nationalization of common goods, is the heart of the reiterated system of subtraction of the natural properties and denial of fundamental liberties of the segregated in in favor of the subsidized.

States are inherent distributors of earnings and expenses, however historically never in favor of the expropriated and their natural proprietary rights, but always in favor of the entitled artificially expropriated not by accident but on behalf of the state. And that’s how, these artificial properties should not have any peace agreement, but from the violence monopolization; all this state economy is “backed” not in trust or precious metals, but rigorously in the “market reserves” guaranteed by its greatest asset: the armed forces.

If we didn’t tolerate any act of violence or privation over human beings, above all the institutionalized, and even the states had to abandon the use of force with how they monopolize the common good; people would then associate to attend on their own common demands, not only freely and peacefully, but without the subsidy or threat of violence or privation of no power or force. And the states would no longer exist — at least not how we know them today.

Without state violence prerogatives while common good monopoly; would lose its place to several peace societies capable of coexisting in a cooperative manner and completely inside the same territory, a state of peace shaped by these libertarian republics.

Universal Basic Income not only should exist; it must exist by free associations and societies inside a new paradigm of economic interest of public service and goods appreciation not only to preserve its libertarian spirit, but not to be reduced to a state and nationalistic conditioning tool. Vital minimum provision by a coercive and central power isn’t just an inefficient and expensive way to guarantee fundamental rights or to prevent politic economic tensions from imploding societies, but the most dangerous way towards totalitarian populism.

One has to understand, governmental basic income even if without explicit conditions will always have at least, one tactical conditionality: the constituted power submission, even if he is no longer legitimate. In order to make Basic Income factually governmental duty and a citizen right, and not citizen obligation and a handout that can be revoked, it needs to be regulated and provided constitutionally by the society without the dependency of middlemen or a central power.

Not even states need to monopolize universal Basic Income in order to guarantee the social protection societies contract fulfillment, not even societies can continue under state intermediation to guarantee its social contracts constitutional provisions. In other words, property rights should not be under dependency and grant of the armed protection of the central powers, but should be instituted by a balanced social contract which will distribute not the riches, but the guaranteed universal particular and common self-determination power — not merely as tutored livelihood, but conscientious and emancipated adult life, an universal guarantee to liberty. Guaranteed liberty as Basic Income over what all properties have as their common good: recognition of the society that protects it as network and not state.

The economic system should balance and support itself, without the threat of violence or privation, but by encouraging production and creation. Incentives which should be sufficient to the reciprocal and voluntary recognition of the properties protected by the balanced distribution of forces and recognized by these people equal in authority in state of peace. A system constituted from unconditional guarantee of necessary basic vital means precisely for the preservation of the free will in peace communion practice.

In a world which state costs to maintain coercive social costs are unviable, the guarantee of earnings participation of the properties with incentives, as Basic Income isn’t charity, it is a reciprocal economic interest: the constituent principle of mutualistic social contracts for universal rights provision- not only indispensable for the future, but each day ever more necessary.

Even before to the conflicts and crises that are approaching, it’s an illusion to think that the states will rebalance their unbearable weight by decreasing expenses or by resigning without the use of force and its supremacy against free initiatives and societies. States rebalance their bills between their unsustainable expenses and the people, eliminating people and not expenses.

And when the apartheids of the people classes and persons are no longer capable to realize population control of eugenic biases, the most aggressive method of getting indirectly free of the undesirable populations will be assumed once again without hiding, as they’ve always been in the moments of world systemic crises: war.

There isn’t anything like war and the terror to make people of the world turn against each other and kill a generation or two of libertarians waiting for the next patriot boom, materialistic, alienated and supremacist worshipers of power to rise from the ashes.

State violence supports itself symbiotically and wouldn’t exist if there were any other places to plant poverty and disagreement in a way to harvest revolt, fear and servile worship to the supremacists.

We shouldn’t expect the next shuffle of cards; nor the panoptic falling to free ourselves from the locks of the houses that do not protect us, but locks us outside of the world, attached to the projected shadows on the walls. This is what Basic Income interests in peace societies specially, and not on the powers and its projects: every regular and irregular army of fanatics — patriots or religious — are harvested in the same concentration camps where culture, economics and politics are harvested: the lands of nationalized private control and with lack of opportunities.

Independent basic income should be instituted not only as a question of justice, or because today’s systems no longer can sustain the costs of the state coercive protection against a worldwide population completely submitted to precarious conditions by technologic development. But because this precarious condition which has been under development since long before (since the natural basic means privation), it ever existed, and cannot, under any circumstances, be prevailing during the collapse of the status quo. Because those who are in power won’t measure sacrifices, I mean, people to be sacrificed in war and in jobs even more “analogous to slavery” to keep its supremacy.

Unconditional Basic Income isn’t just the protection of the society against tributary and genocide desperation of the Nation states in bankruptcy; or merely the base of a new social non-coercive contract before the necessity of the poor; universal basic income is the late guarantee of human rights as a fact and not hypocritical paper speech.

In its libertarian and non-nationalist conception, basic income is the constituent principle of a new socio-ecological system out of the bellicose corporate-state outline capable to end not only poverty but to end the supremacists delusions and armed potencies. The end of the worldwide discord reproduction system for segregation and hate between peoples and classes dissemination for the supremacist cult of unique and total power — being as a state or religion.

Basic income should be a guarantee of necessary means so that every person can be sufficiently free not only to be able to make their own decisions as to allocate their particular resources. It should be the guarantee of free time and own space in order to directly participate on the collective decision making on the allocation of common good. And this, according to personal understanding of necessary and not by the artificially imposed necessities by others as precondition to servile alienated survival.

Therefore, independent basic income isn’t just universal, but also cosmopolitan; and will be as competitive as own peace communion liberty is, not only in the real free markets, but in the real free world.

Utopia? No, only the end of dystopian states and a beginning of libertarian societies. Equal authority states funded by the guarantee of in fact fundamental liberties for all. And why not? After all, what is the real universal basic income if not a libertarian principle? And what should basic income be if not the guarantee of the fundamental right to personal self-determination and sovereignty for your own life?

Govern yourself.

Written by

X-Textos: Não recomendado para menores de idade e adultos com baixa tolerância a contrariedade, críticas e decepções de expectativas. Contém spoilers da vida.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store