SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT NON-GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
FOR A NEW FREE ECONOMY, NOT PRIVATE, NOT STATAL BUT SOCIAL
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.)
Non-governmental social funds are financial funds constituted for the development of a location through public assets and services financing which are not formed by taxes or donations, but through investors who receive dividends according to the performance of the social businesses that aim at local socioeconomic development.
They are funds formed by financial investments not merely in social causes, but in social technologies that produce social products of public interest, which social impact is earned precisely by the economic results and not by the companies, but from the locality that supports the company. They are, therefore, funds where financial return is conditioned to the social impact of the economic policy, and the success of the economic policy is measured precisely by its capability of socio-economic self-sustainability.
Non-governmental social development funds are, basically, equity crowdfunds directed to social and public interest, and which permit those who invest in social development to obtain proportionate and shared earnings from the generated common good. They evidently can comply with a whole range of necessities and social and public management interest not only from local communities but in cities or in integrated society’s networks. More than that, the social development funds are able to not only cater isolated or specific causes, but constitute itself as a libertarian socioeconomic system fundament if made the vital minimum provision its social cause, much like a fund that defends territory and its dwellers, its social cause, to be the source of financial support of a peace society or a free republic.
A socio-economic libertarian system should possess as fundamental characteristic, voluntariness of all negotiation or association, therefore both the republic as its defense and social security state should be voluntarily promoted by particular interest, and not collective coercion. Although common interest or collective (when legitimate) is particular interest congruence over the shared assets, the understanding about the defense or provision necessity of these interests is asymmetric — given the production, intellective and volitional capacity differences. In other words, being in a free system, or being in a coercive system, there will always exist the ones who won’t do anything and the ones who are willing to do whatever is needed — and of course those who are willing to do anything to impose others what they should do. As for those who want to impose their will against others, there should not be space for them in states of peace, as for the rest there should be space for peaceful coexistence and proportionate to contribution rewards for each in regards to their participation in the support of this state of peace:
To the ones who live in peace without harming others, the vital minimum;
To the ones who support this peace and liberty territory with their voluntary contribution, may it be considered then his investment capital in the support and development of his society and return him as social dividend adding up to his basic income.
A fund provider of basic income is not only an excellent economic contract, but the best social contract precisely because it stimulates and awards the voluntary contributors whom will draw the social responsibility to themselves, at the same time which will maintain all other members of society, independently of judgments or circumstances, with their fundamental rights guaranteed. Guarantees pragmatically the adherence of all by incentive and not coercion:
Those who can’t or who want nothing with vital minimum due to each person residing in a state of peace, in a way which his inalienable rights to self-preservation and political participation can always be reached rightfully through capital and never through violence.
Those who can and want to have proportional and competitive rewards according to their investment.
But how is it possible to check earnings with the equal distribution of income to all, if the proportionate return of the social investment is asymmetrically a social responsibility?
Investing directly in the fund to support your own social dividends such as Basic Income. All beneficiaries with basic income are encouraged to participate and become owner of its own fund. The more beneficiaries are owners, larger the interest in raising the capital.
Consigned micro-loans on their own basic income which interest earnings (which is determined by the loan taker) are deposited on the fund and remain as particular patrimony of the loan taker and therefore capital for his social dividend.
Poorer societies are those with the biggest potential of growth, therefore earnings for the investors, but this exclusive growth leveraged on the guarantee of basic income although correct, is slow. However, this growth can be potentiated by the association of these micro-loans charged automatically by the payment of Basic Income which are granted in rounds, prioritizing larger voluntaries contributions.
This micro-credit association allows that the riches generated by the guaranteed local basic income be capitalized by the fund that, once achieved a superior to the necessary income threshold for the basic income provision, according to the fund contract, allows to distribute the exceeding social dividend to its investors inside and out the locality.
The big question of how to provide the common good without imposing and coercion to all on a libertarian republic, but counting on the capacity and initiative of the volunteers is, roughly, solved by:
Common good demonopolization;
Vital minimum universal guarantee;
Earnings proportionate to social results for all mutual fund contributors;
Fund capitalization via equity crowdfunding with the emission of bonds that are redeemed in accordance to the economic development proportionate to the investment.
Basic income guarantees demand, loans to offer, and the mutual funds guarantee both security and the interest of the contributors, no longer reduced to govern expropriated, but recognized as investors and owners by the social voluntary contract. Bonds guarantee returns in investments without the extortion of unplayable loans.
Considering a country, or even better, an entire libertarian republic, financed by funds of mutual investments of universal rights provisions, this country would no longer have taxes nor contributors, but in fact investor-contributors of their own common good and development which would practice their own political power in the most democratically way possible: controlling in decentralizing and real time the allocation of their particular and common resources. Practicing your economic politic power in fact, no longer disintegrated as consumer or elector, but as complete citizens, through political-economically reinstated capital, being particular or being individual freely associated always when necessary to guarantee his competitive and representation.
Economic Democracy. Through social and financial technology, and why not?