“(….)what is your opinion of those of us that imagine our best strategy for change is to convince and pressure central governments to institute the guarantees?(…)
Thanks for the question. Not only I’m in favor, as I have 2 important natural law arguments of left ecolibertarian bias so that they do not like social assistance via the executive branch, but as a fundamental right via constitutional obligation:
1. It’s not for the State refusal or postponement of the basic income.
The territory does not belong to the state, but to the people. Natural properties, public, common goods belong to society and their income must be handed over to their rightful owners: the citizens. Whether this social dividend is not sufficient to cover the cost of living, no matter the amount, it should be paid.
It’s like water supply, no matter whether it rains or not, it is the duty of the government to build the reserves and ensure that the distribution system is always ready.
2. The refusal to pay the basic income is not only theft, is a crime against life
The state has a monopoly over the common good of a territory is strictly assuming custody for life of all people in need of its vital and environmental media. So either he gives up the monopoly or paid a basic income. Let me explain:
The state of peace prohibits the use of all necessary means to self-preservation, but only the property and income individuals are guaranteed. The expropriation of (i) property and incomes, both private and common and (ii) freedom of natural ownership (even of occupation and peaceful enjoyment of natural resources) then remain only two alternatives, both practically a death sentence: 1) an , live and die in famine; 2) other, live and die in police confrontation.
About my objection to a government basic income it is easily explained with an example: North Korea. If the government of North Korea, decreed that every citizen has an unconditional basic income, would you say that these people are in fact a basic income without any government requirement? Authoritarian governments do not need to explicitly charged counterparts, conditionality is tacit and obedience to the rules is implied.
Beside that the event of an extreme global and humanitarian crisis that threatens the entire geopolitical stability, I do not think the basic income, a popular empowerment, will be given willingly by those who hold political and economic power. Like all rights, I suppose she will also have to be earned.
However, although I do believe in the possibility of a state basic income, since this basic income is an inalienable constitutional right and the Libertarian State. It is therefore strictly forbidden:
1. subtraction of fundamental freedoms, private and common properties and their revenues included the basic income.
2. segregation and inequality of authority over the common good. Ie on the natural properties that make up the territory and its wealth — which can not be divided not only appropriate, but only shared not only with an equal right to use but as a duty to preserve. But it is another question.
I hope this helps.