Here's a really good article on basic income:

https://decorrespondent.nl/541/Why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39

(Includes the studies in Africa.)

Cheers, Aaron.

2014-10-20 23:55 GMT+02:00 ben <colypse@???>:

> Do you guys have any ideas how to kickstart unconditional basic income
> outside the "democratic" governmental system we have today?
> As I see it, the rich could have paid it easely, but they are hoarders
> and they fight to get it all monopoly style.
>
> Ive seen studies and pilot programs in africa where they have had
> great results. And to me this seems to have the greatest effect in
> individuals not seeing everyone around as their competitor(survival of
> the fittest), but just as a part of the hole human organisme?
>
> Dont know if this might be a long shot..
>
> 2014-10-20 10:37 GMT+02.00, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@???>:
> > > > (Ruminations)
> >
> > I don't consider myself a libertarian, and dislike boxes, but I'm
> > voluntaryistic / cryptoanarchistic with a dash of constitutionalism
> > (e.g. if people bothered to fight long enough for "rights," and defend
> > them in a variety of fora, then we should consider what those rights
> > are and respect them when they are expressed ~ though I don't mean
> > that as an endorsement of the state, it's simply "what people do" and
> > "how we respect each other"). Throw in a dash of zen, and you've got
> > enough terms to put me in a box. I don't care much for politicians,
> > but I appreciate that more people seem to be aware that they can
> > choose more than red or blue (e.g., go with third parties) if they
> > wish to vote. But that's just me stating the obvious.
> >
> > ( Caleb ~ )You asked where that libertarian stateless utopia is. You
> > probably did not read the full article that I sent. A quote from the
> > article comes to mind: "Presented with statism's ridiculous and
> > backward narrative, we must wonder who the starry-eyed utopians really
> > are." Indeed! But moving right along: Remove "libertarian" and
> > "utopia" and you are left with "stateless." So, to get to the root of
> > it, where is this so-called stateless society? It should be plainly
> > obvious that wherever it manifests it will be difficult to identify.
> > It does not have a flag or a banner. It certainly does not have a Ron
> > Paul or a party. It does not have national boundaries. It would be
> > too easy if I were to to respond by saying it is everywhere and
> > nowhere. But that's part of it, so I will say that it is everywhere --
> > everywhere that the minds and hearts of people who wish to co-create a
> > new society make a decision in any moment of any day that they wish to
> > liberate themselves from fear. It is not purely notional, either, as
> > the distributed functions of consensus and the gears of
> > decentralization have been turning in terms of societal development
> > well before the internet came into existence and long before anyone
> > could push a key on their computer and participate in decentralized
> > and distributed-digital systems that do not require national
> > boundaries or nationalistic identities and forms.
> >
> > There is a great deal of what I describe that occurs throughout
> > society without being seen, which makes it harder to explain if you
> > are asking for clear and perhaps visible evidence of it.
> >
> > I strongly suspect that the visible manifestations of developing
> > decentralized, distributed systems and / or stateless societies will
> > become far more evident only after anonymity technology advances
> > enough to be both lightweight and widespread. Without saying much
> > more about that, I believe that 2015 will be a significant historical
> > marker in the area of such technologies, which include, but are not
> > limited to implementations of such a variety as SNARK-based unlinkable
> > transactions via Zerocash, Output Distribution Obfuscation involving a
> > hybridization of BTC system(s) and BCN ring signatures, distribution
> > of stealth TX technology throughout large numbers of currency systems
> > (currently it is present in several systems), and Scalable Zero
> > Knowledge via Cycles of Elliptic Curves designed to make zero
> > knowledge proofs lightweight and accessible to all programmers,
> > contingent on provable CPU. These are but a few of the many
> > developments that will alter many aspects of your life in ways mostly
> > unseen.
> >
> > I have stated in various fora that it has taken almost 226 years to
> > arrive at the next major point of revolution action, and by necessity
> > that is 'anonymity.' However, without relational strength and an
> > understanding of how relationships themselves are the ultimate
> > technology, the exponentially expanding possibilities for collective
> > and distributed participation to compassionately serve many elements
> > and aid in the determination of priorities to fund, and more, will not
> > be realized. (My project, http://abis.io, still in a very early
> > stage, is a reflection of my optimism that we are capable of doing
> > more together (without direction being given by "authoritative"
> > organizations) given time and a greater level of understanding.) Thus
> > there will be a constant tension between bellicose corporation-states,
> > their struggling advocates, and the increasing numbers of persons who
> > either by choice or undesired circumstance, become (for all intents
> > and purposes) stateless, whether or not they declare or are even aware
> > of it being so. Some have made statelessness an advocacy issue or a
> > point which they have individually declared. I submit that it is not
> > about such a declaration (though declarations are interesting to
> > explore as expressions within the context of discussion of what
> > statelessness might mean), but rather about a realization that one may
> > be free from fear and in opening oneself to finding the _many_
> > _vehicles_ to a more compassionate future, the detachment from statism
> > (and indeed, departures from ideologies of all kinds) will come
> > naturally. Such terms, such as "stateless," "government," and
> > "statism," indeed will cease to have relevance in the way we
> > understand them today as society realizes more and more its collective
> > potential. Perhaps then we will begin to consider "stateful" (such
> > as, in a state of being) more descriptive of these 'decentralization
> > developments' than "stateless" within the context of the
> > corporation-state, or even notice that such references to the "state"
> > as a nation, government, or corporation-state will diminish, for if
> > the "state" as it has been known is no longer that important to us,
> > then we need not regularly refer to it, nor need we be bound to other
> > arguably related terminologies, such as "anarchism," "socialism,"
> > "capitalism," and all the -isms we have allowed to condition our
> > minds. Freeing oneself from fear, thus the old language will not
> > excite or raise one's interest, but natural thoughts which create
> > concepts, new terms, and numerous permutations and styles of
> > meditation, can arise at any time, for any person, anywhere. The
> > vehicles to our destinations, of course, are those which you might
> > intend or those that you realize or are surprised by ~ they are
> > countless in number.
> > Thus does language set the tone for what we may choose to build for
> > our shared future, the relationship provide the basis for connecting
> > our minds and hearts to each other, and the reflection upon our
> > present moment create the state in which we exist, now.
> >
> > Stopping here. The stars are out.
> >
> > - -Odinn
> >
> > Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
> >> Hi Odinn, Thanks for your reply, I know taking a socialist position
> >> on an unabashedly libertarian list is not going to be popular but I
> >> sent it here because I really want to be fact-checked. ~nothing
> >> more infuriating than bobbing heads of unconstructive agreement..
> >>
> >> Your link speaks of "Rights of The State", this immediately struck
> >> me because I don't any longer care about rights, I care about
> >> people.
> >>
> >> I was born in the USA which pays awful heed to Rights and Justice,
> >> and trucks millions off to prison cells for violation of The Law. I
> >> was a fervent follower of the libertarian dogma myself it because
> >> it looks so damned good on paper (I even have a pair of Ron Paul
> >> tshirts to prove it).
> >>
> >> The question I have is "where's the beef?" where is the
> >> libertarian stateless utopia? I understand we can't have perfect
> >> now so maybe there is something moving in the right direction, a
> >> small-government state where individual liberties are protected?
> >> Give me any example you like as long as it's not some kind of
> >> libertarian community which exists under the protective umbrella of
> >> a social state.
> >>
> >> I've not been able to find any such example and so have taken to
> >> trying to understand why what looks so good in theory doesn't apply
> >> in practice.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/20/2014 02:51 AM, odinn wrote:
> >>> Caleb,
> >>>
> >>> I don't want to waste energy typing in my own words here what
> >>> someone else has written in a way that I think would enhance
> >>> understanding of this subject in a better way than if I were to
> >>> comment further on it.
> >>>
> >>> With that said, I think you really need to read (and carefully
> >>> re-read) the following article, which I submit may well enhance
> >>> your understanding of this matter substantially:
> >>> http://c4ss.org/content/32570
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> -Odinn
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
> >>>> I have a hypotheses which has been percolating in the back of
> >>>> my mind for some time now and I thought now is a good time to
> >>>> share it.
> >>>
> >>>> For all that libertarian systems offer in theory, they have a
> >>>> distinct problem that when it comes to practice. Unless you
> >>>> consider Texas a utopia, libertarian utopias don't really exist
> >>>> and I wanted to study how something which looks so good on
> >>>> paper manages to fail so completely in practice.
> >>>
> >>>> To be ruled by law, as opposed to being ruled by men, means to
> >>>> me that nobody can just order your execution or imprisonment
> >>>> without dire consequences. Given wealth and power are
> >>>> interchangeable, if you live in a country where one person
> >>>> controls 99% of the wealth of the nation, there is no rule of
> >>>> law. He can just simply up the government and whatever checks
> >>>> and balances you put in place he can undo or subvert. Judges,
> >>>> as impartial as they might like to be, do not live in a vacuum
> >>>> and challenging a de-facto dictator is not good for one's
> >>>> health.
> >>>
> >>>> Therefore, wealth redistribution is not about paying alms to
> >>>> the poor but about making sure that nobody amasses such power
> >>>> as to threaten society as a whole.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> tl;dr wealth and power are interchangeable, wealth/power pools
> >>>> up in certain lucky and industrious individuals, without
> >>>> redistributing it, democracies devolve into oligarchies and
> >>>> then eventually into monarchy or chaos. The US is in the
> >>>> oligarchy phase.
> >>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
> >>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> >>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> >>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> >>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > - --
> > http://abis.io ~
> > "a protocol concept to enable decentralization
> > and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
> > https://keybase.io/odinn
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >
>
>
> --
> Mvh Ben Johansen
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>