Day 234: Living Income to Cure the World of Crime

One of the objections that has been raised against implementing a Living Income Guaranteed to ensure that every person is secured with the means to support themselves - is that: one would be rewarding individuals without them doing any effort to create a better life for themselves - and so - implicitly, one is rewarding laziness.

This objection obviously does not consider the reality of the economic system we currently live in - where, motivation and one's best efforts are simply not enough to 'make it', let alone make a decent living for oneself and one's family. Those perceptions come from When the economy is in such a state as it is now - then, regardless of one's best intentions and efforts, one can remain stuck in a life of poverty and deprivation, simply because there are no sufficient jobs through which to earn money. Or, one could get a different degree to be able to have access to a particular job market - but this also implies that one requires to already have some sort of income to fund the studies. One can also not start one's own business, because that requires a starting capital.

So - what options are left? What are we encouraging when we say to a person with no means to support themselves that they are on their own and that they must devise their own way to make a living? Well - we are basically suggesting that they should become criminals. That is the one option they have available. And when the economy worsens and less jobs are created, more turn to crime - and when crime increases the economy suffers even more because no-one wants to invest in a country where the law is not enforced, because then there is no guarantee that the investors' interests will be looked after from a legal standpoint.

No - motivation is certainly not enough to make a decent living for oneself. But there is one thing - and if one possesses this one thing - a world of opportunity and possibility suddenly stretches out before one's feet. And that one thing is: MONEY. It only takes money to be able to feed oneself. It only takes money to be able to clothe oneself. It only takes money to be able to educate oneself. It only takes money to make the difference between disgrace and dignity.

Capitalism is a system of incentives and the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed for all those who find themselves without a job - would be the perfect way to discourage crime - or otherwise, to stop encouraging criminal behavior. Because it is easy to say that those with nothing must just do some effort to improve their lives - but if we'd be in their shoes - having to provide not only for oneself, but a family too - with no support system to fall back on - what would you do? Would you sit at home watching your family suffer, or would you do whatever you can - even if it means stealing and robbing and conning - or making a deal with the 'wrong kind of people' where you get dragged into situations you never thought you would find yourself in - but what choice is there, there are mouths to feed, bills and rent to pay. How can we even call such people criminals? Wouldn't it be criminal to in those instances obey the law and not take one's responsibility within taking care of those around us? Then - isn't it criminal to allow a system where individuals are placed in a position where they have no means to adequately support their families within the boundaries of the law?

We're the criminals here because we make laws and follow economic rules without any consideration of what the reality, consequences and implications of these decisions entail.

We are the people and in any democracy - it is the people who are supposed to rule. And if that is not happening - then that is not the fault of those in power or of the corporations or anyone else's - but OURS - THE PEOPLE. Any democratic dispensation places the responsibility of what is allowed to happen in a country squarely on each and every single citizen's shoulders. So - be a citizen and take your responsibility - become politically involved so that you can stop the REAL crime that is being allowed. To create a crime-free and peaceful society - you're going to have to do something - and that is one simple thing: To give to another what you would want to receive if you were in their shoes. And this can at the moment practically be done through the implementation of Living Income. It is a workable proposal. It is a dignified proposal.

So - join the political party in your country that supports a Living Income or form your own - the time to act is here, nagging is just a waste of your breath.

Related articles

• Day 418: Basic Income Can Save Capitalism
• Day 420: Basic Income and Minimum Wage
• Day 422: Basic Income Grant and Pensions
• Day 421: Basic Income Grant and the Nationalization of Banks
• Day 233: Can BIG provide us the punch to beat the recession?
• Day 417: Basic Income and Nationalized Resources
• Day 230: The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality are One
• Day 305: Life - A Title on the Stock Market
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Day 415: Bailouts Are No Solution

Read More

Day 233: Can LIG provide us the punch to beat the recession?

Whenever the point of policies in relation recessions opens up in economy textbooks, we look at expansionary and monetary policies to help stimulate the economy. Within this government spending, taxation and interest rates play a major role. Here, we are pulling strings from a giant tapestry, hoping that a pull here and there will have an effect way down, on the other side of the tapestry, somewhere down the line… (if we allow enough time to pass by of course).

Yet, we can stimulate the economy a lot more effectively by boosting the aggregate demand in the economy, through the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed
.
By granting everyone who does not have access to a stable income with a grant that allows them to live a decent life, we generate a greater level of disposable income. Those who were previously surviving and saving – now transfer more money towards spending and consumption.

As disposable income goes up, demand goes up, spending goes up and the wheels of the economy are greased up: economic activity goes up and economic growth is being promoted! As people want more things, more people need to be employed and the unemployment rate goes down. People get their needs taken care of, suppliers and producers are able to sell their things and jobs are being created.
As the economic capital grows, the social capital improves as well. As people’s living standards rise, people become more effective and efficient in their activities.

Implementing a Basic Income Grant System, is a win-win situation.

Check out the following blogs for more information:

Living Income and Nationalized Resources

Living Income Can Save Capitalism

Living Income and Minimum Wage

Living Income Guaranteed and the Nationalization of Banks

Living Income Guaranteed and Pensions

Read More

Day 232: Putting Economic Theory into Practice with Living Income Guaranteed

Living Income Guaranteed as the Capitalist’s Answer to a Healthy and Wealthy Economy

Any economist is familiar with Keynes and the Keynesian economic model of a demand-driven economy. Keynes understood that money requires to move for an economy to thrive, in the same way that blood must flow for a body to be healthy.

An economy can be broken down into three basic flows: Spending, production and income – spending requires to happen for companies to be able to produce goods – the production of these goods then provides income to the employees of the companies that produced them. There is thus an undeniable link between spending and income. When too few people have adequate income, or when income is too low – too little is spent, too little is produced – and income reduces even more.

The ideal way to ensure spending is therefore to secure everyone with an Income.

Furthermore – capitalism can only work if Equal Opportunity of Participation exists. Unless Equal Opportunity exists, capitalism becomes a system of exclusion and deprivation – because Capitalism only ensures efficient production and distribution of resources for those with an income. Therefore – to prevent Capitalism from becoming a weapon, but instead, an actual management system as how it was intended to be – each individual should have a guaranteed income.

Furthermore – an economy will not only thrive through money movement, BIG pilot projects have shown that more children attend school, and thus, one will have a more qualified labor force in the future – increasing the intellectual capital in an economy.

A Guaranteed Living Income is a Human Right

Regardless of the economic arguments, guaranteed income is a basic human right. To speak of Basic Human Rights without securing the means through which to benefit from these rights, is useless.

The Equal Life Foundation therefore suggest that the Living Income one receives should be sufficient to be able to enjoy one’s Basic Human Rights, and thus, large enough for individuals and families to live a decent human life – meaning: one can live off a Living Income Guaranteed with dignity. This implies the ability to pay for one’s basic needs such as electricity, water, food and clothing – but also extends to the means to participate in our current society and thus includes things such as a car, a phone/cell phone and internet access.

Social Dividends

To fund a Living Income Guaranteed – a system of social dividends is ideal. In every country there are those goods and services that are vital for the basic well-being of the citizens of that country. Examples are basic resources such as water, electricity, raw materials, transportation and media. Such goods and services do not belong in private hands – but belong to each individual of the nation. Therefore – every citizen should be a shareholder of every company involved in the production of such goods and services.

This is not a new idea – as early as 1935, G.D.H. Cole, wrote the following:

“How will ... incomes be distributed? There are two possible ways - payments for work done, and 'doles', or, to give them a less coloured name, 'social dividends'. I believe the system of distribution will be a combination of these two, but a very different combination from that which now exists. ... There will remain, broadly, two sources of income - work and citizenship. Incomes will be distributed partly as rewards for work, and partly as direct payments from the State to every citizen as 'social dividends' - a recognition of each citizen's claim as a consumer to share in the common heritage of productive power.” (Cole 1935, pp. 234-235)

The dividends one receives from the profits of these nationally owned companies then form the Living Income Guaranteed. With each one being a shareholder, each one immediately also has an equal say in the activities of such companies – which is an application of direct democracy in the areas of life that are most important, which again solidifies and protects each one’s Basic Human Rights.

Incentive to Work

The inevitable question then comes up: If everyone receives an income that covers one’s needs – who will be willing to work?

This is where the Equal Life Foundation suggests an interesting solution. To provide incentive – the minimum wage should be double the Living Income. This means that anyone who has a job can not only fulfill one’s needs, but can enhance one’s quality of life through acquiring luxury items that would not be available on a Living Income budget. One can then afford a bigger house, a larger family, a second car, a bigger garden, more exotic and fulfilling holiday destinations, subscriptions to sports clubs and other leisure organizations, and so on and so forth.

Consequentially - as soon as one has a job – and thus, receives a wage that is at least double the income one would have earned from social dividends – one’s right to the Living Income Guaranteed falls away – simply because one doesn’t require it anymore. The social dividends system then functions as a National Insurance system – combining unemployment fund, life insurance and retirement funds all in one – where, one receives a pay-out based on the applicability to one’ situation.

Also read:

Living Income and Nationalized Resources
Living Income Can Save Capitalism
Living Income and Minimum Wage

Day 415: Bailouts Are No Solution

Sources:

COLE, G.D.H. 1935. Principles of Economic Planning. London: Macmillan & Co., 1935.

Related articles

• Day 418: Basic Income Can Save Capitalism
• Day 417: Basic Income and Nationalized Resources
• Day 415: Bailouts Are No Solution
• Day 230: The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality are One
• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• 365. Labor is a Human Right |Equal Money
• 362. Water is a Human Right | Equal Money
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• 366. Health Care is a Human Right | Equal Money
• Day 308: Foolishly Trusting 'The Invisible Hand's' Benevolence

Read More

Day 231: Will Equality Destroy Society? |Equality and Human Rights – Part 8

Also in this Series:
Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
Day 221: Are Humans Equal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 2
Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3
Day 225: Equality and Disinformation – Equality and Human Rights – Part 5
Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 6
Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights – Part 7




Within this blog and the next one we will be looking at two statements with regards to the perception of the necessity of inequality within society and the world:

Statement 01:

Some inequalities are surely also necessary for the maintenance and functioning of a social order. For example, complex, modern, industrialised societies are characterized by a division of labour, many different functions and roles and a range of differing skills, which are necessary for the existence of such societies.

Statement 02:

Equality would have to be imposed again by government by redistributing income from the productive to the less productive. If this strategy continued, the productive would eventually lose the incentive to produce more than they required for their immediate needs, and ultimately there would be nothing to redistribute. All would eventually be equal in poverty.

Here we are looking at economic justifications for the existence of inequality, where it is no longer a matter of whether we should promote equality or not – but where inequality requires to be protected as an important drive force in society which ‘holds everything together’. Equality is no more a moral ideal, but a threat which requires to be fended off at all cost.

Within this blog, we will work with Statement 01.

Here the author expresses the belief that inequality is necessary for the functioning of a social order, especially in the case of modern, industrialized societies which are characterized by features such as the division of labour, distinction in functions and roles, etc. Most, if not all societies are now marked by these type of ‘order’, even a global level where some countries are subordinate/superior to others in their position due to the nature of their relationships among one another.

Obviously, when you have a society which in its very essence and fabric is based on the notion of inequality – which permeates every element within the structure of society as the ruling principle by which society lives – then OBVIOUSLY the elimination of Inequality and pursuit of Equality will demolish the order and functioning of the day, when that very order is the representation of Inequality. All that means, is that we have to come up with a new order, a new structure – and this time base it on the principle of Equality, where the principle of Equality determines the structure of society and permeates every element in every possible way. Society will still exist, people will still exist – all we are changing and re-defining are the Relationships within Society to take on a New Form. Thus, the destruction of that particular order is not necessarily a ‘bad thing’ which we should all fear. It is simply a matter of breaking down a dysfunctional system and rebuilding a system based on Equality as the Respect for all Life.

This also doesn’t mean that we have to go through/walk through an Apocalyptic / End of Days type of scenario where everything is literally being destroyed to ground zero as the infrastructures that are already here before we can ‘rebuild’ society. That would just be a waste of energy, time and resources. When we speak of the destruction and resurrection of society, we are not talking about tearing down buildings and looting towns and whatever other images may come to mind when ‘the destruction of society’ is mentioned. The actual physical structures are not the problems and are in fact very useful for future usage and their physical destruction would only be to everyone’s detriment. 

The point which requires to be addressed is the order and the relationships we’ve accepted and allowed ourselves to live. This will not happen overnight and will have to be a gradual implementation/transformation we all have to walk and adjust to. We thus do not promote any kind of Revolution or other means if implementing change which is physically destructive and violent. The Equal Money System / Equal Money Capitalism will follow the Political Route to be voted into power as a collective decision and agreement.

For more on this subject, please consult the following material:

343. How are We Going to Change the System to Equal Money? 
 How on Earth will an Equal Money System be Implemented?  
How can we practically go about implementing an Equal Money System?
  How do we Transition to an Equal Money System? 
 Day 351: Desteni, Equal Money, Zeitgeist and Occupy Wall Street  
How to implement Equal Money? The starting point of community.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights - Part 7
• Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 6
• Day 230: The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality are One
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2

Read More

Day 230: The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality are One

  
For context, also read:
Day 228: False Dilemma: Abuse or be Abused – Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 6
Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5
Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
Day 218: Justice and Human Rights

The question of who should get what has been answered by (most prominently) communists and socialists as: In accordance to people’s needs.

What is a Need?

When one researches this topic, it is fascinating to see how much fuss is being made on the concept and definition of ‘need’ – where it is claimed to be a vague and a ‘notoriously difficult to define’ concept. This is most fascinating, since ‘need’ is one of the most straightforward words that exists – and so, making it seem that it is not clear what need is, is merely trying to find fault so that one has an excuse to discard the principle altogether.

So, let’s humor everyone by showing what need is. When one lacks something that is causing harm to one’s well-being – then that something is a need. Herein – well-being is understood from a holistic perspective as including physical, social and psychological well-being. Why such a holistic perspective? Because all three dimensions of well-being influence each other. If one’s diet is inadequate, one will suffer on a physical level, but it will also affect one’s psychological well-being, since our psychological well-being is intertwined with the physical through chemical relationships. When we manifest psychologically imbalanced behavior, our roles and position in relation to others will be influenced, in turn affecting our social well-being.

Traditionally, the word ‘need’ has been approached to only consider the physical dimension – where well-being is not the goal, but survival is – where, as long as one has a basic minimum requirements to sustain oneself – such as clothing, shelter, food and water – one’s needs are met.

More recently the word ‘need’ has been expanded upon through making a distinction between ‘basic’ and ‘non-basic’ needs – where basic needs include the traditional meaning of the word as one’s most essential survival requirements and non-basic needs include things like education and healthcare.

Which definition of the word ‘need’ is valid and appropriate depends on our aspirations as living beings on this planet. Are we here to survive or are we here to live a life worth living? Considering the history of mankind and how much effort was put into researching and devising ways to enhance the quality of human life on Earth – it is safe to say that we as a race do not merely aspire to surviving and making it to the next day – we would all like to enjoy ourselves, fulfill ourselves, and make something of ourselves and our lives. Therefore, to only consider need in relation to survival is inadequate and a holistic perspective of need is appropriate.

To say, then, that the principle of need cannot be a basis for the distribution of goods because the word ‘need’ is not definable, is unacceptable.

The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality

As discussed in Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts, the principles of justice include
- The principle of merit and desert
- The principle of need
- The principle of equality

Each one of these are regarded as different principles. However – in clearly defining what a ‘need’ is – we see that the principle of need and the principle of equality are one and the same. Because – if everyone is provided with all they require to live a life of well-being – then it stands equal to distributing goods in a way to provide each one with an equal quality of life – a life where each one’s well being is effectively looked after.

However, this is not how the principle of need and principle of equality are interpreted in academic thought. Distribution according to the principle of need has been interpreted in two ways.

In communist thought, the principle of ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his needs’ is put forward. Herein, what a ‘need’ is can be defined on an individual level – where each one ‘decides’ what one’s needs are.

According to the socialist tradition, some form of authority should define what ‘need’ is at a particular time. Their idea is that – once everyone’s needs are met – further distribution can occur on the principle of merit and desert. This view is in line with the popular ‘Basic Income Grant’ proposals

Both views are problematic.

I decide what my need is

When we rely on each one to decide what their needs are – we open the door for abuse. The temptation becomes too big to define a need beyond a need, entering the arena of pure desires and wants.

We have defined need in terms of anything one requires to live a life of physical, psychological and social well-being. Those are obviously things everyone would want. We can in fact ask the question: “What more could one want?” And it is exactly within this – the ‘more’ – that we are dealing with desires and wants. Desires and wants are things that – if given to one being, would deprive another being of one of their needs, and thus, cause harm. Desires can also typically not be given to all equally. Being famous is a desire, being better off than one’s neighbor is a desire, having power over another is a desire.

Within this scenario we cannot ensure social justice – because if we allow individuals to manipulate the system through including desires and wants in their ‘needs basket’, then harm would take place in respect of others’ psychological, social and physical well-being, and thus – defying the goal of ensuring each one with their needs.

The Basic Income Grant proposal

The basic income proposal is a nice attempt towards eliminating the dangers of the principle of merit and desert as discussed in the previous blog-posts – and so, we can say ‘a step in the right direction’. However – in the long run it is not sustainable. The combination of applying the principle of need and the principle of merit/desert, manifests inequality, where, for some, one’s needs is what one will be provided with, while others will be able to indulge in desires as well. We end up in the same position as when each one decides what their needs are – where the need of some will inevitably be sacrificed, in order to satisfy others with the desires they apparently ‘deserve’.

We continue this discussion in the next blog of this series.

Related articles

• Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
• Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5
• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• 366. Health Care is a Human Right | Equal Money
• Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights - Part 7
• 359. Equal Life Rights
• The Equal Life Foundation - Bill of Rights
• 365. Labor is a Human Right |Equal Money

Read More