Common Concerns about the Implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed

The following is a Q&A discussion from the Living Income Guaranteed Facebook page.

Do we have equal education, ambition, and iq? should the cashier and server make the same as the entrepreneur with more risk and skin in the game? If you want more pay, find a profession in high demand. Also, if positioning the government to raise minimum wage rates only creates a market distortion inducing hyperinflation, increasing the rate of automated points of sales, job elimination, and pricing some smaller companies completely out of markets. i find it hard to believe that the people on this page can't see through a socialist ideology for the disaster that it is.

Hi - it's not within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal to give each one equal wages, regardless of skill, profession or education. However, it is within the Human Rights Declaration to provide each one with certain rights - which requires a minimum living income. Wouldn't you say it is hypocritical to promise or guarantee these rights and then refrain from providing the means through which these rights find their expression - which in our world, is money? In terms of the inflation argument - please check out the hangout we did on that topic:

A living income is not a right. It's a right to persue, it. How can someone be provided something equal, or to a hyper -standard of their personal production? If a living is "guaranteed ", what is the motivation of the indevidual to continue to be a productive member of society? Where is this guarantee coming from, if the incentive to work is gone? Will farmers farm if they are guaranteed a living even if they dount? Will truckers get up at 3am and drive? Will doctors continue to practice?
The truth is, this utopian, society you are promoting sounds like roses and rainbows but the facts are, you are pushing the same socialist ideology that has been failing for hundreds of years.
I hope you never see the day your agenda is a reality. I hope you never have to explain why you have to stand in line for the only meal of the day. I think you should be studying the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union, or for that matter, Rome. Noone can guarantee you a living, it's a fact. The people who say they they can, are only going to make those promises until they realize, that giving you that guarantee, means taking from someone else who WORKS for it. It's called slavery. What some see as greed and unfair, I call success.
Asking your government to guarantee your living, is in turn relinquishing your liberty to them. If you want to know your rights, read the constitution. There are no guarantees in life. If you want freedom and peace, and your rights? You have to work and fight for them. And that means taking personal responsibility for your actions and wellbeeing. If you want someone to guarantee you the the things that sustain your life and you are over the age of 18, you are completely delusional.

Hi - I hear your concerns regarding the Living Income Guaranteed proposal as they have been brought up before. If we lived in a world where jobs and opportunities for success were readily available to all - then, yes, we can suppose that it is ever person's choice to live in poverty and there might be reason to leave someone to their own vices. However, that is not the world we live in today. Not everyone grows up in the same environment that supports them with the skills to enter the job-market. Not everyone has access to decent education and even with having a degree and the will to work, youth unemployment is a growing phenomenon, because there are no jobs available. For a different perspective, I suggest you read the blog 'Redemption and the Right to a Living Income' as it is directly pertinent to the point you raised here. Placing that absolute 'rule' or 'principle' that only those who can make a decent living within the economic system rightly deserve it is problematic when you consider the world we live in, because it can not simply be argued that those in poverty choose to be there and/or that they are unwilling to change their living conditions.

In terms of work incentives, we looked at this point as well. If staying at home still provides you with your basic living necessities, would there be a reason to work? One point here I would like to bring up is that pilot projects for a basic income have all shown that work efforts are not reduced when a basic income is provided. So, there is reason to believe that our fears are just that - fears. But do we want to take that risk? We'd rather not. Therefore, within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal, we suggest that the minimum wage be double the Living Income. That means that those with a job can definitely afford more luxurious lifestyles than those living with just the basic requirements - which therefore provides an incentive to take up employment.

In terms of your argument of taking from someone else who worked for their income to provide another with a living income, I suggest you read the Living Income Proposal itself again as we suggest a way of financing the Living Income Guaranteed that does not require means such as income tax which ensures that no one pays for anyone else's Living Income.

That guaranteeing a Living Income stands equal to, or is a slippery slope towards communism is quite a leap. Consider that communism was characterized by central planning and the centralization of ownership of resources. We propose instead that capitalism remains the way in which economic activities are conducted and we support the decentralization of power with minimal government - less government in fact than a welfare state implies. Herein, we agree with Libertarians such as Matt Zwolinski who recently wrote an informative and insightful article titled 'The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee'.

The constitutions and the values and principles that we've been upholding are products of the past - where once upon a time, they were considered useful and an improvement over what was here before. However, if you look at the abuse that has been allowed in the name of these values and principles, it becomes clear that we have to formulate new principles for our global society to live by. We simply cannot continue as we are. If not for those in need - then out of self-interest - because in the battle where each person is fighting for their rights - we are disregarding the planet we live on and some day, we will all have to pay the price - unless we change what we're doing. That doesn't mean we have to implement a utopian society of equality - but would it be so outrageous if each person was given the bare necessities to survive?

Day 152: Linux proves Profit Motive does not Provide the Best Result

One of the main arguments that has been put forward in terms of why we have to hold on to a profit-based economic system, is that - apparently - people are not motivated to perform to the best of their ability if there is no form of monetary reward attached to it.

If that were the case, then who can explain the Linux phenomenon?

The Linux operating system and software are assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. It means that everyone who is capable and interested can be a part of designing the products and it can be freely used, modified and re-distributed by anyone.

It's done by volunteers for the betterment of everyone. So - then the question: does it produce good results? Well -the following should answer that question:

"The Linux kernel was originally developed as free kernel for Intel x86-based personal computers. It has since been ported to more computer hardware platforms than any other kernel. Linux based operating systems are the leading operating system type on servers and other big iron systems such as mainframe computers and supercomputers: more than 90% of today's 500 fastest supercomputers run some variant of Linux, including the 10 fastest. Linux also runs on embedded systems (devices where the operating system is typically built into the firmware and highly tailored to the system) such as mobile phones, tablet computers, network routers, televisions and video game consoles; the Android system in wide use on mobile devices is built on the Linux kernel."

The best computers on Earth run on some variant of Linux - that says something, right? I mean - computer technology is one of the main points we see as important in terms of 'advancements' in technology and most of these advancements are made by volunteers. That completely debunks the idea that you need to pay people and need an environment of competition for people to be creative and driven to achieve excellence.

Within the current system we've simply been brainwashed into believing that we shouldn't do anything unless we can get some type of monetary or material reward out of it. And you can prove to yourself that this is in fact brainwashing by looking back at your childhood - where you looked at what you wanted to be in the world - whether it was a farmer, a hair dresser, a doctor or a librarian - where you didn't factor in the point of money and wealth - because that didn't form part of your motivation. You simply looked at what you would enjoy doing and where you'd like to contribute and what you'd like to participate in. It's only when you got older that you started becoming lazy, because your passions were no longer considered and you were just expected to fall in line and 'get with the program'. In such a context, laziness is a form of giving up on yourself - because you see that the system does not really care about you and you see no way of changing that point - therefore, you become lethargic and decide to 'rebel' in a way - through only doing the bare minimum. And to get people to do the bare minimum - they bribe you with money - making it so that: if you don't do the bare minimum, you simply don't get money and you simply can't survive.

So - in changing the system from a worker-manufacturing system to a life-support system - these problems will mostly become irrelevant. For more perspective on this point, I suggest reading the Labour section on the Equal Money Wiki.

Related articles

• Day 220: The Greatest Cult in History
• Day 116: Is Brainwashing Possible?
• Day 141: Even the Rain: Water Politics - Catastroika
• Day 233: Speak System, Speak!!! - ADC - Part 80
• Day 131: The Justice System - also a Scam?

Day 18: Who's Got the Most to Lose - The Rich or The Poor?

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that it is righteous that the owner of a company gets to make profit from running a business because he deserves it.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that the owner of a company deserves to make profit from this business because in starting this company, he invested his money and herein took an apparently very courageous risk and should therefore be rewarded with profits.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to not realise that the person investing to start a mining company, though he bets with a lot or all of his money, still has less to lose than the miner who might lose his life working in the mine - and therefore, that there is no rationale that justifies profit.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to actually believe that the person who puts all his money on the line possibly loses more than a person putting his life on the line - and I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to herein justify a company making their employees work in crappy conditions in order to lower costs and increase profits, while the employees' lives are increasingly at stake.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to actually believe that the boss sitting at his desk making phonecalls deserves to get a higher income than the workers at the lowest level who do the actual hard, physical labour.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that if I want to pursue the line of thought as justification of 'those who earn more money do so because they deserve it', then all the workers doing the actual hard physical labour should be the ones who get the highest incomes, because they do the jobs those with higher incomes don't want to do - indicating that they are giving more of themselves in their job.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to accept that so many laws and regulations exist to protect the rich and their wealth from the poor, while mostly the rich are born rich and have therefore barely deserved any of their wealth.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to deliberately exclude the poor from becoming wealthier by making capital a prerequisite for making money and accumulating wealth - and on top of that making sure that poor people can't get loans to get capital with to be able to participate and become wealthier in the economy.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to claim that the poor are in their position because of laziness, while actually deliberately creating the barriers that keeps them from any significant participation in the economy as a strategy to rule out competition.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that as long as we as humans compete with each other in any aspect of our lives and as long as we are afraid of coming out the short end in losing everything we have, we will never live in a world where poverty is eradicated, because poverty is merely a consequential outflow of the designs of competition and fear of loss.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that each one requires to investigate their life and see where it is that they are participating in competition and fear of loss, and where they try to take out competition and remain 'on top of them' in the nastiest of ways, if we ever want to see a change in this world.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that competition and fear of loss are part of 'what makes us human' and that we cannot live without such experiences, or that we would no longer be ourselves.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that competition and fear of loss cause consequences in our and others' lives of suffering, pain and misery.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that I can never lose myself and therefore, it is absolutely possible to stop the habit, need and desire to compete with others and to give up fear of loss and still be here.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that self-improvement should be about self, for self and not about trying to be better than and outshine others - self-improvement is about correcting the relationship one has with oneself in a way that there is no conflict with self, in self, towards self and self can live fully in every moment.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to define self-improvement in relation to how well I perform in comparison to others and use others and what others think of me as a benchmark for where I need to go or what I need to change, instead of realising and understanding that self-improvement is about looking at where I am not satisified with me, equal and one with me and to correct those points accordingly and where then, others who have already walked the particular point I'm busy correcting can assist and support in being an example where I then equalises myself to others, but not from the starting point of trying to outrace them or trying to outshine them.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that we cannot walk this process of change on our own and need to be able to stand as a group of equals, as one, to see the change we need in the world - and herein competition is unacceptable.

I commit myself to stop all desires, needs, wants, tendencies to compete with others in and as myself.

I commit myself to stop all forms of fear of loss within and as myself.

I commit myself to learn to work together as a group of equals as one, instead of against each other.

I commit myself to show how the current economic system works like a casino where each one places their bets, in terms of their capital, their life, their time, their efforts, their health - and where some can continue playing and others just lose it all.

I commit myself to the implementation of an Equal Money System where each everyone is always a winner and no-one loses out.