This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why Basic Income should become a Human Right
The U.S. Basic Income Network define Basic Income as, "...an unconditional, government-insured guarantee that all citizens will have enough income to meet their basic needs." http://basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
This program could eliminate poverty resulting in a more predictable and stable society as crime and violence would decay.
It could also move innovation beyond traditional employment as everyone would have access to the necessities of life by a basic income thus economic flexibility.
It could, in addition to deliberate automation, diminish the work hours for full-time employers, giving people more time to friends and family and activities that enrich their lives thus increasing quality of life.
It would in fact save significant costs by liquidating cumbersome and bureaucratic government agencies, to a much simpler program that could be automated.
Furthermore, since there is no means test; the richest as well as the poorest citizens would receive it which could manifest a positive psychological effect in people to spend less and appreciate leisure, which is ultimately good for the environment.
An example of a 'mini-basic income' is the Permanent Fund Dividend which in an annual individual payout to Alaskans. Though the payout is relatively small and only annually distributed, it still goes to show that this kind of program is being used today: http://pfd.alaska.gov
Research from Namibia revealed that the introduction of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) led to an increase in economic activity which contradicts critics' claims that the BIG will lead to laziness and dependency. Learn more about it here: http://bignam.org
Namibia had amazing results in a number of other things as well, namely poverty reduction, which is a pivotal point in and of itself, and a reduction in crime rate by 40%. Now, imagine what a global basic income guarantee could do.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Barry Palmer 50+
I submit that human rights are somewhat misnamed. The human rights in the USA Constitution do not give humans anything, rather they are restrictions on the government from acting in ways that would interfere with our individual freedoms.
I once read (I can't find the author) that we should all have the right to starve. If someone else is feeding you, you are his slave. The founders of the USA thought death was preferable to slavery, and so do I.
John Dunbar 10+
Barry Palmer 50+
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
I am sure.
pat gilbert 50+
John Dunbar 10+
" In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
Seems as though Madison believed in freedom for himself and his friends not so much for everyone....
Gail . 50+
Barry Palmer 50+
As for the freedom of others, that was an issue of great dispute among the founders. One of the reasons that slaves were held in such contempt is that they were perceived as valuing life more than freedom.
At that time, the notion of equality was very different from today. Complete equality of all men was literally inconceivable to most men, and this includes most of the founders. If you judge the founders by today's standards you find them all to be unethical hypocrites. If you put yourself in their situation, in their culture, you will see men of basic good will struggling to invent a completely new concept of how men relate to each other, a new foundation of government, and a new method of governing. Judging by the results, I think this bunch of selfish hypocrites did rather well.
And, amazingly, they did all this with very little help from women. Including women was inconceivable.
John Dunbar 10+
" One of the reasons that slaves were held in such contempt is that they were perceived as valuing life more than freedom." I have never heard of this, not saying it isn't true but that seems like an insanely arrogant and ridiculous notion. Especially if you look at the penalties that they were subject to and the levels of control put in place so as to ensure there was not a rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes
The founding fathers did some great things they also did some terrible things...they certainly did not care for the average man and as far as I'm concerned knew some of the things they were doing would be anything but beneficial for most. they all had a very legitimate understanding of history and knew about the struggle of slavery. I believe they knew that they were creating an illusion of control for the public and designed the constitution to function this way. Im also not sure if we can chalk up our nations prosperity to what the founding fathers did. We went from being oppressed to the oppressors rather quickly as our former countrymen slaughtered the natives and planted their flag. They founded some great things like freedom of speech and separation of church and state, checks and balances, civil liberties. It still remains that the constitution allows for those with economic power to subvert the interests of others.
Linda Taylor 50+
So when we see the term "human rights violation" it typically means things like imprisonment without cause, genocide, torture, withholding of resources vital to life such as food or water and typically it is a government or group of people causing the violation. These are rights of people.
However, there are times when people give up their human rights. There are also times when individual persons give up their human rights.
Basic income would have to be a civil distribution so individual persons can pursue their human rights. It could be done but the possibility of abuse is huge.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
What kind of abuse do you potentially see?
Linda Taylor 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Linda Taylor 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+