An update on Universal Basic Income (UBI)

[James S Saint]

I hope everyone can understand the similarity in my first natural power distribution graph and this statistical graph:

Natural Power Distribution Curve.png (2.8 KiB) Viewed 1879 times

Wealth Distribution in USA.jpg (29.1 KiB) Viewed 1879 times

[James S Saint]

And since you mentioned it, I am not the first to realize the similarity between physical power distribution and social:

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity)[1] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.[2] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who noted the 80/20 connection while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, as published in his first paper, "Cours d'économie politique". Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; Pareto developed the principle by observing that about 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.[3]

It is a common principle in business management; e.g., "80% of sales come from 20% of clients."[citation needed] Many business executives have cited the 80/20 rule as a tool to maximize business efficiency. Richard Koch has authored a book, The 80/20 principle, demonstrating the practical application of the Pareto principle to business management and life.[citation needed]

Mathematically, the 80/20 rule is roughly followed by a power law distribution (also known as a Pareto distribution) for a particular set of parameters, and many natural phenomena have been shown empirically to exhibit such a distribution.

Perhaps the distinction is merely that I know Why.


But note that the universe is NOT one huge particle, rather countless minuscule particles - DISTRIBUTED ENERGY/WEALTH (a lesson for dictator and god wannabes).

Thus maintain cohesion and stability by having information-linked multiple peaks of power, thusly:

SAM Power Distribution.png (8.12 KiB) Viewed 1846 times

Unwittingly, Aristotle said the same thing in his [Aristotle, Politics, book II], as does the Talmud.

[Silhouette]

So the argument is something along the lines of "this Pareto-style wealth distribution that we have is necessarily going to occur, so UBI will do nothing to change this"?

Why does this distribution happen though?

In developed countries, it strikes me as partly the fault of the less wealthy as well as the more wealthy. Standards are set, partly as a result of a naturally emerging consensus amongst people and partly artificially by the advertising industry. Wherever you appear to stand comparatively determines the first impressions of others, which are made up in an irrationally short period of time. It takes a disproportionately long time and large amount of effort to rectify these, so it "pays" to try and live up to them.

Obviously business is set up to supply the good and services required to live up to these expectations, and to add to the challenge these expectations change over time - because once too many people come to successfully adhere to these standards they lose their competitive edge, the consensus evolves and advertising moves on to creating new fashions. To be "comfortably off" is to be able to stay on top of these moving goalposts, to be particularly "rich" is to be pushing the boundaries of what it looks like to live the most desirable kind of life, and to be "poor" is to be struggling to meet social standards at all.

It's important to remember that these qualifications are culturally dependent, to people inside certain cultures the vast majority of what you are exposed to is within your own culture. Even if you are fantastically rich compared to the poor in less developed countries, that is mostly off your radar and isn't "your life". And in more developed countries, we have a good view of ALL levels of wealth.... but almost no view of what it takes to get there. It's patently obvious why there is resentment amongst the "poor" amount inequality in living standards, but it's a favourite of pro-capitalists to criticise them on the grounds of envy (when really, envy is driving the whole thing from bottom to top - all levels of wealth develop feelings of entitlement based on their expectations based on what they are exposed to. It's just only a problem when you can't afford it, which is most notable amongst the poor).

All of this should be pretty obvious stuff.



So given the struggle of the poor in light of what they are exposed to, there is huge incentive to spend all of your money - no matter how much that is - to keep up with appearances. The media answered this by creating a kind of worship of the well-off, particularly the nouveau-riche and the unintelligent - to maximise jealousy. The credit industry offers the extra cash to make it seem even easier to reach the standards being sold to the less wealthy - but of course just as a way to lock them into paying the company owners in reliable installments. The poor demand the supply and the rich supply the demand... so to speak.

There is the "you could die tomorrow" strategy that falls foul to the above and there is the prudent strategy, which just allows capitalists to set prices higher (inflation). The latter stalls the prudent and accelerates the desperation of the former.

So you could say the poor bring it on themselves, but the rich take advantage of it. And UBI would just enable this exploitation and inflate prices such that the struggle simply moulds to new parameters?

Currently the power of capitalists to control the running of their businesses means they can just adapt because they are the ones in control. Currently, the shaming and demonising of the excessively rich is doing nothing to stem their ascension. There are no effective controls in place to keep the top in check. Tax havens go unchallenged, sympathy for the rich being penalised for working hard endures, and as I covered before: advertising/branding facilitates the illusion of product differentiation, creating faux-monopolies/oligopolies within markets of essentially similar products that would otherwise be kept more in check by "perfect competition".

Given the absence of effective controls to keep the top in check, forcible taxation is the only way to get money to circulate back amongst the less wealthy.
But without further controls over capitalists, the above cycle will persist rendering even solutions by taxation ineffective.



The challenge therefore is to come up with effective controls over the more wealthy, either within the current economical model or through a new one, such that the inevitably encroaching need for solutions such as UBI will actually work long term.

[James S Saint]

So the argument is something along the lines of "this Pareto-style wealth distribution that we have is necessarily going to occur, so UBI will do nothing to change this"?

Why does this distribution happen though?

No, the argument is that the UBI-alone will make it worse because what is causing it is the relatively unobstructed global free flow of money or influence. UBI alone will cause even greater fluidity.

The challenge therefore is to come up with effective controls over the more wealthy, either within the current economical model or through a new one, such that the inevitably encroaching need for solutions such as UBI will actually work long term.

And the only way to do that is to form a stable wealth system that is compartmentalized. Compartmentalization causes the natural stable aggregation of wealth to be widely distributed. If the compartments are small enough, the distribution is inherently very wide, getting to literally everyone. Such also brings the bottom and the top of the wealth scale much closer together, not merely in money but in life style and understanding. Have many atoms, not merely one big black hole.

And you cannot force taxation on those funding the law making.

[Arminius]

So the argument is something along the lines of "this Pareto-style wealth distribution that we have is necessarily going to occur, so UBI will do nothing to change this"?

Why does this distribution happen though?

No, the argument is that the UBI-alone will make it worse because what is causing it is the relatively unobstructed global free flow of money or influence. UBI alone will cause even greater fluidity.

Exactly. You have got it.

[Silhouette]

And the only way to do that is to form a stable wealth system that is compartmentalized.

I believe this is what the Classical Liberal ideal is meant to achieve with perfect competition, and I agree that it is a favourable distribution of power. But I agree because even though your "natural" power distribution has less people in power, and that makes decision making easier and faster, your "organic" power distribution is able to be more nuanced - and whilst fluidity may be compromised "horizontally" it is increased "vertically", which keeps the "top" in check. As I said, we are currently lacking controls to keep the top in check, and in the sense that your compartmentalised model does this, I support potential solutions such as this.

Seeing as something like UBI is becoming increasingly necessary due to the rise in technology replacing the need for humans to work (or at least to "pay" humans to work), I would be willing to consider anything that can allow it to work.

Assuming that individual businesses are the "cells" in the organism, the problem is that their own success causes them to get cancerous and grow at the expense of other surrounding cells. I wonder if the reason we haven't been able to cure cancer is the same reason we have been unable to cure our economy? Of course, it's not considered a success when actual cells get cancerous, it's due to self-replication errors as far as I understand. By the same analogy, businesses are able to make certain concessions such that they are able to grow out of proportion, so we need some kind of immune system to stop that from happening for the benefit of the whole economy.

As I covered, one of these concessions may be the distribution of misinformation via advertisement. This is an entire industry dedicated to the fostering of irrationality and distorted decision making. If you're in the same industry as your competition, say so - don't spend huge amounts of time, energy and money on trying to falsely differentiate yourself. If there isn't any intrinsic motivation to do this (I don't think there currently is) then this is where the immune system has to come in.

Another source of misinformation is that companies are private, their inner workings are opaque. The most fundamental inner working that is not being communicated is that of the "for-profit" model. Quite literally this is the excess of revenue relative to expenses, and quite literally this is what all contributing parties earn relative to what they are paid. Profit is quite literally the act of paying people less than what they earn the company. This needs to be understood. Also, knowledge of one anothers' wages are opaque to those within the company. Would you still feel motivated to work for a company if you knew how much everyone else was being paid, and if you knew that everyone else knew this too? Most likely you would be happy for some people within the company to be paid more than others, but to what extent?

Both internal fluidity of information about the company is needed and external fluidity of information about companies in general are needed.

[James S Saint]

Assuming that individual businesses are the "cells" in the organism, the problem is that their own success causes them to get cancerous and grow at the expense of other surrounding cells. I wonder if the reason we haven't been able to cure cancer is the same reason we have been unable to cure our economy? Of course, it's not considered a success when actual cells get cancerous, it's due to self-replication errors as far as I understand. By the same analogy, businesses are able to make certain concessions such that they are able to grow out of proportion, so we need some kind of immune system to stop that from happening for the benefit of the whole economy.

As I covered, one of these concessions may be the distribution of misinformation via advertisement. This is an entire industry dedicated to the fostering of irrationality and distorted decision making. If you're in the same industry as your competition, say so - don't spend huge amounts of time, energy and money on trying to falsely differentiate yourself. If there isn't any intrinsic motivation to do this (I don't think there currently is) then this is where the immune system has to come in.

Another source of misinformation is that companies are private, their inner workings are opaque. The most fundamental inner working that is not being communicated is that of the "for-profit" model. Quite literally this is the excess of revenue relative to expenses, and quite literally this is what all contributing parties earn relative to what they are paid. Profit is quite literally the act of paying people less than what they earn the company. This needs to be understood. Also, knowledge of one anothers' wages are opaque to those within the company. Would you still feel motivated to work for a company if you knew how much everyone else was being paid, and if you knew that everyone else knew this too? Most likely you would be happy for some people within the company to be paid more than others, but to what extent?

Both internal fluidity of information about the company is needed and external fluidity of information about companies in general are needed.

All good points. And all taken care of by proper Social Anentropic Molecularization, SAM Co-ops (a different topic). The bottom line of this topic is that compartmentalization must be done, else the UBI leads to greater disaster.

The SAM Co-op structure is bound to a constitution that inherently inhibits overgrowth (inherent compartmentalization - the best kind). This is accomplished by requiring that the decision-making within each cell is responsible for ensuring that each "cell member" (person within that small group) is being taken care of as well as every other member in the group. But that doesn't mean that every person is treated identically, rather that every person is being treated in accord with their needs balanced against the cell resources. The "energy" or resource distribution within each cell is not the same for all cells. Each cell, through the philosophy and news networks chooses its own resource distribution method so as to achieve the constitutionally required MIJOT (Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time) for all its members.

Social cancer, like bodily cancer, is a problem for a society because the resources are being diverted away from the cell's functionality to the society. People with devotion to outside interests such as to send money out of the country or vote to alter one country's laws or actions for sake of some other outside interest (foreign countries, religions, or corporate profits) despite the damage that it does to one's own country is "social cancer". Equally if a cell's resources are being mindlessly squandered, ignoring philosophical rational and local situation news, a consuming cancer is the result. Again, this is prevented by segments of the constitutional laws governing decision-making responsibility.

In addition, since you mentioned it, all activities within a SAM Co-op are openly recorded and remain open for future debate concerning best management. All activities are transparent to the degree necessary to ensure constitutional compliance (much like having open books to the IRS auditor, although much closer nit). And any decision that has been made can be quickly un-made through the required Resolution Debating process.

Unlike small businesses, a SAM Co-op is a small community or family (potentially only 4 members and rarely if ever as many as 75) wherein everyone knows everyone and everyone is being fully represented in one way or another in the community decision making process. Being left out is literally illegal. And if the resources of any cell "dry up" for whatever reason, members, perhaps all members, are free to find another cell that has room and need for them. The overall body absorbs any damaged cell's human resource. Such is similar to a town or business downsizing or going out of business thus the its citizens or employees are free to find another town or job.

The constitutional structure of a SAM Co-op is also organic in that it learns and adjusts to its individual environment and situation. Even though every SAM Co-op has the same fundamental constitution, it is expected that every "cell" has its own amendments and life-styles (no mandated universal dress-code or behavior other than to obey their own constitution - which is very strictly supervised).

Further immunity to cancer is established by the fact that philosophically, surrounding "cells" of a "corrupt cell" (a cell not following its own constitution) must participate in dissolving the corrupted cell. The only sign of corruption is "Are they following their own constitutional laws?" Thus sufficient open-recording, "transparency" is required between specific elements within neighboring cells (not necessarily to every member). Thusly social cancer is detected and acted upon by whatever means is chosen to be best suited while at the same time, extreme diversity in life-style is expected (different types of cells as neighbors in the same body, harmonious and compatible merely because they are visibly obeying their own constitution).

SAM Power Distribution.png (8.12 KiB) Viewed 1771 times

Each a SAM Co-op networked together into Man, utilizing all accrued wisdom of the ages.

But even if the SAM Co-op isn't the best way to go, compartmentalization is mandatory to avoid global misery under a self-perpetuating Godwannabe reign. Free flow and fluidity of social influence must be restricted. And btw, that is exactly what the Hebrew word "Ahdam" means, and the proposed "first Man-agement" method to limit the senseless chaos and provide stability. The attempt to control it all, was the temptation that destroyed the relative paradise.

[Silhouette]

This pretty much exactly describes Communism, so you have no disagreement from me here with what you're calling SAM Co-ops.

I have a concern over the illegality of solitude, but I like the harmony between the sizes of communes and the maximum number of people that one is able to really "know".

Historically, the challenge has been "how to realistically transform what we have now into what we need?"

[James S Saint]

This pretty much exactly describes Communism, so you have no disagreement from me here with what you're calling SAM Co-ops.

No, it is not Communism. In Communism, there is a hierarchical state that owns everything and militarily, medically, and mentally controls all behavior. The SAM Co-ops own their own "property" and decide for themselves how to behave within the limits of the common constitution. It is almost the exact opposite of Communism, but actually it is none of the 3 major stereotypes yet contains elements of each.

I have a concern over the illegality of solitude, but I like the harmony between the sizes of communes and the maximum number of people that one is able to really "know".

Illegality??
No one is required to be a member of any cell. The whole thing is entirely voluntary. The constitution prevents capture of members against their will, not the other way around. And solitude within the family is limited only by the need to be represented in decision making. There need not be little cameras in everyone's bedroom and shower, but that would be an independent Co-op's choice.

Historically, the challenge has been "how to realistically transform what we have now into what we need?"

With a SAM Co-op, you simply find some friends, study how it is done, and start doing it. It doesn't require campaigning for public approval, nor does it require that everyone ELSE is doing the same thing. Each cell is taking care of itself independently even if there is only one cell, one SAM Co-op ("Anentropic"). Others grow if and when they choose. The information interconnection between Co-ops is what allows them to intellectually grow; be smarter, wiser, cooperate, and be more capable. I would think it unwise to attempt a nationally illegal activity as the core occupation or behavior. And the whole point is to be wiser toward MIJOT.

[Arminius]

Assuming that individual businesses are the "cells" in the organism, the problem is that their own success causes them to get cancerous and grow at the expense of other surrounding cells. I wonder if the reason we haven't been able to cure cancer is the same reason we have been unable to cure our economy? Of course, it's not considered a success when actual cells get cancerous, it's due to self-replication errors as far as I understand. By the same analogy, businesses are able to make certain concessions such that they are able to grow out of proportion, so we need some kind of immune system to stop that from happening for the benefit of the whole economy.

As I covered, one of these concessions may be the distribution of misinformation via advertisement. This is an entire industry dedicated to the fostering of irrationality and distorted decision making. If you're in the same industry as your competition, say so - don't spend huge amounts of time, energy and money on trying to falsely differentiate yourself. If there isn't any intrinsic motivation to do this (I don't think there currently is) then this is where the immune system has to come in.

Another source of misinformation is that companies are private, their inner workings are opaque. The most fundamental inner working that is not being communicated is that of the "for-profit" model. Quite literally this is the excess of revenue relative to expenses, and quite literally this is what all contributing parties earn relative to what they are paid. Profit is quite literally the act of paying people less than what they earn the company. This needs to be understood. Also, knowledge of one anothers' wages are opaque to those within the company. Would you still feel motivated to work for a company if you knew how much everyone else was being paid, and if you knew that everyone else knew this too? Most likely you would be happy for some people within the company to be paid more than others, but to what extent?

Both internal fluidity of information about the company is needed and external fluidity of information about companies in general are needed.

All good points. And all taken care of by proper Social Anentropic Molecularization, SAM Co-ops (a different topic). The bottom line of this topic is that compartmentalization must be done, else the UBI leads to greater disaster.

The SAM Co-op structure is bound to a constitution that inherently inhibits overgrowth (inherent compartmentalization - the best kind). This is accomplished by requiring that the decision-making within each cell is responsible for ensuring that each "cell member" (person within that small group) is being taken care of as well as every other member in the group. But that doesn't mean that every person is treated identically, rather that every person is being treated in accord with their needs balanced against the cell resources. The "energy" or resource distribution within each cell is not the same for all cells. Each cell, through the philosophy and news networks chooses its own resource distribution method so as to achieve the constitutionally required MIJOT (Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time) for all its members.

Social cancer, like bodily cancer, is a problem for a society because the resources are being diverted away from the cell's functionality to the society. People with devotion to outside interests such as to send money out of the country or vote to alter one country's laws or actions for sake of some other outside interest (foreign countries, religions, or corporate profits) despite the damage that it does to one's own country is "social cancer". Equally if a cell's resources are being mindlessly squandered, ignoring philosophical rational and local situation news, a consuming cancer is the result. Again, this is prevented by segments of the constitutional laws governing decision-making responsibility.

In addition, since you mentioned it, all activities within a SAM Co-op are openly recorded and remain open for future debate concerning best management. All activities are transparent to the degree necessary to ensure constitutional compliance (much like having open books to the IRS auditor, although much closer nit). And any decision that has been made can be quickly un-made through the required Resolution Debating process.

Unlike small businesses, a SAM Co-op is a small community or family (potentially only 4 members and rarely if ever as many as 75) wherein everyone knows everyone and everyone is being fully represented in one way or another in the community decision making process. Being left out is literally illegal. And if the resources of any cell "dry up" for whatever reason, members, perhaps all members, are free to find another cell that has room and need for them. The overall body absorbs any damaged cell's human resource. Such is similar to a town or business downsizing or going out of business thus the its citizens or employees are free to find another town or job.

The constitutional structure of a SAM Co-op is also organic in that it learns and adjusts to its individual environment and situation. Even though every SAM Co-op has the same fundamental constitution, it is expected that every "cell" has its own amendments and life-styles (no mandated universal dress-code or behavior other than to obey their own constitution - which is very strictly supervised).

Further immunity to cancer is established by the fact that philosophically, surrounding "cells" of a "corrupt cell" (a cell not following its own constitution) must participate in dissolving the corrupted cell. The only sign of corruption is "Are they following their own constitutional laws?" Thus sufficient open-recording, "transparency" is required between specific elements within neighboring cells (not necessarily to every member). Thusly social cancer is detected and acted upon by whatever means is chosen to be best suited while at the same time, extreme diversity in life-style is expected (different types of cells as neighbors in the same body, harmonious and compatible merely because they are visibly obeying their own constitution).

SAM Power Distribution.png

Each a SAM Co-op networked together into Man, utilizing all accrued wisdom of the ages.

But even if the SAM Co-op isn't the best way to go, compartmentalization is mandatory to avoid global misery under a self-perpetuating Godwannabe reign. Free flow and fluidity of social influence must be restricted. And btw, that is exactly what the Hebrew word "Ahdam" means, and the proposed "first Man-agement" method to limit the senseless chaos and provide stability. The attempt to control it all, was the temptation that destroyed the relative paradise.

This pretty much exactly describes Communism, so you have no disagreement from me here with what you're calling SAM Co-ops.

The current ruling system - the globalism - is more like communism than many usually think it is. The only difference between the both is merely a surface one; the globalistic one works by privatization, the communistic one by deprivatization (communization, socialization); the economic meaning of both is always exploitation, thus impoverishment; the political result of both is always wars (all kind of wars), anarchy, chaos, afterwards change, if not extinction.

[James S Saint]

The current ruling system - the globalism - is more like communism than many usually think it is. The only difference between the both is merely a surface one; the globalistic one works by privatization, the communistic one by deprivatization (communization, socialization); the economic meaning of both is always exploitation, thus impoverishment; the political result of both is always wars (all kind of wars), anarchy, chaos, afterwards change, if not extinction.

Very true.

If you're going to be exploited, at least ensure that it is by someone you know.

[Arminius]

James, maybe you remember that we had the following dialogue:

The history clearly shows that all previous socialisms, because they were modern, were either national or - in the worst case - imperial totalitarianisms. The current globalism is also such an modern imperial totalitarianism, namely the worst case of the worst cases because it is the greatest of history.

The two ways to get out of the imperial madness are the alternatives as city states or as nation states; but because both are about to be destroyed (and even are going to destroy themselves), only one possibility remains: the very small social units, for example something like the "communal particles". But this only possibility will come again anyway, because history repeats its form.

So one could think one has only to wait. But there is another modern problem: the modern trend itself which means also - and amongst other powerful things - machines! You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true.

And if someone has an idea like James with his "SAM" / "communal particle" (see above), then he is threatened with lies, that he were a "friend" of the "bad socialists" of the past (for example: Babeuf, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot), although / because the liars themselves are this bad socialists, even in a global scale of imperialism.

Do what thou wilt. Ye watch thee.

The middle class has to carry everything and everyone. The only difference between former modern times and curent modern times is that the nobility and clergy have been becoming globalists.


The middle class carries the globalists.

....

....

The end result is that across the world, any and every abstract question gets resolved and distributed across the world overnight. And as each resolve is understood by each corp., if the resolve is applicable to their group, it is immediately incorporated (although ideas are communistic, the use of them is strictly democratic).

The reason why the Glozis, their functionaries, and their seduced crowd can say that it is communistic or socialistic - and not just democratic. They say: "You are not democratic. You are communistic or socialistic like Babeuf, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and many others were." And so they can incite their seduced crwod against you. The crowd is too much influenced by the Glozis and their functionaries.

Thus the greatest intelligence of Man, rather than the least common denominator, becomes the functioning authority within Man. Man as a whole quickly and suddenly becomes sane after some 10,000 years of blindness and foolishness.

Anyway, they say: "That is communistic or socialistic, thus not democratic." (See above). They themselves are more communistic or socialistic than you, I know, but they have the power.

[Arminius]

The current ruling system - the globalism - is more like communism than many usually think it is. The only difference between the both is merely a surface one; the globalistic one works by privatization, the communistic one by deprivatization (communization, socialization); the economic meaning of both is always exploitation, thus impoverishment; the political result of both is always wars (all kind of wars), anarchy, chaos, afterwards change, if not extinction.

Very true.

If you're going to be exploited, at least ensure that it is by someone you know.

And if you are going to be exploited by someone you do not know, ask yourself how and why this could happen and get knowledge about that someone.

[Silhouette]

No, it is not Communism. In Communism, there is a hierarchical state that owns everything and militarily, medically, and mentally controls all behavior. The SAM Co-ops own their own "property" and decide for themselves how to behave within the limits of the common constiution. It is almost the exact opposite of Communism, but actually it is none of the 3 major stereotypes yet contains elements of each.

Ok. Well if you asked any self-identifying Communist what they are aiming for, they will tell you the exact same things that you just laid out... no joke.

Nobody wants to argue about what Communism really means, not even me. I just can never resist, because everywhere (especially the US) people think that what has been called Communism is actually Communism, but if you actually read what it's supposed to be, it's actually what everyone wants to happen. Highly frustrating if you've known this all this time, but I'll drop it.

So just ignore my comment, my apologies.

But yes, what you and Arminius etc. think Communism is is pretty close to what we have now, sure. I agree. I still can't believe people think that self-identifying Communists are actively trying to achieve this and the kind of oppressive authoritarian states that we've all abhorred.

Let's just say it's me who misunderstood what Communism was supposed to be, I don't even care what we call it anymore.

I am 100% behind this SAM Co-ops thing.

The current ruling system - the globalism - is more like communism than many usually think it is. The only difference between the both is merely a surface one; the globalistic one works by privatization, the communistic one by deprivatization (communization, socialization); the economic meaning of both is always exploitation, thus impoverishment; the political result of both is always wars (all kind of wars), anarchy, chaos, afterwards change, if not extinction.

Every major change in economy has had to have all kinds of wars, anarchy, chaos before it - it's just that we've not experienced a successful one of these in a few hundred years. We have had attempted ones that failed though.

The problem is that if we aim for things like SAM Co-ops, we get resistance from the people who currently benefit from the status quo and the people gullible enough to believe their propaganda. Which is a surprising amount of people. The problem is changing from what we have now to something like SAM Co-ops without wars, anarchy and chaos. Ironically, the proper definition of Anarchy isn't even that far from SAM Co-ops either, but it's a sign of previously failed attempts when their names get turned into meaning their opposites such that they immediately appear undesirable. That way, people don't even look into it, to uncover what's really been going on for a while now - to overthrow this current system that nobody actually really likes except the few in power who benefit from it.

[James S Saint]

Every classical governing type claims that it is only after the best for its people. The distinction in their classifications is by the method they use to attempt their ideals, not the ideals.

You have to keep reminding yourself that with a SAM Co-op, your goal is not to go out and change the world, but rather to take very good care of your own co-op. Let others do as they wish as long as they are not attacking you in some way. So you are actually in a different market than globalists. SAM Co-ops are much more capitalistic in that sense. The difference from traditional capitalism is that SAM Co-ops are constitutionally confined so they cannot grow into money grubbing huge monopolies.

And even more, the manner in which SAM Co-ops function forces membership deliberation over their own lifestyle issues. By their own laws, an individual cannot simply start doing things in a divergent way from their own community decisions and if they did, the encroaching cancer would become pretty apparent very quickly. And that would immediately demand that compensating deliberation concerning how to handle the new influence begin. Perhaps the new divergence is a good thing, "Let's rationally discuss it among ourselves in Resolution Debate". New ways of doing things can spring up and be established very quickly because there is no huge dogmatic mass population to convince of new ways.

Of course if that one changing cell is seen by surrounding SAM Co-ops to be disobeying its own constitution, the entire cell would suddenly have a new enemy. It wouldn't be wise to act counter to your own constitution. That is why they call it a "constitution" - it keeps things together. If they want to do things differently, it might take only an hour or two to amend their own rules in a proper manner and thus avoid being detected as a cancer and then go on doing things in that different way. What is critical is that the entire cell membership was considered and recorded before any changes were allowed.

Pressures are easily managed, diverted, and/or rationally compensated by such a manner and that makes it difficult to oppress or hypnotize people into anything else. It is not impossible to destroy a SAM Co-op, but it takes such excessive measures, extreme obfuscation and interference, that it gets very expensive for the oppressor, much more so than merely oppressing and controlling scattered individuals and even much more so than handling street gangs.

The much greater burden is upon the larger self-centered oppressor. It is far easier for a larger entity to simply spell out what it wants and rationally work with the Co-ops, who are themselves, not aggressively seeking control over anyone else and provably doing nothing regionally illegal.

I really didn't mean to divert from the UBI discussion to this extent. But in the long run, if you want to raise the quality of life for ALL people, start by doing it for yourself by compartmentalizing in a rational manner, a Constitution for Rational Harmony:

Constitution of Rational Harmony

Preamble
We who gather in this union ordain and establish these Articles of Rational Harmony for the purpose of firming the rational pursuit of maximum momentum toward eternal united harmony.

Articles
1) Governing Authority

All governing authority shall be vested in the following four fundamental offices; Representative, Senate, Executive, and Judicial.

i. No action is to be performed by any office or member of any office unless by instigation of proper Constitutional process as documented herein.
ii. It is the obligation of the union to prepare every member for reestablishing this authority in the event of its demise such as to include;

a. Teaching the rationale of this constitution and methods concerning its establishment
b. Providing all materials and tools required to re-initiate the authority of this constitution and its implementation.
c. Training all members in concerns of confidence, anti-cancer, anti-terrorism, decisiveness, faith, and optimal isolation
iii. It is the obligation of the union to provide sufficient preoccupation to offer resistance to corruption of critical harmony of both the union and the members without significantly infringing upon member rights to participate in constitutional decision-making.

2) Member Representation

The “Representative” office is to be responsible for the observation and documentation of the current situation of the union.

i. Any union member shall be allowed to propose, through the Representative office, recommendations and suggestions concerning any union action as long as such items are accompanied by documented reasoning to support the proposal's need for consideration.
ii. Any member must be allowed to debate the superiority of any existing or proposed rationale before the Senate and Judicial offices to the extent of rationale concern.
iii. The Representative office is responsible for documenting and reporting on the situation of the members in regards to;

a. Before and after relevant events
b. Surroundings involved in events and member situations
c. Higher and lower states of authority concerning events
d. Higher and lower dependencies of relevant events

3) Governing Principles

The “Senate” office is to be responsible for receiving and evaluating all action proposals regarding any and all union members and establishing action priorities.

i. Principles of rationale (amendments) are to be formulated, documented, and utilized in determining proposed rational actions.
ii. These principles are to be published sufficiently to allow critical review by the other offices.
iii. Proposals are to be evaluated for superior rationale with existing principles pertaining to the accomplishment of the goal of the maximum momentum toward eternal union harmony.
iv. All alternative options to any proposal are to be rationally considered and documented along with the rationale for being rejected.
v. All evaluations are to be accepted or rejected based on documented rational reasoning. Any rationale found to be superior to existing rationale must be incorporated into relevant executions replacing inferior rationales.
vi. Any delays in processing must provide rationale for the delay. Any rationale for delay must conform to the same rules as any other proposal in being documented and open for public review.
vii. A final execution plan is to be formed from all current rationale, which is then to be documented and presented to the Executive office for execution.

4) Execution of Authority

The “Executive” office is to be responsible for accurately implementing any and all execution plans received from the Senate. As such this office is in charge of all policing and manual efforts.

5) Verification of Governing Rationale

The “Judicial” office is to be responsible for verifying that all duties are being carried out as per Constitutional rationale and for arbitration of irresolvable dispute.

i. All judicial actions are to be documented and remain open for membership rational counter-debate.

6) Qualification for Station (Purity Issue)

All office holders and members are to be qualified only by their ability to perform the associated duties of their position as determined by Judicially verified Senate rationale.

i. The determination of ability to perform shall be made by Judicially verified Senate rationale and shall remain documented for rational membership review and update.

7) Limit of Rational Authority (Extent Issue)

The number of members governed by this constitution shall not exceed the ability of the Representative office to properly represent all members.

I'm sure that it could be worded better, but the point is, stop trying to fix the world until you can fix/help your own friends - support that which supports you. That is exactly what "they" do. But keep it small. FC might even call it "Self-valuing".

[Arminius]

Every major change in economy has had to have all kinds of wars, anarchy, chaos before it - it's just that we've not experienced a successful one of these in a few hundred years. We have had attempted ones that failed though.

It is - of course - true that every major change in economy has had to have all kinds of wars, anarchy, chaos before it, but I was mainly talking about a kind of a dialectic process concerning the three main modern major changes in economy and politics, namely about capitalism (thesis), communism (antithesis), globalism (synthesis).