How to Allocate the Worlds Resources Fairly

in basicincome •  2 years ago

What would happen if all memory and record of ownership were to be lost? Billions of people wake up one morning and have no idea what belongs to them or anyone else. Imagine all public records, contracts, and other evidence of ownership were gone. How would we assign ownership? For the purpose of this discussion I am going to stipulate that no attempts to identify historical ownership would be possible. Everyone in the world collectively inherits the Earth at once.

A reasonable Question

This question isn't asked for purely hypothetical reasons, but because its answer contains a seed of truth that can help guide our thinking in designing and deploying solutions to improve the economic sustainability and fairness of our society. Large amounts of wealth has been acquired and centralized through immoral and fraudulent means. The very land that we live on was captured and recaptured through war after war. Governments have taxed the people and used the proceeds to purchase trillions of dollars worth of assets.

In effect, no one currently has a "clean title" to the assets in their possession. Everything we own is based solely on the "consensus" of society and much of this "consensus" was reached at gunpoint.

By asking the question about how to allocate resources fairly with a clean slate, we can begin to explore concepts that we might reject if our minds were clouded by our own subjective perception of history and theory of money.

No one has Earned Anything

The first fact that the people would have to address is that no one has any history by which they can claim to have "earned" anything. There is no basis for entitlement. All men, women, and children would have equal standing.

Compete for Property

One option is to let everyone race to claim property. This would end up distributing all the earths resources to those who were most skilled at discovering the most valuable property before anyone else. It also would result in a large percent of the population being unable or unfit to participate. This approach would be highly preferred by a minority, but it would likely be rejected by the majority. The outcome is chaotic and likely violent. This process also does nothing to ensure that resources are allocated in an economically efficient manner (to people who can make the most of it).

Issue Shares and Auction Everything

Under this approach everyone on earth would be issued an equal amount of shares (aka money). All of the earths resources would be put up to auction. Who ever was willing to burn the most of their own shares would win the auction. The act of burning shares is economically equivalent to paying everyone else for the property. Under this approach assets get allocated to the individuals who value them the most. This in turn means they get allocated to the people who believe they can make the most profit off of their purchase.

Fixed Currency Supply

If you change the accounting system from one where shares are burned, to one where the auction proceeds are redistributed to everyone else proportional to their shares; then, you create an economy with a fixed currency supply. People can buy, sell, and trade in this currency.

Assuming a free market and voluntary trade, the newly acquired resources would be put to productive use. Those who are effective at combining resources of lower value into resources of higher value will make a profit. Factories will start producing more products that are in demand. If you assume that business activities are profitable on-average, then the supply of goods will increase relative to the supply of money.

Those individuals who held on to their original share allocated at the start of the experiment would be able to purchase more and more stuff over time. They get this privilege because they refrained from consuming stuff at the start.

In other words, prices will fall as the value of the currency rises. It's initial value represented an equal claim on all of the earths resources. As the market improves the value of all of the earth's resources, the standard of living afforded by that equal claim necessarily increases.

Removing Complexity from Economics

The purpose of this exercise was to remove the complexities introduced by state economists to cloud our judgement. We can simply look at what happens with a "fair" / "unbiased" distribution of all the worlds wealth. If you were to perform this experiment at two different points in time: 10,000 BC and 2016 AD and had to choose which time period to start in it is clear that you would prefer 2016.

In 2016 there are billions of additional people on the planet so each person would start out with less money (percentage terms). It would also be obvious that the money would purchase more valuable assets. Those who chose 10,000 BC may be able to buy millions of acres of land each, but the value of land you cannot tend is much less than the value of resources you can actually use.

Every Voluntary Exchange increases the value of Money

Every voluntary exchange increases the perceived value of assets held by both parties. This means that voluntary exchanges will necessarily move assets toward people who can use them most profitably. Over time this process increases total global wealth without ever taking value from anyone.

What if you are Born after money was Distributed?

Everything was perfectly fair for those who received an initial allocation at the start of the experiment, but what about those who are born later? Do they not have an equal claim on the earth's resources as those who were there "in the start"?

Once the game begins the distribution of wealth instantly becomes uneven as some people are more productive and others simply consume. Any change in "ownership" that is not voluntary could be perceived as theft.

There is a simple and straightforward way of resolving this issue. When the initial shares are distributed, enough shares are held in reserve to allocate to the future "unborn". By accounting for the unborn in advance there is no room to complain about theft; the unborn simply opted to "save" their shares until their turn on this planet. This would be economically identical to one of the initial people "holding out" on the auction process until a later point in time.

Spreading Allocation out over Time

What if the starting population was wise enough to put spending limits on the initial allocation of money. Each person would receive an equal share, but it would mature 1 day at a time? Under this model everyone is still allocated an equal portion of the wealth, except instead of using an instantaneous division of the worlds assets, people would "dollar-cost-average" their way into the average value of the world's assets over their lifetime.

Under this model no one would ever be able to "spend the last dollar of their inheritance". After all, we all "inherited" the world we live in without having to produce a thing.

Inflation or Fixed Supply?

If we were to enumerate everyone who will ever live and allocate them all one share per day they occupy the planet, then we will have a logically "fixed" currency supply that is fairly distributed over all generations. At any given point in time more or less of that supply may exist in "savings" which in turn will result in price fluctuations due to changes in the circulating supply.

What we can say about all of this is that humanity will have fairly allocated its inheritance among all. What we can also say is that all people would have a "basic income" equal to one share of their inheritance per day.

Proof Basic Income is Moral

This exercise shows a moral explanation for how the earth's resources can be allocated without any bias toward existing claims and without any consideration for the merits of individuals. The earth can be viewed as a giant trust-fund which we all inherit upon our birth.

Some people may choose to be lazy. In 10,000 BC these individuals would take their 100 square miles of land and simply graze off the natural produce. Other individuals would convert their 100 square miles of land into a productive farm. Both are living within their right and reaping the natural benefit of their inheritance. The lazy individual may opt to trade some of their land for surplus food of the farmer. This is their right and they are not a "burden" on society.

In 2016 everyone may inherit a mere acre of land. The lazy among us would trade their inheritance for what ever standard of living they could buy. This is their right. The productive among us will use our inheritance to increase our standard of living.

Under this model, everyone can be guaranteed their share of inheritance, but what they cannot be guaranteed is the purchasing power of that inheritance. In 10,000 BC no system could offer a "basic income" equal to 2016 standards. Once we accept this reality there is no longer any need to "debate" how much basic income should be. All basic income is denominated in shares of the earth pre-allocated to all people of all time. The purchasing power of those shares can be set by the free market's instantaneous supply and demand.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Sounds a bit like the currency TIME... every living person gets one second per second.

No more... No less.

Some squander that most valuable of currencies while others spend it wisely. Some is stolen through slavery but even the slave or prisoner is free to an extent in thought and mind.

The more wisely a community spends its time the more value is created.


We have one basic income already in the form of TIME...

We are Stewards of the time we receive and along with stewardship comes accountability.

Accountability comes in levels and cycles of varying length.

If one doesn't spend time taking care of physical needs, before long the physical body will start to hold one accountable, etc.


Thank you @gavvet for this awesome comment and thank you @dantheman for this mind-blowing article.

Taking time to do nothing often brings everything into perspective. - Doe Zantamata

It has taken time to misguide you so completly but it takes no time to be who you are. - Eckhart tolle

This only works assuming you have some way to prevent people from basically taking over and destroying the delicate balance needed to get such a feat accomplished.

While all this is fine and dandy to dream about the harsh reality is that the utopias you lay out in your posts would have to see a complete overthrow of the 1%, all world governments as well as a complete reprogramming of human nature.

It's fun to dream about utopias.. But can we focus on making our own society, here, now more supporting of those helping build it rather than making examples of folks and smashing the morale of people who've done nothing but dedicate their past months time to the cause?

These posts of yours are great ideas but I'm calling it right now that most of them are extremely overvalued and likely people are just piling on votes in hopes of curation rewards without actually reading what you set fourth.

I love a lot of your ideas Dan.. But on the flip side to that, a lot of it is just extremely overvalued fluff with literally no bearing or footing in reality as it currently sits.

Do you really need to accept SBD payouts on these posts of yours?

Nah, You're set for life with the amount of STEEM you all managed to grab on the second launch of STEEM.. You have to sort of ask yourself one thing.. Are you bringing value to the network with this utopian fluff posting or merely using your reputation on the site as developer to grab a chunk of the daily reward pool?

This is me merely thinking out loud.. I'm 100% certain I'm not the only one with these thoughts in mind as well. Please don't take this as me attacking your ideas or thoughts. As mentioned earlier some of them are wonderful.

(Seems weird to me, you've already got enough STEEM and SBD to take us to 1 satoshi, what purpose do these posts actually serve besides easy curation rewards and ego stroking as the masses mindlessly pile on votes? Would this post not serve the same function of idea sharing if it was a 0 payout post?)


I'm going to quibble on one point (which I've brought up before). No one is voting on these posts for the curation rewards because they won't get any. Since Dan self-votes and has high SP, that reallocates essentially all the curation rewards to the author. Even in the case of bots, by now most bots (and/or the people running them) are smart enough to know that high-SP early votes kill the curation rewards and not to vote on these posts to earn. People may be voting out of loyalty, or laziness (if Dan wrote it, it must be worthwhile), or perhaps they actually find value. But it isn't for curation rewards.


So it's all basically for a circle jerk? Or are people voting on these things expecting a reward but in turn getting axed because of the way it's run?

I bet you people are voting on these posts for perceived curation rewards.. And if what you've written above is true the rabbit hole just gets deeper and uglier. -_-


We can't really prove why people (and/or the bots they control) are voting in any particular instance, but I seriously doubt that to any significant degree significant stakeholders or bots run by significant stakeholders are still making such a costly error as to vote for these posts for the purpose of earning curation rewards. Seven months is long enough for people with real money at stake to figure out how the system actually operates. Dust votes may be, but that's not where the rewards are coming from.


It seems to fall somewhere between popularity votes, misplaced idea of getting rewardd for upvoting it or simply mindless upvoting for our fearless Dev.

Either way I'm sort of thinking it's a wee bit laughable at this point on both dan's and the communities behalf that we're just circle jerking some of the highest level account holders into positions where they can collect more money to dump on the market later after they announce news to stimulate buys.

I honestly hope I'm just looking into this all far to much and seeing things that perhaps are figments of my imagination.. Sadly I don't think this is the case though.


Umm are u sure. I was not aware. I still vote on these for curation rewards.

It would really be nice if we could understand how curation works.


If you look on for this post in advanced mode you wll see this line:

author_curate_reward 96.06%

That means that due to early voting (primarily Dan's instant self-vote), 96% of what would otherwise have been curation rewards are redirected to the author. All the other curators are splitting 4% (of 25% of the post value so 1% of the post value). If you aren't one of the first voters and aren't a whale, you will be getting dust or more likely nothing at all.

You can go and study the math and the code or you can simply try to use curation rewards as they were intended. Find posts that have been active for at least 30 minutes, don't have a lot of voting, and have the potential to become popular and get voted. If you do that you will earn significant curation rewards. If you pile on to posts like this one you will not.

It is perfectly reasonable to just vote for what you like, even if you vote late and get no curation rewards. That serves to incentivize other curators following the process in the previous paragraph to find it for you and make it more visible to you.


Thank you smooth


This wasn't intended as a burn or diss to dan. (regardless of how it may read I've no ill will here)

I'm raising issues I see in the public eye rather than just throwing flags at stuff that I believe isn't worth the current payout. If I have to be "that guy" and speak on behalf of people whom are to afraid to speak against the developers then so be it.

At the end of the day I'm merely speaking my mind. Just as dan is in this post.. The only difference is I'm not milking my rockstar developer status and taking in pay that I really don't need in the slightest.


I do find it a bit unfortunate that he is #9 in posting rewards for this account alone (#39 for @dan). He already has all the steem... he doesnt need any more, and his own self vote is a thumb on the scale that weighs the value of posts against each other. These posts could certainly decline payout... especially given the seemingly endless procession of psuedo-intellectual musings that they represent.


Nothing but greed and embezzlement by people who frankly have more than enough to live off of forever..

Then to have the audacity to shovel bullshit psuedo-intellectual to STEEM knowing full well that people upvote everything you touch simply out of perceived curation rewards..

What the f**k... -_-


Everyone who posts on Steemit has the right to the following options: accept, decline, or SP payout.


Yes, That is why I am still scratching my head as to why payouts are accepted at all by folks who've got accounts that basically have the ability to put anyone into a top 19 witness spot at anytime.

I find it extremely confusing and disheartening that our community is upvoting these basic income posts without actually reading them.. The worst part is though (in my opinion) is that it's basically needless income on the author's behalf.

How much does one person need? I guess it's only up to that person to decide how much they think is fair to take out of the reward pool as they see fit.

Am I wrong to write this post and bring my thoughts into the public eye? Perhaps, But it's certainly more soothing to write down my feelings rather than bottle them up and suffer silently with my own conscience.


Anybody voting after Dan will have so small percentage of the curation rewards, that it would be foolish to do it for self-interest.

Just look at the percentages in advanced mode on steemd


You are arguing for basic income rights in a way, yourself ;)


Only time will tell.. there's intent - expressed and intrinsic. People can claim whatever they want in the short term. But true agendas like trust is only expressed over time.


the harsh reality is that the utopias you lay out in your posts would have to see a complete overthrow of the 1%, all world governments as well as a complete reprogramming of human nature.

Is it really necessary? Wouldn't it work even if just a subset of humanity agreed on this? How big a portion of humanity would be necessary for it to work? I am curious what @dantheman thinks about this..


You have 3 distinct types of people in western societies:

  • Those who pay into taxes (consumers)
  • Those who tax the people (govt)
  • Those whom profit off of the consumers (large business owners, 1%)

It's pretty easy to see that unless you're govt or already rich and 1% you're already getting f**ked from 2 directions. You take out the 1% and those capitalizing off the people through business what you're left with is the consumer. If he's not being taken advantage of and exploited by business and govt the consumer can actually flourish in most cases.

I speak as a man who lives just outside of societies norm. I'm self employed, Don't pay income tax and I certainly don't expect a handout from a govt I'd like to see dismantled .

End of the day it's all fine and dandy to post stuff like "How to Allocate the worlds resources fairly" but when you're actually doing the opposite of what's being posted by reputation farming and knowing full well people will vote basically whatever you write and accepting payouts for it? Cmon...

What is your reasoning behind this Dan? You've got enough to retire wealthy. Do you really need to be dipping into the reward pool too knowing full well people upvote you regardless of if your post actually is feasible or realistic?

If you're going to post stuff like this I'd love to read it, But preferably I'd like to see you not accepting payouts on your posts... Because lets face it. You're the 1% on STEEM and watching you constantly drink your fill and then some not only gets tiring but also speaks volumes of what's actaully going on...

You can post all the feel good pseudo love fluff you want, But when you, as an extremely high powered account owned by a developer just keeps coming back over and over dropping whatever grand delusion of equality, all while having already taken massive helpings off the get go and just continually posting utopian "help everyone" posts while actually taking money out of people's hard earned rewards... You're STEEM'ing wrong and frankly you need to consider the PR angle on this stuff man.

Who want's to be part of a platform where the Developer can post a fart and make hundreds which in turn devalues your post? If you're going to preach equality perhaps consider your role in the ecosystem and realize your pockets are already as fattened as they should be.

(I'm still a firm believer the STEEM devs deserve mad pay for their work... But at the expense of our other posters? Did you not get enough on the second launch? )


You don't have to vote for Dan. You can also buy all the steem and then decide who gets how much.

instead of hating on productive people maybe just accept the fact that in this world the strong reap the rewards.

Your categorization above is completely out of whack by the way.

Firstly, remember to allocate enough natural resources to natures animals - for example, elephants natural habitat is being taken by farmers. When you talk about fairness, we need to understand we have no more right to these resources than anyone else. Perhaps we have a duty to share with the natural world, afterall if that dies we do too.

I've been through something very close to what you describe. In the nineties, Romania was a lot like this (I think a commenter also pointed out about Russia, which is true). We did have a "moment zero" in our economy. What happened was that a very small percentage of the population (mostly coming from the political police called "Securitate") took ownership of this unmanned economical vehicle and transformed it into a money making machine for them and for their close circle of friends. Sort of a "silent mobsters brotherhood". It took almost 20 years until their structures started to be shaken.

They did that not only because they were greedy, but also because they were educated. They had knowledge. I find those pieces, knowledge and education, fundamental for a functional system. To the point that we cannot devise the real value of a share if we leave them out. You can't give a share of something to someone who has no frigging idea what that share represents. Or you can, but it won't be moral anymore. In a way, you will lie to them.

The prospect of basic income is interesting and I think it will soon manifest, in one for of another. But it should take into account much more than economics. It should take into account philosophy, spirituality, anthropology.

If this basic income is something that we should "sell" to somebody, well, that somebody is the archetype of the human being. You know what they say in marketing: "know thy client". So we should first understand how human nature works and then decide how to sell something to it. A better model of the human being itself will make the product "basic income" much easier to get traction.

The problem is that this model is rather difficult to explain.

A new form of socialism... Alright let´s philosophize for the sake of spending some of my finite time on earth to dedicate on this topic.

So... give everyone on earth $1000 a month as basic income...

Then we, the producers raise our prices because people are now spending more.

In a short matter of time $1000 will be worth something like $100 or $10

There is no monetary policy that will ever work long term. No matter how clever you are, you will never be able to create a perfect system in an imperfect world where opinions is ever changing, where the human greed exists, and where a man can be corrupted simply by believing that a friend is a friend when he in reality is an enemy with a secret identity.

How about giving every human being the right or gift to receive an ox and a cow, a chicken and a rooster, and enough space to self sustain?

That is the only kind of inflation that actually solve a problem - hunger. But it would not take long before new conflicts would terrorize the perfect new world and capitalize on shorting (burning down and destroying your neighbors property in the middle of the night when he or her is away).

So corruption is reborn, The insurance industry is reborn, banks are reborn, the middleman is reborn

We can philosophize on these things until we are blue in our face @dantheman but the bottom line is that the only sustainable capital that exists in our world is human capital. It is the human being that has value - not the world around him. And human beings are a vicious creature when it becomes greedy and powerful and no - we can´t replace ourselves with robots or our planet with another planet.

But there is no law against dreaming up a new world, like Minecraft or Sim City Extreme. Some experiments only work in isolated forms where one can set all the parameters. Our world does not allow for anyone to change all the parameters. We can create systems and set systematic parameters - but - sooner or later we or those who will come after us will break them down and time will again show how unsustainable it is.

You are value.

Sincerely, and in all friendliness
@fyrstikken & @fyrst-witness


I think you miss my point entirely because of the easy assumption that I am suggesting people are entitled to a minimum purchasing power.

That is not my stance. I say people are entitled to a share of the economy whatever that share can buy. This requires not changing the number of shares in a misguided attempt to guarantee purchasing power sufficient to live.

I have taken politics out of the equation.


ok @dantheman, politics is out of the equation. I can play along with that, and no - I have not missed your point, I only want to challenge you on the philosophy because I am a major Macro-Economy-Nerd and this among other of your topic interests me.

  • How do you propose to deal with brutes in your equation?
  • And also, would you come on SteemSpeak and debate on the many philosophic financial topics that you have drafted or thinking about? We got a crew of highly intelligent debate-monkeys in there, and they could use a challenge like you :)

Remember - You are value.

Sincerely, and in all friendliness
@fyrstikken & @fyrst-witness

In this post you said, that with the shares / basic income you get you can take part in auctions to buy land. But this would be only possible if the land isnt yet distributed. Therefore after the first distribution of land there wouldn't be any auction at all anymore, therefore the basic income would most likely be worth less.

How can we make it fair for new participants?
To solve that lets now imagine we would continue with the auctions. If someone in the future is ready to pay more, the land goes to him, and the old owner gets the money. This solution would be fair for the new participants, but it doesn't sound fair for the investors, that invest their time and money to improve the land.

How could we make it fair for investors?
We could require the new owner to pay for example double the amount of money then the old owner. In case of low investments this would help, but if someone invests a lot more in the land he could still loose a lot.

Using stock bases companies for fair property management
To solve that we could allow the owner to put his land in a stock based cooperation that is secured from auctions. To be fair for future participants the new stocks must increase with the same inflation as the basic income increases per year. These new stocks must then be sold on an open transparent market in exchange for the basic income currency. To be fair the earnings from this must then be either destroyed, or given out to all participants equally on top of the basic income.

The same which is true for land should also be true for all other property rights that one can claim like land, patents, buildings....

To simplify it each participant could have a certain amount of land that he cannot loose through auctions. Participants could group up to secure bigger amount of lands.

But what is now if someone buys a land for a far too high price from himself, just to protect his land from others? In this case the price would not really reflect the true price and therefore hinder others to take part in the auctions for the land. To solve that, we could require, that an certain amount of the profit of the auction, lets say 50% is simply destroyed. So one could pay more, to still claim his land, but 50% would be to the benefit of all.
This would also greatly reflect that some part of the profit from using the resources belongs to all.


  • To be fair for new participants auctions of property should go on in the future
  • To be fair for investors the new owner should pay more, lets say double then the old one
  • To hinder abuse and to reflect that in the end the resources belong to all, some part of the profit from the auction should be given to all participants
  • To be fair a certain amount of land / property per participant could be free from further auctions
  • To secure big investments, land / property rights could be put in an stock based company
  • to be fair for all participants new stocks equaly to the increase of the basic income should be given out per year and sold on an open market
  • To be fair 50% of the profit for selling these stocks should be given to all participants

so true:
¨The first fact that the people would have to address is that no one has any history by which they can claim to have "earned" anything. There is no basis for entitlement. All men, women, and children would have equal standing.¨

But please dont forget the animals and plants, they also have an equal right. If we design a human centered system, we will naturally fail, because each species on this planets needs a certain amount of other species to live a life on this planet that is worth to be called living not just surviving.


Property rights presupposes the own respect others property. Plants and animals cannot do that and have no use for money. Hence this is a peace treaty among intelegent beings.


My point was not so much if animals or plants can own something, my point was that if we do not consider them, we will naturally do harm also to our self. Because ultimately we are dependent on them to life a life that can be called complete. Everything in nature has a purpose and its balance. If we remove or reduce some part of it drastically it will affect us. Therefore we should not forget them. For example should nobody have the right to exploit animals or the nature itself. There must always be a balance between taking and giving. If not it end up like cancer destroying the ground it grows on.

Even if animals / plants cannot ¨claim¨ their property (sometimes in away they do, many animals have their district they protect and often they also respect the district of others, even plants have a space they claim through standing on it) we as humans have the responsibility to to do it in their name. Take for example nature reservations. Yea you are true, that one thing really differentiates us, thats the use of money.

But just for imagination, lets assume, that for living in harmony each species on this planets needs a certain space to thrive, why not allocate the money equally to all species according to the space they need to thrive.

Beings able to handle money like humans could take care of the money for beings that are not able to handle money. With that money natural reservates could be financed or incentives for ecological farming / handling of property could be given.


thank you for your feedback, it encouraged me to reflect more in details about the not mentioned to who in your question:

feel free to outline my errors in thinking!

The nineties in Russia were a bit like this. Many factories went practically ownerless. Officials just claimed or sold incredible fortunes.
The trauma of these days is still very much alive in people's minds there.

Thanks for sharing @dantheman... building on some of these concepts... you could apply this idea to the already-built world we live in by seeing it through a digital lens. What if every physical address also had a digital address? As virtual reality continues and builds up alongside geotagged data, a pair of high-tech glasses might open up an entirely new world hiding behind a physical one... It could create some incredible mayhem if the digital addresses of New York City one day just went up for grabs. This experiment that you're proposing is totally achievable.

I think this is a perfect system...with one tiny addition :)
80% of all future shares/money should be left in the hands of theman (dan or not), 'the man' who devised this 'perfect' system....for he is the only one who can insure it works as planed and all future generational distributions goes on "fair" or as plannned !!!!!

If only... The idea of even shares and an auction would be pretty amazing. It's a shame the one's holding the "gun" would never allow anything like this to happen. If it was even attempted very real guns would be used by those who want to keep what they have.

I have thought about honest land ownership before as well.

In your model, I think I like the fixed currency better than the burning of shared hehehe. I don't agree with the "instantaneous division of the worlds assets", and the solution you point out is better.

Here is what I have thought of about this in the past.

It's all ill-gotten and few understand the causal chain back in time as to how most large land-owners go their land. Also "first come first serve" is only valid for land you use. That's how I define land ownership. If you use it, it's yours. You can't own hundreds of acres, because you can't even use that. You didn't create the land, it was there before you. You can only own what you create, apart from the body that is you that you didn't create. For cooperation or corporations, ok, you can lease the land and a cut goes towards the public ownership or something. But my main pint was that we don't create the land so we don't own it like labor ownership we do create.

Land can't be truly owned like other things, it can be owned for use. No one else can take you off of it, or steal your labor though either.

There is far too much rampant "might makes right" ownership of land in history. People just owned tons of shit because they had the power to keep it.

Anyhoot, keep up with these interesting ideas and solutions. I enjoy them as a vision or ideal for a future to create. Thanks. Peace.

I like your thoughts sounds like you have a work in progress on this. I believe that what you are saying really would be beneficial. I hope that we can put this into real practice and I think your right that using the cryptocurrency model this is something that can be done.

Keep working, stop paying.
Here is a novel that outlines it from 1897.


In such a system there is a high probability of fraud and abuse. Although the right approach it is possible to prevent. Wise thoughts. I hope this is just the beginning.


Steem_Land tweeted @ 12 Nov 2016 - 19:15 UTC

How to Allocate the Worlds Resources Fairly — Steemit… /

@SteemUps @SteemitPosts @steemit @steemiobot

Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.

I would guess with all memories of property gone, the concept of property would also be gone. So there would be no race and instead simple acceptance and sharing like in "primitive" tribes.


The concept of property is almost genetic. It would spontaneously evolve as people grab things they want to use.


Even if that would be the case, which is not necessarily so, it is not the case with land. Individual, sellable property of land is relatively new and only existent for non-nomadic people.

This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.

Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.

Built by @ontofractal

Large amounts of wealth has been acquired and centralized through immoral and fraudulent means.

U mean like ninja mines?

Sortition is the Key to fairness

Sparkly! His work @ dantheman, congratulations, always provides valuable information, thank you very much.
That connote their successes

it would give rise to the wonderful activity of homesteading ? :)

Your explanation makes the matter so clear.. Thank you.

I found out one problem though, have you considered the number of the future unborn is possibly unbounded?


Perhaps but it doesn't matter the delta change in pop is small at any give time.


What do you mean by the delta change being small? To me it seems quite dramatic... In developed countries the population growth decreases, but otherwise it seems to me almost exponential.

How can you have a limited supply of shares, if each future unborn should be allocated one share and their number is not known, possibly unbounded?


I think the "basic income" means the inflation of EOS coin.