RE: Could Universal Basic Income in America Boost Global Interest in Cryptocurrencies?
I glimpsed into the website and the white paper. Thanks for the link. Are you open for a debate on that?
Although I prefer a person independent form of government (which is what I find a really good idea as it would diminish this endless people gossiping in politics), I find the majority voting principle in it outdated, or are majorities based on such a principle not synonymous with intelligence.
Sometimes minorities have unusual proposals and if you consider it carefully, it is always minorities who questioned a habitus that was previously taken for granted. On the threshold to a change, which is enforced by the many on the basis of majority voting principle, you will never have consensus, since there will always be winners and losers with this form of principle. In order to appreciate the intelligence and reason of a human being, it is definitely necessary to have a concept that, firstly, develops the proposals in a longer consensually guided manner and then requires more than "yes" or "no" votes in order to accept a proposal as decided by the majority. The principle of systemic consensus always involves a series of proposals, which are evaluated on the basis of the least inner resistance (each proposal is initially taken for itself). With a scaling, for example from 0-10. 0 means: I have no resistance towards this proposal. 10 means: I have the highest resistance towards it. The averages are given according to feeling. The proposal with the lowest total resistance number is then adopted.
People basically do not like losers. Even the winners feel uncomfortable with the losers. A person feels most at ease when he goes home after a community meeting and has the impression that everyone is satisfied. Systemic consensus is therefore a framework that makes reason and consideration possible and turns away from the competition and winner-loser principle. It pays into humans want for weighing up between things.
However, I find the promises on the website rather questionable. No matter what people do, there will never be a real "end" to something, conflicts are and will always be part of human life ... I do not think it is reasonable to offer such a promising full-bodied prospect. Also here the inherent intelligence of the people is faster (the unconscious already knows that rescue promises never keep what they offer). Conflicts can be welcomed because they create space for cooperation. Those parts in a human who rejects conflicts do not want to take the time to grow and work on them.
This is not within the scope of what I was addressing. I am not a proponent of that website at all. I don't believe in democracy. It's a brutal system. I merely point the website out because it does propose a UBI based upon something other than theft.
As for majority / minority issues, I believe everyone should have to "opt in". It's an injustice to tie two cats tails together with the spoils going to who wins. The answer to a better balanced world is secession and localization. Kick the parasites to the curb and prosperity will return.
The average political will should not extend much past 5 acres. Only those issues that could be planet ending, such as nuclear power should be allowed elevation past the bedroom. Everything else handled more locally.
Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing up this misunderstanding. I can well understand your thought process of the local, I have it myself very often and basically live with a part of my existence according to it. But I would go further and say that one does not have to exclude the other. You point out the big issues and indeed, no government can ignore them, because without global cooperation we cannot achieve nuclear phase-out or any other climate goal. But locality only makes sense if part of the supply chain is provided by local units. For example, the question of Perma cultures in urban environments and in areas of single-family houses, where gardens could be reused and edible crops cultivated. Or the question of using products by repairing them and extending their lifespan. But since we live in a completely externally supplied society, this is an undertaking where you first have to free capacities, i.e. make the shortening of working hours possible and abolish full employment, because only in this way can energy be released for a different lifestyle. Niko Paech, a German economist, advocates a subsidiarity economy, he calls it the "post-growth economy". All this will take time as we are still in the cause-effect loop of the industrial age. One half wants to get out with one leg, the other half has only just started, to put it simply.
In my opinion and view of the world I would say that we suffer from exuberance, not from a lack of prosperity.