Why is UBI a bad idea economically

Towards a universal basic income for all people

A truly universal and unconditional basic income is ultimately possible within any nation coordinated under the auspices of the United Nations. However, this will first depend on an unprecedented level of public support for the purpose of ending hunger and unnecessary deprivation based on a fairer distribution of the world's resources. This is the only way, writes Mesbahi, for a basic income policy to uphold the basic human rights of all. And if it is pursued with this motivation, it is a pioneering and honorable path that naturally says: "Humanity stands above all nations".

Content:

Foreword by the editor
Introduction: "Everyone has the right to live"
I: The danger of a dystopian future
II: The missing factors for a citizens' initiative
III: World transformation and its inner dimensions
IV: Definitely a universal vision
Epilogue: Final words of encouragement
Remarks

Foreword by the editor

The following publication is part of the on-going series of Studies on the Principle of Sharing published by Share The World's Resources (STWR), which looks at critical global issues from a holistic perspective versus popular political and economic analysis . The present work is closely related to two of Mohammed S. Mesbahi's recent studies that similarly examine popular intellectual discourses in relation to contemporary ideas of the commons and the sharing economy. The growing rationale for a universal basic income is perhaps the most concrete demand for economic sharing right now, though few proponents consider the ultimate vision of a basic income in the truly "universal" or planetary sense - as Mesbahi did in this unique study of the subject sets out.

While it is primarily aimed at activists within the basic income movements around the world, it is also hoped that anyone interested in the subject can benefit from the author's extensive observations. For this reason, some explanatory and contextual notes are added at the end to clarify how STWR stands on some of the more technical issues and also to provide introductory texts for interested newcomers to this important (if somewhat controversial) political issue.

If you have read any other work by Mesbahi, it will quickly become apparent that identical topics are at the fore, particularly with regard to the need for continuous worldwide demonstrations regardingArticle 25 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After all, that is our founding purpose and our fundamental vision as a campaign organization. As always, Mesbahi tries to clarify this topic by focusing on the "inner side" or the "psychological-spiritual" dimension of world transformation. All repetitions of the same subjects and observations are therefore intended by the author, given that we are still far from realizing a vision in which all people and nations will unite to share the world's resources.

When this simple reasoning of this study is pondered with an open heart and open mind, the compassionate reader may find that certain recurring topics serve to create a greater awareness of the state of world problems and a clearer understanding of how to resolve them. The solution, as Mesbahi writes again and again, is "anchored forever in the hearts of all people". In this light, the feasibility of the vision presented on these pages is not the subject of intellectual debate. Because it is nothing more than a call to action, to which ultimately only we, both individually and collectively, can react and help shape it.

London, UK, January 2020


Introduction: "Everyone has the right to live"

“We have tried every other strategy, but nothing will work unless nations freely share their excess wealth through the awareness of Divinity, One Humanity, and One Love. This is the key we are all looking for and which has always been hidden in the hearts of all people. "

In all the burgeoning debates about economic policies that embody the principle of sharing, there is only one that is uniqueness and simplicity: the demand for a universal basic income (UBI -Universal Basic Income). A growing literature provides the ethical and philosophical justifications for this enduring idea, as well as its practical applicability, in both the large industrialized and the less developed countries. So far, however, the progressive concept of basic income in its definitely universal form has not yet been implemented in any region of the world, despite the smaller pilot projects in rather limited national frameworks that are currently cited in endless debates. The purpose of this research is to review this inspiring vision of freedom from want ’on a global scale, and the legitimacy of regular individual money transfers for a decent standard of living,in the long run to ensure for all. [1]

Is it realistic to believe that we can ever realize this apparently utopian dream in all countries without also considering other universal services, public or social? Such as: free health care and essential medicines; free education at all levels; free child care for every preschooler; extensive additional services for elderly care and people with disabilities; adequate support for all in order to be able to afford decent housing; subsidized public utilities and good public transport and more. [2] We have already determined thatArticle 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be enshrined as a basic law in every country and this is monitored by the United Nations with full consideration of public opinion worldwide. [3], [4] Could the prospect of a basic income as a constitutional right be one of the surest means to the full realization ofArticle 25 for every man, woman and child? [5] And can we ultimately imagine the right to a basic income that is realized in a truly universal sense? And will nations work together at the multilateral level to ensure that every government provides its citizens with everything necessary for a decent life?

Undoubtedly, the implementation of this simple social policy tool is immense and potentially transformative, especially when we consider the possibility of permanently ending global poverty through some form of international cooperation. [6] However, it is not the intention of our investigation to examine in detail the technical considerations here, for example how a basic income should be constituted within different nations; or the arguments against purposefulness and conditionality; or the progressive debates on funding options through progressive taxation or other innovative measures. Suffice it to say, we already have enough literature to support a new system of income distribution for the 21st century, given the inefficiencies and shortcomings of means tested welfare systems around the world. [7] We assume that the reader is already of the opinion that new solutions are necessary to cope with poverty and injustice, which are no longer realistically justifiable due to the established social goal of full employment based on continuous economic growth. The eventual need to separate all income from wage labor is predictable for many compelling reasons, not least the increasing pressures of technological change and an unjust model of economic globalization.[8]

Based on this analysis, the well-known arguments in favor of introducing a basic income in each country - with the aim of achieving the highest possible amount sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living - should be taken extremely seriously by informed scientists, activists and political decision-makers. [ 9] The moral argument to realize such a claim from birth has a special meaning for Share the Worlds Resources, because the cornerstone of our organization is: that the heritage of our earth belongs equally to everyone. Thus, the responsibility of society is assigned to preserve the products of our earth and to share them fairly, in accordance with egalitarian principles. This reasoning is particularly reflected in the work of Thomas Paine, Henry George, G.D.H. Cole and many other great writers. They understood in different ways how land and natural resources are part of our collective wealth, born of the combined work, creativity and achievements of society as a whole and previous generations. [10] Hence, it is reasonable to argue that everyone should have the right to share in the fruits of our common heritage (including today's benefits of technological advancement), which can be done directly by establishing a policy of 'social dividends', as an economic right, for all citizens can be realized. [11]

The underlying principle of how this noble goal can be achieved couldn't be simpler: Each nation must create a common pool of resources that can meet the basic needs of all, promoted and funded by members of society as a whole (according to means and ability). We already see this principle in many of our social and economic institutions, however fragile and partial such historical achievements may be. But we have reached a point where the principle of sharing as the basis of economic activity must be applied in all nations, in all regions and ultimately in the entire world community, if the evolutionary progress of humanity is to be ensured for future generations. With that in mind, we will continue our research on the effects of a full basic income, but not in the usual political and academic terms.

From a holistic perspective, in this painfully separated world, we can also see the long-standing efforts for a new welfare institution as an expression of maturity, responsibility and even love. The very idea of ​​realizing the highest vision of a UBI is an expression of intelligence and common sense that arises from our own maturity, responsibility and love. What else can such a vision reflect in these extremely unjust times, if not our conscience that says: “Everyone has a right to life!” It seems that many participants within the Basic Income movement are motivated by an intuitive conviction that the world is a can be a far freer, more creative and joyful place, as there is obviously so much wealth and material products that are unfairly shared among a relatively small minority of the world's population. So, the very idea of ​​applying the principle of sharing to our economic problems, as proposed by a UBI and other redistribution strategies, is intended to give concrete substance and structure to the efforts that are anchored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If we look at it from this point of view, the meaning of a UBI is not only 'a right to life', but it can also be understood as follows: as the art of creating balance in social and economic affairs in the world until the 'right' one human relationship 'is an established reality in our daily life.

Part I: The Danger of a Dystopian Future

Let us now examine how a comprehensive vision of a global UBI can be achieved, through the simple logic of our common sense and without resorting to complex intellectual arguments. On the face of it, it might appear theoretically possible to implement a comprehensive UBI, at least in any highly industrialized country where established tax systems can already generate enough income to finance a universal welfare system. [12] But we also need to ask ourselves a relevant question: can we rely on the government of any country today to voluntarily prioritize the general needs of all its citizens? The history of social protection in the 20th century may show tremendous improvements in the lives of millions of people, but we find ourselves in a climate of financial abstinence, declining public services and increasing poverty in most countries of the world, despite the abundant wealth that comes from Billionaires and large corporations are constantly accumulating.

Although humanity is producing more wealth and resources than ever before in history, most developed countries are still preoccupied with the sale of armaments and increasing their international competitiveness through unfair trade regulations, rather than the basic socio-economic rights of all, through the provision of general public goods and unconditional money transfers. So what happens to this measured proposition to split economically when a war or other global financial disaster escalates? We can be sure that the tasteless phrase "national security" will soon be used to defend our government's selfish priorities. We have already seen this with the heartless reaction of European leaders to the record influx of impoverished refugees and migrants.

We may also continue to wonder whether it is realistic to implement a full UBI policy today when every society is surrounded by a sinister and indomitable influence that we previously defined as the forces of commercialization. [13] The term “globalization” is insufficient to describe the injustice of these forces that rule our political and economic institutions today. They are inhuman, divisive, destructive and violent forces. Certainly many proponents of a basic income understand the scale of this problem, even if we interpret it in a misleading academic way as the result of mass consumption or what is known as neoliberal capitalism. It is as if we have been distracted and betrayed by unbridled market forces. This is the underlying factor that has led to a profound impact of commercialization over the past few decades that has contaminated our policies, our society, our values ​​and collective behaviors. Indeed, it is not just political ideology or any particular type of economic organization that lies at the root of world problems, but it is our self-centered attitudes and intentions that make us all susceptible to commercialization in its myriad forms. From a basic psychological assessment we can determine that one of the greatest hurdles to the realization of a UBI in every nation, regardless of whether rich or poor, is the pursuit of profit and wealth, which dominates our social structures and our everyday life ]

How then are we supposed to introduce a full basic income policy that ensures that no one lives in poverty when everyone is conditioned by these for-profit forces that force us into materialistic, competitive and atomizing behaviors? There is a distinctive feature in our society that results from this prevailing mentality that we call indifference. An indifference that is reflected in the complex administration of means tested welfare systems, with all its associated consequences of stigma and punishment, carried out by appointed bureaucrats of our government. How can we blame a lack of “political will” that prevents a UBI from being successful when we are all involved in prolonging this state of affairs by subconsciously adapting to this status quo.

What do we think will happen when every citizen receives an unconditional monthly payment, when our governments privatize public goods and sell weapons to authoritarian regimes, constantly striving to dominate the resources of weaker or dependent nations abroad? Indeed, with their subliminal foreign policy causing death and destruction, many nations support the idea of ​​"the right to kill" rather than "the right to life". And through our collective indifference and conformity, these types of politicians continue to be elected by a large part of the population. Thus we give our energy to this established way of thinking and attitude, which sustains this state of affairs.

So is it enough to give each adult a sum equivalent of about $ 1,000 a month, as if we could expect the world's other problems to resolve on their own? In today's society, the more UBI money I ask my government, the more I must be aware that trends in commercialization, global warfare, and resource competition will worsen on the same scale. The more money I get from the state, the more stress and imbalance will inevitably be created by my government, which will continue to take the same approach to these ruthless competitive and for-profit policies. And the more stress I experience in this increasingly dysfunctional society, the more I will seek financial security and be complacent about the world's problems.

That is the nature of this vicious cycle, even from a hypothetical point of view. But in reality, will some basic income be high enough while these damaging trends get worse? The more the governments continue their commercializing and militaristic strategies, the more expensive life becomes in the ever smaller public. In the end, no one can fulfill their right to adequate food, health care, housing, and education on $ 1,000 a month (or more) no matter how frugal they try. Can we envision a government today that gives all of its citizens a sufficient sum instead of increasing its military budget at a time when nuclear weapons are growing rapidly, climate change is causing significant changes and nationalism is growing more prominent?

We see how easy it could be to implement a UBI at the national level if only the government and the public could come to a consensus. To create an equitable and inclusive society, we don't need great ideas, we just need to distribute common resources fairly - how impossible that may seem in a complex society driven by the exact opposite principles of individualistic competition and self-interest.

Imagine a man and woman arguing violently on the street and it requires an outsider to step in and bring them to their senses. In this way, the loving relationship between this couple can be restored. One could apply this broad analogy to politicians and the general public - if only they both expressed the same values ​​of goodwill and mutual support. Perhaps then the principle of sharing would find expression in all politics, based on common sense and the fact that there is enough food and resources for everyone, and no one has to live in need or starve. Unfortunately, the reality is that governments eagerly strive for power and a disparate citizenship, which the few politicians who stand for economic sharing as the basis for social contracts, mostly ignore.

The prerequisites to enable commercialization to rule in world affairs have long been created; through the conflict of contradicting political 'isms' and the complacency of the general population. So complex has society become, with all its laws that allow commercialization and institutionalized greed to operate, that even the most visionary politician with the right intentions is powerless to advance genuine UBI policy through any congress or parliament. If the broad mass of the world population does not support this idea, the pioneers for a guaranteed basic income will have to continue to beg for it from their disinterested governments, which are still subject to multinational corporations. And what chance do we have of convincing these government administrations in the midst of divisions characterized by centuries-old interests, polarized ideologies and widespread public indifference? There may be enough resources in the world for everyone to enjoy at least a minimal standard of living, but it is impossible to share that wealth more equitably within the framework of the paradigm of commercialization. We could say that it is an attractive alternative that will remain a utopian impossibility unless there is a significant change in the thinking of our politicians, coupled with a substantial increase in consciousness throughout our society.

That is the summary of our paradoxical situation. In a time of automation, where new technologies are quickly grabbing millions of jobs, the need for a basic income is greater than ever. As long as current trends persist, large corporations can take advantage of the massive unemployment created by technological advances by eliminating the need to deal with decent wages or hard-won labor rights. This could be called a prophecy, for we can be sure that big corporations have no interest in the problems of the unemployed, or in the gradual establishment of right human relationships and the creation of an economic system based on the common wealth equitable among all citizens to split up. Within this exploitative system, of course, we cannot expect a government to introduce a basic income for all, as it aims more at cutting social benefits and labor rights than at protecting the established rights of workers.

All of these self-destructive tendencies will rapidly worsen until continued world population growth becomes the greatest obstacle to achieving a robust universal basic income. This is simple business, because which government can afford to guarantee a sufficient basic income when the population is expected to increase by several million annually? There is no doubt that the population increase to over 11 billion people this century will prevent many visions of a balanced and sustainable world. [15] As an example: There is little hope that a country will distribute its wealth fairly among its entire population if the citizens of that country can no longer use the roads because of the high volume of traffic, for example. Or are we ready to accept a global one-child policy as a prerequisite for introducing a UBI in every country? At the same time, are we ready to accept the continued rise of billionaires who amassing ever greater fortunes to support the ever growing needs of the government to fund a maximum welfare state? The world can no longer withstand this constant attack on its resources for a long time, which makes the prospect of a basic income mathematically and physically impossible, regardless of its current political impracticability.

If we agree with the above reasoning, we must conclude that this simple policy proposal can only be successful to a certain extent, and it will certainly be perverted over time. Just as universal social benefits in developed countries have strayed far from their original principles and ideals, the introduction of a basic income will experience a similar fate and be led away from its transformative potential. Provided it has a chance at all within this corrupt paradigm of rampant commercialization, militarization and unrestricted population growth. Given that many multinational corporations are wealthier and more powerful than most governments, any basic income that politicians invent is likely to be set as low as possible, perhaps in line with the libertarian views of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. If these above trends continue unchecked, governments may be forced to introduce a minimum basic income to respond to social unrest and eventual violent uprisings that are inevitably due to rising unemployment, economic insecurity and the blatant luxury of the few.

Then we must also look towards a dystopian future in which society lives like an open prison based on maintaining law and order in a subordinate population. Indeed, when an inmate goes to jail to serve a long sentence, he may not have any joy or hope for the future, but he does at least have the assurance that he will be provided with basic necessities. For many people in the world, especially those who live in the poorest villages and slums of the global south, there is no hope of tomorrow. Many do not even have the same rights as prisoners in some ways. They don't have a roof over their heads and don't know where their next meal will come from. Such a penniless person can theoretically agree that the world's resources should belong to everyone, but what hope do they have of their fair and due share when those resources are accumulated and dominated by a rapidly shrinking percentage of the population?

Obviously, under these prevailing conditions, the number of marginalized and dispossessed will continue to increase, leading to a loss of hope and further misery for an ever larger segment of humanity, both in the richest and poorest societies. If the only government response is a minimum level UBI within national boundaries, coupled with a progressively shrunken and privatized welfare system, then the prospects for what lies ahead in the twenty-first century are hideously bleak and threatening. We look back maybe 80 years from now and consider it a miracle that welfare states ever existed. Because then we will live in a world that has dedicated itself exclusively to the protection of a privileged elite that lives in a reality isolated from the general privations of the oppressed masses.

Part II: The missing factors for a citizens' initiative

It is important to emphasize once again that the idea of ​​a sufficient basic income that the state pays its citizens is a visionary and convincing idea for our time. Still, it is unrealistic to use a UBI as a political tool to create a freer society if our governments continue to commit to powerful corporate interests, particularly in the defense industry. The dominance of “profit over people” is a tremendous struggle in which political activists have been engaged for many centuries, and never before has this struggle been as ominous and urgent as it is now. Therefore, our research is about how we can transform the ruling paradigm of commercialization so that a higher UBI becomes a viable and incorruptible prospect - not just in most developed countries, but ultimately in every country in the world.

With that in mind, our first consideration is the need for massive public support for a basic income, and our main reason should be to ensure the das right to life ’for all. Our politicians today will never support this right, even if some honorable politicians try. So it has to come from ordinary citizens. And the only way to bring about a fundamental change in political orthodoxy and social attitudes is through relentless demonstrations to put an end to extreme human deprivation. From this the beginning of an emancipatory basic income will be born. STWR is guided by this vision, which we will now examine using a logical and intuitive view of a global basic income.

Assuming our motivation is truly to achieve a universal basic income for everyone - above all as an economic right that protects everyone from living in poverty - then we must first recognize the enormous extent of this long-term crisis. While millions of people in rich countries do not have adequate access to essentials, almost all chronically undernourished people live in poorer countries, particularly in Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia. In many countries in these regions, no less than a third of the total population suffers from hunger. And in many conflict-ridden countries there are currently record numbers of people in need of life-saving food and medical assistance, and this is the greatest tragedy since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945.

Even before this dramatic escalation of food insecurity, more than 40,000 people died every day in recent years from preventable poverty-related causes, the vast majority in low-income countries. [16] Nevertheless, we know that there is enough food, medicine, money and other resources that could be passed on to all people in need - especially from the most developed regions of the world, which are oversupplied and unimaginable waste of food and material goods. This growing reality of poverty in the midst of abundance and luxury in the midst of the hungry may have long existed, but how are we going to change the situation if not millions of citizens come together and ask their governments to address this issue fully and systematically ?

Only through huge demonstrations lasting days, weeks, months and even years will our elected officials be forced to take seriously the people's demand for economic sharing and global justice. And at the center of our demands must be a call to governments to share their surplus resources with other nations, based on a common understanding that there is enough for everyone and that it cannot be that someone is in need or starving unnecessarily . In this way, the idea of ​​sharing surplus resources is the key to unifying the world, and the word 'surplus' needs to be emphasized because we are not talking about the resources we ourselves need to feed our families and live well. We are talking about the surplus resources that any nation can easily allocate to global poverty alleviation aimed at the suffering of those living on the poverty line in our own countries and abroad.

The urgent need to implement an international emergency program was highlighted in this series of studies with reference to theReport of the Independent Commission on International Development Issuesrepeated, which was published in 1980 under the chairmanship of Willy Brandt. [17] Despite the now outdated economic situation of the Brandt Report, his call for a massive transfer of resources from the global north to the south is now more urgent and important than ever. Given the vast extent of the world's humanitarian crisis, it is high time governments commit to multilateral efforts to end absolute poverty as “an imperative” of the international community. Brandt's vision of a major summit of world politicians to plan and mobilize this agenda was shelved during the heyday of the market economy. But his time will certainly come again - even if the finer details will look different - because the old economic and monetary system is close to collapse. [18]

In our current discussion, there is no need to expand on specific economic reforms that define a new approach to North-South development and cooperation. But it should be clear that promoting this broad vision is not the same as advocating a UBI in individual countries; what we really want to achieve is a phenomenon of mass demonstrations spreading around the world until this idea, end poverty imBillions of people's awareness as a priorityand literally everyone is aware of this significant matter. Can you imagine the sudden emergence of a completely new consciousness that explains: “Never again hunger and never again unnecessary dying!”? Then imagine the further actions and demonstrations that could result from this, an ongoing effort that moves the UN to a coordinated response and to end this moral outrage for good. But not under the conditions put forward by our political leaders, with the usual communiqués or necessary commitments published after international summits. The driving force for action must come from ordinary people of goodwill who gather spontaneously, day after day and night after night, no matter how long, with the express intention of bringing governments back to their senses with this simple and very human demand bring to.

We believe that without this historic event, which will continue indefinitely, there may be no hope of the realization of a final vision of a global basic income. Policy makers will always find an excuse to delay it. We saw this a long time ago with theSpeenhamland system up to Richard Nixon's guaranteed income plan, and also in the recent referendum in Switzerland. [19] As long as the principle of sharing is not anchored in world affairs, and as long as the rulers of the world do not accept the need for a massive transfer of resources to the global south as part of a "survival program," a truly universal basic income can never be adequately implemented.

It depends, on some degree of awareness of the world's problems, which most ordinary citizens, within affluent societies, and even within affluent parts of poorer nations, sadly lack. But without some empathic awareness and an instinctive response to the avoidable suffering of those who are less fortunate than we are, it is almost impracticable for a UBI to end up being sustained as an essential political tool for eliminating material deprivation. There may be numerous technical reasons why it is impossible to have a comprehensive UBI system in every country today. However, the lack of public awareness or concern about the tragic reality of poverty in the world is, in the end, from a holistic point of view, the fundamental factor.

Let us observe how Americans, French, English, Japanese, and most other westernized nationalities increasingly focus on their domestic politics, reflecting the growing economic and social divisions that characterize all nations today. The problem of how to reduce these divisions and inequalities is often the subject of intense public debate, which is reflected in the nationally oriented priorities of the political parties in the election campaign. But what the public does not see or do not consider are the inequalities between different nations and different regions of the world and especially the deplorable life chances of the poorer half of the world. However, these international divisions can only be healed through sharing the world's resources. Symbolically, this process acts like a magnet on many other social transformations, including the ability to implement UBI as a viable political tool within each nation.

Interestingly, the vision of a UBI represents the logic of economic sharing as it is only conceived at the national level. The vision of what sharing means on a global scale is only partially supported by most UBI proponents, including the few organizations that have embraced the idea of ​​ending absolute poverty through basic income support in developing countries. Most proponents see a fragment of this vision of economic sharing only in the context of their own country, without realizing that a full UBI policy cannot be sustained anywhere until a global process of resource redistribution takes place in every member state of the United Nations.

The surest way to start this process is if millions of people in each country stand up, through active engagement and with one voice, for an immediate end to poverty-related suffering, until the United Nations adopts an intergovernmental emergency program and major restructuring of the world international economic system. The call for a UBI as a solution to poverty in every country is therefore an unconscious call to share the world's resources, even if we do not see the key to achieving such an epochal goal. Because this key will only be discovered when the majority of humanity unanimously takes on this matter. It all depends on a significant expansion of our collective consciousness and empathy towards others to understand the needs of our poorest brothers and sisters, who are just as important as our own.

There are two ways to realize this inspiring vision of a basic income for all people in all nations. The first path is that of greater resistance, where we are trying to build a political counter-movement that will force the authorities to approve a new system of income distribution based on a UBI. However, this carries the risk of enormous state opposition and violent uprisings. Or we take the path of least resistance, which is on Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and are creating a new global movement calling for adequate food, housing, health care and social security for all. [20]

This brings us back to STWR's flagship publication and instructions, which is an appeal to revive this venerable article through peaceful global protests that go on persistently and ceaselessly. [21] Let's summarize the relevant aspects of our reasoning. We have seen the phenomenon of global demonstrations culminating in calls to protect the environment, but never has such a call to protect the fundamental rights of the poor and helpless been made in less developed countries. [22] With such a request, on an unimaginable scale, it is possible to ultimately change the course of world affairs and that opens the door to a UBI and countless other political solutions advocated by progressive activists.

Article 25 Demanding is the best strategy and the safest way to widely reach the poor, the needy and the forgotten - because the human rights enshrined in these simple sentences are first and foremostbelonging to them. As a result, if the West continues to protest for this good cause with constant vigor, it is possible that the poor in marginalized regions in the southern hemisphere will also hear and hopefully join this call. A similar logic can be deduced when we talk about the basic income, because it is precisely the poorest who would benefit from a regular money transfer, which is anchored in national legislation. But there are many reasons why it is unlikely that protests for a UBI will spread as a unified global phenomenon. First of all, the political right to a basic income is generally limited to the respective state, where social policy is designed and implemented within each nation. The call foritems25 however, is truly international in order to ensure that the basic needs of every human being, which he needs to survive, are met. Even very conservative or for-profit people will say they are withitems25 agree, regardless of their views on a basic income and what ideology they promote or what other political views they represent.

In addition, the general idea associated with a basic income is primarily about money and personal finances within a given society, as the word ‘income’ already makes clear. In contrast, the concept ofArticle 25 the moral principle and our collectively shared aspiration, and recognition (in the wordsof the General Declaration) the innate dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human community which form the basis of freedom, justice and peace in the world ’. Indeed, implementing a UBI is really for economists and policy makers while implementingArticle 25 depends first of all on the committed hearts and active participation of all walks of life. Through these heartfelt actions, a holy economist ’will eventually emerge, if we can read between the lines, expressed in the phenomenal spectacle of the united global demonstrations that take place day and nightad infinitumgo on.

From a technical point of view, too, there are many political implications with guaranteeing human rightsArticle 25 that do not include a basic income proposal. For example, how should a government generate the funds to provide universal public services under democratic control - health, care, education, and so on? Most governments will clearly have to undertake major economic reforms if these basic services are to be protected and expanded in every developed nation and anchored as a legal right of all citizens in every developing country. So, given the complexity of these issues, it is pragmatic to have an overarching political demand that encompasses all related policies in a straightforward manner.Article 25 necessarily involves a host of other political demands, all of which reflect the beauty of the principle of sharing in its remarkable diversity. Certainly, a requirement for the satisfaction of the basic needs of all, for example, must include the following:

• the diversion of military spending and other harmful government subsidies;
• Renegotiating and reconsidering unfair trade deals;
• Combating tax avoidance and tax evasion by wealthy individuals and companies;
• the comprehensive reform and democratization of global governance institutions;
• the redistribution of resources through new sources of international taxation (financial transactions, carbon emissions, etc.); [23]
• as well as myriad other reasons for economic sharing at the national and local levels. [24]

In this way we have a real chance to start a global movement that is all aroundArticle 25 formed and will have a huge impact on related campaigns and progressive activism, which would be a godsend for advocates of a UBI. Of course, their cause will gain tremendous support if there are sustained demonstrations calling on the respective governments to divert their surplus resources to less developed regions in the world. Should you be debating the ethics and logic of a UBI with this newfound audience of committed citizens, it is very unlikely that they will disagree. And maybe this would be the time for proponents of basic income to organize their own constant demonstrations around the world based on the moral justification mentioned above: "Everyone has the right to life!"

From these first observations we can conclude thatArticle 25 forms the basis for the existence of a basic income and that both should be seen together as a tandem. Basic income advocates would take a huge step forward if all of their members were to beArticle 25 would equally welcome and include him in their meetings, proposals and group activities. As we have argued, the basic needs of the poor are met in every detail when youArticle 25involve, and so you are calling on the masses in every country to join you. The tremendous potential ofArticle 25 enables government policy to move in the right direction by making a global demand for economic sharing and cooperation to end life-threatening disadvantage one of the United Nations' top priorities. In harmony with their hearts, the common masses will express the principle of sharing for the first time on this earth, and it is their united demand to redistribute the world's resources that will eventually provide the possibility of ensuring a basic income for all, and still more much more that will trigger.

One could say that the principle of sharing, metaphorically speaking, represents the soul of a UBI whileArticle 25 represents maternal or parental protection. In fact, it was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that inspired mankind to put their home in order after World War II, which brought home the long-held quest for a basic income. For all of these reasons and more, the Basic Income Movement faces a long and dark road if they do not relate their policies to the established right to an adequate standard of living - and remain under that umbrella until their time comes. If you have a car, you also need gasoline to drive it; There is no easier way to make our argumentation more precise. And that's why it makes sense - from every logical, practical, and strategic point of view -Article 25 to adopt if you want real UBI programs to eventually be implemented worldwide.

*

It can be helpful to reconsider some of the strategic reasons and why it makes sense forArticle 25standing up, as we discussed in our previous book by STWR. It is our central goal, with this manifesto for massive civic engagement, to indirectly bring about a metamorphosis of the profit-oriented interests that dominate our society. This will force large corporations to metaphorically bow and admit their influence on the government process. UBI proponents should be concerned about this problem and take it very seriously in relation to their proposals, drawing on their highest visionary imagination and intelligence. Because we don't talk thoughtlessly about creating a new society with no-obligation money for everyone, as if everyone could suddenly decide to overcome their ideological differences and live without excessive problems or conflicts.

Perhaps we should remember that publicly traded limited companies and huge leverage, like war machines, are in order to extract profit from all human and environmental resources, with a legal obligation to put profit maximization above moral or ethical considerations. Suppose every vision of a better world is symbolized by a house, and transnational corporations are represented by tanks that are unleashed in a war zone and destroy every house that stands in their way.

Our idealistic visions are quickly erased as collateral damage in the war-like pursuit of the illusion of unlimited accumulation of capital. Such an analogy may seem a bit exaggerated, but it is the continuation of this symbolic struggle that began in the 1970s and in which our political leaders are inevitably embroiled, through their market-driven policies of privatization, commodification, deregulation, taxation and all the others such divisive means of creating economic growth. However, the origins of the calamity of free market forces go far beyond a misguided political ideology. As mentioned earlier, the human motivations that underpin the globalized economic system also represent the culmination of mankind's age-old tendencies towards greed and institutionalized self-interest, as always made possible through our indirect complicity and indifference through generations. The question of how the world can be freed from the bondage of this ancient materialism cannot be answered lightly, especially when one considers the origins of modern capitalism through centuries of colonial theft and the terrible exploitation of vulnerable populations.

Is it naive to expect that humanity will ever shed these seemingly ingrained and selfish tendencies by simply upholding a human rights declaration that has never been more than a moral aspiration - and, until now, has not been legally binding or enforceable as an economic obligation of our governments? Continuous global protests over the rights ofArticle 25 may seem unlikely, but we can at least grapple with the hypothetical implications that could arise from this amazing event. Because what do we think would be the greatest possible impact on those transnational corporations that seek profit at all costs, amid countless millions of people who are demanding that their governments do soArticle 25 is converted into a series of enforceable obligations by national and global laws? And what do we think would be the greatest impact on our governments themselves, considering that even our policy makers serve those central corporate bureaucracies?

This is where the real struggle to achieve a comprehensive basic income begins, because this political issue entails the need for governments to distribute wealth to the majority of the population. So the phrase ‘progressive redistribution’ suddenly comes into play, as there is no way to achieve a comprehensive UBI system in the short term unless governments are forced to regulate large corporations through a long list of recognized reforms. In this regard, our greatest hope is not in a nationwide public demand for the government to implement a UBI in their own country alone, but in that the United NationsArticle 25through genuinely cooperative intergovernmental action. This is the only way to redistribute wealth and political power downwards within and between each nation. Only in this way can we achieve balance and harmony in global economic affairs and at the same time prevent UBI politics from corrupting market forces, destructive power games of foreign policy, and the distorted priorities of governments that have no idea what it means to serve humanity becomes.

Over time, the widespread call to sharing, in its diversity, may gradually expand into the creation of new laws and new systems of income distribution, ensuring that the most important role of governments is to ensure the right of all people to a dignified and fair one Defend standard of living. Pictured, it doesn't mean that UBI representatives are knocking on the wrong door, although we could imagine two doors in the same building that would have to be opened one after the other. When the front door forArticle 25 is entered by millions of people in every country, then finally an inner door becomes visible, behind which lies the highest vision of a UBI with all its hopeful promises for social justice and freedom. Then humanity no longer has to knock on this symbolic second door, because with ongoing demonstrations in huge dimensions, it will open completely by itself at this point in time.

We can see the relationship between a basic income andArticle 25 examine from a wider perspective, from an inner dimension, how society with its for-profit values, through the collective expression of love, goodwill and sharing, can change in manifold ways. This approach is always of primary importance in our studies, because an emergency program to prevent life-threatening deprivation will not only lead to transformations in the arena of political decision-making, but also to profound internal changes in human consciousness as an interdependent unit.

In other words, such a major event would be the beginning of the end for most people who make their profit at the expense of our planet and other people. Even the wealthy will participate in this great social endeavor and alleviate the unnecessary suffering of others. The awakening of our hearts will trigger unforeseen changes in relation to our inner values ​​and our togetherness, and lead to more inclusion, unity and even love. It is even likely that the many isms ’that represent the opposing convictions of our societies will decrease in their extreme polarization and gradually come to an agreement. In direct proportion to our newfound consciousness, it will be agreed that saving our sick civilization consists solely in sharing the resources of our earth.

We can easily imagine the wider implications if we accept that such external transformations are clearly of the introductory natureinner Transformations depend on the consciousness of humanity. For, as we have found, these inner transformations can only be brought about through a unique awakening - to the reality of unnecessary poverty-related suffering - which will eventually lead to a global redistribution of surplus food and other vital resources to where they rightfully belong .

However, it is difficult to imagine such a sharing-oriented ’or love-oriented’ atmosphere. The values ​​of our contemporary society are effectively based on the opposite of sharing and right human relationships. When we hear people speak of our values ​​’and the way of life’ of our nation, it means little or nothing from an inclusive spiritual perspective as millions of people die each week as a result of extreme poverty, violent conflict and dire natural disasters. What values ​​can we speak of in this terrifying global context if not the values ​​that define our psychological divisions and narrow-minded behavior? When terrorists murder innocent civilians in affluent western cities, we often hear that religious extremists cannot separate us from one another or destroy our values, including our democracy and our so-called way of life. But aren't we already separated? In the way we live together and because of the indifference that perpetuates the stark global differences in living standards?

So imagine the transformation of consciousness necessary for humanity as a whole to recognize and express the division on the planetary level until the values ​​of interpersonal relationship are anchored in our daily lives. We have already indicated how these new values ​​will be expressed initially - primarily through a deeply felt awareness that no one should starve to death, with a united public demand for governments to share their surplus resources through an emergency redistribution program. Only then can we imagine a society in which a basic income guarantee is unanimously accepted and supported, but not beforehand.

The missing factor in many proposals for a UBI is therefore related to the question of our global perception, our empathy and our proven unity. Our consciousness will of course expand in all directions when millions of people come under the banner ofArticle 25 unite and lead us to the values ​​of right human relations, in all their diversity: interpersonal, communal, institutional and otherwise. Given that right relationship also means 'not doing harm' or 'I am trying to protect people and the planet from harm', it will not be long before this tremendous release of public consciousness on the main perpetrators of planetary destruction targets, namely companies with insatiable appetites for profits and raw material extraction. But what effect will economic sharing to end poverty, in all its forms, have on our entire society in terms of exploitative business activity and profitability?

Maybe it won't have the impact we envision and these huge commercializing entities will just be ignored. For there will be an atmosphere of goodwill and service to the world and even many executives and wealthy investors will leave their industries behind to attend this great planetary event. Many multinational corporations may begin to completely change their business models and goals over time, as our awareness of the reality of global inequality will expand towards an awareness of the critical environmental situation. The unsustainable demands on our planet will also be drastically reduced.

Of course, the public needs to nurture this burgeoning awareness of corporate misconduct and harm, and possibly with widespread decoupling from the many industries that benefit from human and environmental destruction. Consumer activism is a powerful defense tactic in this regard when enormous numbers of citizens seek to challenge outrageous corporate practices through boycotts, direct actions and other forms of grassroots organization. What we really care about are the effects of goodwill and awareness as they permeate all societies, centered on the heart and common sense in relation to right thinking, right action and right human relationships. As soon as the masses reflect a new engaged, less selfish consciousness, the exploitative practices of large corporations will naturally cease or be transformed into more meaningful ones.

As we said before, the real problem was never capitalism or entrepreneurship, but rather the human awareness that allowed these acquisition practices and systems to develop in this harmful way. So if man becomes aware of the damage caused by his indifference and complacency, then capitalism and entrepreneurship will change the way he works in exactly the same way. When our consciousness is transformed, the transformations in society and the global socio-economic order will follow. The mind changes, politics changes, and the world itself adapts to change. [25]

When we relate these observations to the UBI, we can only repeat that its loyal supporters will soon grow tired and old, unless humanity professes the principle of sharing, through ongoing protest activities, for the rights ofArticle 25 to anchor. This event will mark the beginning of an expansion of our collective consciousness until the implementation of a UBI in each nation is evident, acceptable, and ultimately recognized as necessary. As our consciousness continues to expand and grow along these more altruistic lines, the term 'basic income' can also change over time (or cease to exist at all) and take on a different meaning that is more closely related to the values ​​of the right human relationship aligns. What do we think of when we hear the words "Reason" and "Income"? In any case, we live in a commercialized society that understands how to discredit everything that has real value in order to devalue the psychological meaning of a UBI as ‘pocket money’ or free money ’.

How the psychological and spiritual values ​​of a UBI will develop one day, we cannot really predict today. But what should be obvious is the need to examine this issue in a more holistic and universal light, with an awareness of the inner life. Then our justifications for a UBI will not be limited to arguments with the coming age of automation, or the need for a less consumer-oriented and work-addicted society. To understand our starting point for a UBI, we need to recognize the tension between nations and the endemic stress and depression in our societies that stifle the expression of right human relations.

That is the business side of world resource sharing, if we will put it that way, because the most important meaning of sharing, from an internal perspective, is reducing international tensions. This enables the groups to unite on every level - planetary, national, communal and interpersonal, in a synergetic union. Then the true forms of cooperation can flourish naturally, with positive results far beyond expectations, when applied in the competitive relations between governments on the world stage. One could say that a real process of economic sharing has begun when governments are empowered to implement an emergency poverty alleviation program through the United Nations and the broader structures for proper human relationships will automatically manifest themselves at every level of society.

One of the most important elements for structuring economic sharing is the correct distribution of income, which is based on the same principle as an international emergency program: that we have enough resources to meet the basic needs of all people, if they are used correctly and directed there, where you need it most. We know that there is enough food, medicine, physical goods, and technology to quickly end all kinds of material deprivation. And from this fact of realizing this great civilizational endeavor, our consciousness grows naturally and awakens to what our society can achieve - such as realizing and guaranteeing a basic income for everyone worldwide. New laws will be enacted to stabilize the new structures and the child's social arguments against a full UBI will be meaningless and irrelevant. [26] Because then we are talking about a completely different kind of society, in which each individual receives the basic means to maintain their self-esteem and to express their innermost feelings of joy, freedom and creativity.

We do not need to dig deeper at this point into this subject, which also needs a new upbringing, as we have discussed in previous articles. [27] Suffice it to say that we envision a more spiritual, warm and compassionate society in who is inferior to the experience of stress and violence and the Christ Principle is no longer a theological idea but an experience-based reality for almost everyone. When the hearts of mankind are opened, when the overwhelming tensions in our world gradually ease, then we can be sure that a guarantee of basic income will take its predetermined place as an integral part of what it means to live in proper relationship with one another.

*

The above considerations are intended to show that a complete UBI policy cannot be viable in any country without fundamental changes in our collective consciousness and in social values, which ultimately have to be reflected at the political level among the governments of the world. We have now examined the missing elements in most discussions about basic income policy and the reasons why a universal program is corruptible in the current sociopolitical context.

There are many conceivable dangers surrounding the UBI proposals today from very different perspectives. As already indicated, the term basic income ’becomes dangerous in the commercialized societies in which we live, where the trends we have already mentioned are intensifying and the world population is rising steadily. How else could these trends dissolve and be reversed if we don't get the rights from very quicklyArticle 25 sustained in all nations. [28] Given our deliberations, we can see how the truly universal vision of a Basic Income addresses so many other problems that need to be resolved. So dramatic are the problems surrounding these simple policy proposals; unless we are talking about the wealthy nations of the western world alone.

Many UBI proponents may continue to concern themselves with the question of how they can realize their vision of a sharing society within the large industrialized countries, particularly Western Europe and North America. But when we look at this question through the common sense of a dedicated heart, it becomes apparent that a UBI can never be sustainable within the confines of a single nation while the rest of the world is so unbalanced and in constant conflict.Even if a rich country like Switzerland were willing to provide all citizens with a livable amount of money (without placing any tests or conditions), there are obvious reasons why such a national system can pose insurmountable dangers in the longer term.

In the short term, a wealthy nation might be able to prevent an influx of poor migrants through border controls, through various restrictions on eligibility for a non-contributory UBI system, such as waiting times and qualifications, and based on residence. But how long could such a system survive in spite of the pressures of selective immigration, given the pressures of economic globalization on public policy? [29] From the most logical analysis, in this competitive and profit-driven world, one surely emerges tremendous resistance to the further development of a national redistribution system, regardless of the country in which it originates.

From a purely moral point of view, we should ask ourselves whether a UBI can ever succeed on a strict nation basis if it is not pursued in accordance with the vision of a humanity that is spiritually integrated and indivisible. It is natural that activists first direct their proposals to a national level and look to their own good and that of their fellow citizens. However, a UBI must also be seen as a solution to our complex global problems and must be aimed at the idea of ​​the common good - otherwise our ideas are clearly not based on a universal concept of justice, solidarity, equality and human rights. Because then it would be like viewing our own country as the sum of humanity ’while remaining indifferent to the fate of billions of people elsewhere who do not share our privileged national identity. And then we will lose ourselves more and more in a self-created sovereignty in which our undisturbed days will be numbered as the problems outside our borders multiply and worsen.

Therefore, it is immoral for a full UBI to be implemented by one country alone (even if it has the means) in a world where poverty is rampant and where many nations ravaged by war are fighting for it avert increasing food insecurity. It may well be possible for everyone in your own country to live comfortably with a guaranteed basic income and universal benefits, but what about the rest of the poorer countries that are not eligible for not even a bite to eat? Let's say you were the Prime Minister of Great Britain and you decide to introduce a relatively high basic income for British citizens only. What happens if a natural disaster or an economic collapse occurs in neighboring France or Germany? Wouldn't you worry about the countless millions of people who are affected and who remain hungry or impoverished as a result? Yet that is the reality of how people in affluent nations debate their domestic affairs. As if they could defend their established social protection systems without pointing out the misfortunes of those who continue to live in hunger and poverty-stricken countries abroad.

This is how we see the consequences of the lack of sharing in our world as welfare states corrupt in industrialized countries because of all the problems associated with the paradigm of commercialization at this peak of its global expression. Until about the late 1970s, countries like England had the inclusive potential of welfare states to be effectiveSharing economy demonstrated before the ideology of unrestrained market forces and private property began to rule the world. But, as we have found, the matter of sharing a nation's resources through the redistributive policies of progressive taxes and social transfers is very different from the resources of the nationworld to share. And without starting a process of economic sharing among all governments, which has never really been seen on this planet since the founding of the United Nations, the existing social safety nets throughout the industrialized world will continue to deteriorate and corrupt.

We are already seeing the signs of this real and present danger, after human life has been computerized by means-testing usage systems, which humiliate the most needy and which also largely fail. These shameful controversies have foretold a time when the welfare systems of the twentieth century will inevitably collapse - unless our societies are drastically reshaped under broader and more moral conditions. In this sense, the proponent of a UBI should fight for a common political vision in all countries, while being aware of the fact that this cannot be achieved until the principle of sharing at least begins to govern relations between nation-states. All of this brings us back to our central prediction: the missing element to initiate this noble vision is a citizen strategy to transform the world based on the proclamation ofArticle 25.

Part IV: Definitely a Universal Vision

Our final consideration is to examine what the best global vision of a UBI might look like in the future, now that public attention and international relations show a marked change, as we indicated in our dialogue. Certainly it is worth considering these new economic agreements, even if it is pointless to formulate the final political details that must be guided by top-level economists - (assuming that this far-sighted ideal ever materializes). It should not be forgotten that the entire architecture of the world economy must be structured much more equitably and in a new appropriate form before the possibility ofArticle 25 to guarantee in every country is even conceivable.

Governments today are certainly not in a position to protect the economic and social rights of all citizens without reversing the politics of modern times, which have greatly exacerbated economic uncertainty and legitimized the privatization of the economy. Reducing massive military spending on social needs is crucial. But it is also necessary to reform many other political structures that the governments of the Global South have put under pressure since the 1980s and before - including the entire system of tax havens, unaffordable national debt and unfair trade regulations. In this way, Article 25 can be expected to become an enforceable human rights law within the United Nations, with the prospect that a UBI will be seriously debated by all member states - and for the first time in history - and will be crucial to achieve such an end goal. Then we will become aware of what a really "universal" basic income means, namely a global socio-political instrument that can help guarantee the basic rights of every person for an indefinite period of time.

In this context, it should be noted that many development economists embrace the promise of cash transfers (CT) programs as a pragmatic method of reducing poverty in low-income countries, with the potential to provide a basis for new social contracts, between citizens and the state . And it cannot be denied that such targeted measures have a transformative impact on the lives of marginalized citizens, even when delivered under certain conditions, such as: B. Child vaccinations or school attendance. This is particularly true of the millions of people who work in the informal sector and live in marginalized communities who typically do not have access to secure jobs or comprehensive social benefits. Thus, we can see how the proven success of cash transfer systems reflects the versatility of sharing in relation to poverty reduction strategies, even when they are used in limited groups as an experiment to test results. In a for-profit world threatened by artificial scarcity, there is access to moneyper se irrevocably transformative - even for the richest individuals, so it is natural to expect that direct money to the poor will change their lives.

From the holistic and ideal perspective, however, these targeted CT models should be seen in the context of a global poverty crisis, which is rarely addressed in multilateral negotiations and intergovernmental programs for structural economic reforms. The results of CT experiments suggest what could be achieved through nationwide UBI systems, although far from our vision that all countries commit to adopting such systems on a cooperative international basis. We may experiment with the poverty of marginalized citizens in high and low income countries, but we cannot experiment with the lives of thousands of children and adults,who are in danger at this hourto die of hunger. Periodic cash transfers will never be enough to save these countless innocent lives unless nations immediately commit to an emergency program of immediate relief alongside longer-term restructuring of the world economy that can address the root causes of mass impoverishment.

At the moment, CT systems are best understood as an inadequate form of aid designed to mitigate the worst effects of material deprivation, if only for the relatively fortunate people in developing countries chosen by governments or donors as recipients. We hope for a time when this type of allowance will be transformed into a permanent basic income system that will benefit all without exception and will eventually be coordinated by the United Nations, with the promised support of all nations in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere.

Should this opportunity arise, we can foresee that multilateral negotiations for this purpose should take place under the auspices of the United Nations. If we envision the need for a basic income from a universal human rights perspective, then the United Nations General Assembly is the only nominally democratic and representative forum that currently exists at the intergovernmental level. And there are already many specialized agencies within the United Nations system that coordinate international efforts to promote peace, security and respect for fundamental human rights. So when the time has come to co-ordinate a UBI for all nations at the same time, the word “universal” in this context must be associated with the fundamental goals and principles of the United Nations and its treaty obligations.

What do we have this venerable institution for if we do not give ‘the peoples’ the same chance for a dignified and healthy life? And as a result of all the social and political transformations that we have summarized, the global vision of a UBI will likely be discussed so popularly and widely that it has to be debated in the highest political forum, because where else can it be organized on a multilateral basis ? If the Security Council can be empowered to authorize military interventions and sanctions for the alleged cause of preventing human rights violations, then the broader General Assembly can safely be used for the benevolent purpose of overseeing the creation of UBI systems in each country. Perhaps we can even envision the creation of a new specialized agency responsible for this critical task, which, together with other relevant agencies, will function as an autonomous and vital part of the United Nations.

It should be emphasized here that we are not considering the need for a global basic income that is distributed directly to each individual through a complex centralized bureaucracy within the United Nations system. Especially not because this could lead to a supranational transfer system and give the impression of a future world government. [30] On the contrary, it is imperative that each sovereign nation be encouraged to develop a UBI system in accordance with its own specific means and requirements, always respecting its unique traditions, customs and democratic practices. In this process, however, we expect the governments to agree oninternational laws hold the United Nations. They must lay down the general principles and respective standards of each domestic UBI system, thus guaranteeing everyone's right to an adequate standard of living (as already of course inArticle 25 and the associated international human rights instruments).

In other words: through the General Assembly, the member states can agree to independently implement a UBI that is sufficient to eradicate material poverty and to promote fundamental human rights and freedoms. It will undoubtedly be a long and arduous job before such a contract is implemented. It must also contain provisions for those less developed nations who continue to need international support to develop an effective UBI system and universal welfare systems. A global solidarity fund needs to be set up for this express purpose, which could be financed through a variety of options. This topic is already being discussed extensively in progressive circles - with the idea of ​​introducing new, innovative methods to increase `social dividends´. [31], [32]

Again, it is not the purpose of our investigation to test the plausibility or ingenuity of existing proposals other than to observe how the global vision of a UBI depends on an unprecedented redistribution of wealth, power and resources, and that in one dramatically short timeframe. And the extent of this redistribution must be universal ’in every way, most crucially at the intergovernmental level through the cooperative pooling of surplus resources and the creation of global public revenues. We know it can be achieved over time, however distant it may seem. Indeed, if nations can band together to build complex infrastructure for war, then they can also unite to build the infrastructure of a new global economic system. One that is organized by the principle of sharing and supported by new international laws of the United Nations.

Indeed, this was the general goal Willy Brandt set for several decades ago, emphasizing our interdependence and the need for nations to redirect public spending priorities from 'disarming to development' with 'massive redirection' of resources towards it the poorest regions in the world. We could say that Brandt's report indirectly called for the structural reforms necessary to implementArticle 25