Discussion on Living Income Guaranteed

Back to Latest topics

LIG, a Utopia?

91088b79593a9b290f21a2d50d4e0672?s=45&d=identicon
Viktor Persson

When I mention the LIG proposal to family members and friends, what they tend to reply is that it will never work, and that this world and the humans within it can never change – and they also tend to mention that to last attempts made have resulted in such things as communism.

What should I reply to this type of concerns and disbelieves?

Posted
26068d66c55a7b3a98194fd11c7ca5c4?s=45&d=identicon
Yogan Wayra Zadronzny Barrientos

Your question is slightly intimidating, but I will try my best.

First off, LIG is not a Utopia, if someone thinks or believes that, they are mistaken. LIG is a real proposal that has sufficient detail that it can be implemented reasonably. LIG has also only been conceived of being installed or implemented in a democratic society. Of course Dictatorships or Communistic states could implement it, however it may be odd since it is somewhat more democratic in design since the LIG company is owned by the people not the government or the ruler or dictator, which is kind of contrary to what control a communistic state or dictatorship normally has.

What's interesting is that human's won't need to change drastically to implement LIG. All would be required for LIG to be implemented would be a majority vote, and then to actually carry out the steps. The steps required by LIG have actually been carried out before, just not in this exact fashion or order. It would require setting up a company, and dividing shares of profits to the citizens of the nation (I'm not an expert in what this requires or if other steps would be required to make this happen). In all respects, it would act like any corporation today, the main difference being that the citizens of the entire nation will serve as shareholders. So its not really as drastic as it may sound initially.

I can't imagine how this could turn into something similar to communism, since that would require a charismatic leader that rallies the populous to overthrow the establish government and take over all sectors of government, making him their supreme ruler. LIG will not deal with any sector of government, whatsoever. LIG is limited to just securing the natural resources of the country, and providing the profits procured from normal business operations to the shareholders, the people.

I am not entirely sure if this has been spoken of yet, but transparency could be fairly easily attained through the internet, and so I could imagine that as a public company owned by the populous of the entire country, they would happily post all the details of their business. Im not a CEO of a company, so I don't know if that would be an awful idea, but it makes sense to me because they would only have to compete with international markets and not domestic markets.

In summary, your friends and family members have not understood the core concepts of LIG, which as I have explained here, are not as drastic or scary as they make it out to be. Im not the best talker, but I will just share what I can. Try to be very calm when they do get upset, or scared, or angry or any manner of agitation or disturbance. You would need to slowly but surely explain to them what LIG really is, and you could start by asking very simple questions to find out how much they already know. Perhaps they already read stuff online. After you have established what they do know, you can work with them to expand their knowledge to include what you know, making sure they get it every step of the way. It may help to give silent moments or pauses that allow them to calm down, and take a deep breath.

Hope this helps!
Sincerely,
Yogan

Posted
0d62cb998fb7db0dfdb8cde5f1b6d1fb?s=45&d=identicon
Marlen Vargas Del Razo

The concept of giving money to people as a guaranteed human right is new - whether in the form of a living income or with better wages for example - however in terms of welfare systems it is not entirely new. This means that there are already various countries providing money to people outside from the labor field, and it would not be that much of a difference from how things operate now other than removing much of the conflicting processes that sometimes asking for welfare benefits imply. As everything, giving money won't change human nature and in that I agree with what most people would immediately imply when it comes to seeing that money in itself wont' change people's mentality about money - however it is a starting point to then give ourselves the opportunity to reflect on how we have come to also shape our 'human nature' based on the lack of money, the constant 'survival mode' that we have created within ourselves. This is something that will have to become a parallel process along with the economic support as the provision of a living income, otherwise we will remain in the same mindset we are now minus the worry about survival.

Communism was a system imposed by a certain type of politicians with a very specific plan, which had to do also with testing how human beings would react when having all their needs provided/given in a centralized manner by one organism. Living Income doesn't have any link to this mentality nor does it intend to create a super-structure such as government to regulate everything. It simply implies providing, as a first point, money to those that have non and so be able to integrate living being's rights into the set-up of any economic and social system as each country around the globe - however this is not only a political party's disposition, it should be a human right and as such transcending also any bias on its actual need or benefit, as this should be part of placing into application the rights endowed to each one of us by the fact of being a living being.

How can we implement this? Through politics. And this is where what Yogan explained comes in - this is thus something that is entirely new because before today, none of the political movements has actually aimed at guaranteeing people's living rights, yet we can do it if we all agree that it is best for all.

One point that we can also focus on is how this is a solution that has no precedence and educating oneself to understand how words like 'communism' have been used to defame systems that place more consideration in people's living, because this is what is currently standing as an obstacle in relation to corporate interests for example. So, whenever someone comes up with the excuse of communism, it is to direct the person to understand that LIG has nothing to do with it, how there is no imposed system of control over resources, but rather providing money and higher wages for people to make of capitalism what it was meant to be: a system that provides an opportunity for everyone.

Then it is to educate oneself about the usual excuses given by other people, which are also quite common considering none of the supposed 'socialist' systems have entirely worked to the point of being effective for everyone. In this case, you can investigate why communism failed and how we usually create the mind association that anything that involves a collective support is meant control and restrict people, which is what happened with communism - but again, their aim was not to unleash people's ability to get access to living rights, but getting them into a 'lack' mentality designed by a centralized system with the purpose of control - this is Not at all what LIG is.

Only with being properly informed about the proposal and historical references can one direct a person's objections into a common sensical outflow, such as rather focusing on how this system has no previous reference since it has never been implemented with the considerations we propose and how we would benefit our overall well-being; you can instead shift the discussion from only focusing on all the reasons 'why it would not work' to discussing how it is our social responsibility to make it happen and so directing the conversation to seeing the benefits of it and how we can all create collective awareness on what is possible if we agree that this is best for everyone.

Therefore, I would suggest using this point of common confrontation to sharpen one's skills to share the pros of supporting this solution while effectively knowing how to dispel usual disbelief or associations done with it, such as communism for example and how it is up to us to actually place into motion this solution to learn on the ground what would have to be upgraded and adjusted in order to make it viable - which is also according to each country's possibility.

Posted