BIEN Profiles: Karl Widerquist, former co-chair

Karl Widerquist in 2014

Karl Widerquist was vice-chair of BIEN from May 2017 to August 2018, after serving as co-chair from October 2010 to May of 2017, and as a member of the executive committee from 2004 to 2010. He is a political philosopher and economist at Georgetown University-Qatar. He is the co-founder of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee (USBIG) Network, which he chaired from 1999 to 2008.

Widerquist is best known as an advocate of Basic Income. But he is also an interdisciplinary academic writer who has published in journals in fields as diverse as economics, politics, philosophy, and anthropology. He is a consistent critic of propertarianism (also known as right-libertarianism or libertarianism), Social Contract Theory, and the Lockean proviso. 8, and he cofounded in 2011. He has been a commentator on several television, radio, and print networks.

Contents

  1. Biography
  2. Advocacy of Basic Income
  3. Empirical and anthropological criticism of contemporary political theory
  4. Other political and economic theories
  5. Bibliography
  6. Media appearances

Biography

karl-joshuahair-bigfile

Karl Widerquist as a grad student-musician in 1993

Karl Widerquist was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1965. His family moved to Cassopolis, Michigan in 1969, and he grew up there. He completed a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics at the University of Michigan in 1987. For several years Widerquist pursued both music and economics. He was the original bass player for Michael McDermott, and play in several indie bands in New York in the 1990s.[i]

Widerquist completed a Ph.D. in economics at the City University of New York in 1996, later working at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and the Educational Priorities Panel. He was a Hoover Fellow at the Université catholique de Louvain where he worked with Philippe Van Parijs.[ii]

Widerquist received a second doctorate in Political Theory at the University of Oxford in 2006, and then worked as a Fellow at the Murphy Institute at Tulane University and as a Visiting Professor at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom. Since 2009, he has been an Associate Professor at Georgetown University-Qatar.[iii]

Advocacy of Basic Income

Widerquist claims to have been a supporter of some form of Basic Income Guarantee since he heard the topic discussed on an episode of Milton Friedman’s television show, Free to Choose, in 1980, when he was only 15 years old.[iv] But he did not start writing, working, or publishing on the topic until the late 1990s.[v]

https://i0.wp.com/i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/279947542319108-1443756103329_Q128/Michael_Lewis42.jpg?resize=244%2C244&ssl=1

Michael A. Lewis, of Hunter College and USBIG

Widerquist has worked on Basic Income as an economist, a political theorist, a public policy analyst, and organizer. In 1999, Widerquist cofounded the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee (USBIG) Network along with Michael A. Lewis, Fred Block, Charles M. A. Clark, and Pamela Donovan. Widerquist chaired the organization until 2008 and edited its email NewsFlash until 2014.

Widerquist has been the co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) since 2008. In 2011, Widerquist and Yannick Vanderborght cofounded BIEN’s news website, Basic Income News, and severed as its principle writer and editor until 2014, and he still writes for it occasionally. He and BIEN’s other co-chair, Louise Haagh chartered BIEN as a non-profit organization in 2016 and oversaw the expansion of BIEN’s activities.[vi]

Widerquist’s writing on Basic Income includes several articles reexamined the results of the Negative Income Tax experiments conducted in the United States and Canada in the 1970s.[vii] He and Michael Howard co-edited two books on Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, addressing it as a small model of a Basic Income.[viii][ix]

Michael Howard (holding umbrella) and Karl Widerquist in the rain New York in 2017

Michael Howard holding umbrella and Karl Widerquist in the rain, New York in 2017

He has been critical of the “reciprocity” or “exploitation” objection to Basic Income. Under these objections people who receive Basic Income without work are said to fail in the duty of reciprocity by accepting social benefits without contributing to their production and thereby they are said to exploit workers who do produce those benefits. Widerquist’s responses hinge on the distribution of ownership of resources, which according to him, violates the principle of reciprocity because the law gives ownership of the Earth’s resources to a limited group of people without compensation for the loss of the commons for others. Therefore, Widerquist argues, to be consistent with reciprocity those who hold resources must make an unconditional payment to those who do not.[x]

If this argument works, instead of violating reciprocity, Basic Income is required by that principle. Widerquist further argues that Basic Income, so conceived, does not not exploit workers because it does not matter how one gets control of resources (through work, inheritance, or any other means). What matters is that anyone’s ownership of resources must not be part of a system that imposes propertyless on others.[xi] The absence of propertylessness is important not only to ensure that the privatization of resources is consistent with reciprocity but also to protect all workers from vulnerability to exploitation by their employers.[xii]

This view of property rights as something that both protects owners from interference and imposes interference on nonowners is a running theme throughout much of Widerquist’s writing and his arguments for Basic Income. This idea is closely related to left-libertarian or Georgist views of property, which are based on the principles of self-ownership and some principle of equal access to natural resources.[xiii] Left-libertarians argue that this view of resource rights is more consistent with negative freedom than any other view because the establishment and enforcement of property rights inherently interferes with non-owners in very substantive ways and in a very negative sense of the term.[xiv]

https://i0.wp.com/images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51XyXi3lMrL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg?resize=323%2C499&ssl=1

The first of two books laying out Widerquist’s theory, “Justice as the Pursuit of Accord.”

Widerquist does not endorse the whole of either of those theories of justice. Instead he presents his theory of justice as a separate ideology, which he calls “justice as the pursuit of accord” or “indepentarianism.” The central difference between this theory and more mainstream left-libertarianism is that it rejects the left-libertarian view that equal access to resources entitles people to an equal share of the market value of natural resources.[xv] Widerquist instead argues that disadvantage might be entitle to greater redistribution larger than what would be required to equalize the income generated by natural resources.[xvi]

He makes several arguments for this position, the most important of which is that respect for equal freedom requires that any legitimate authority protects individuals from the most substantively important interference. This principle, Widerquist argues, requires respect for individuals’ status free individuals, which in turn requires economic independence. They need access to enough resources to ensure that they are not forced by propertylessness to serve the interests of people empowered to give them access to resources. Widerquist calls this concept, “freedom as independence,” or “freedom as the power to say no.” He argues that respect for independence in the present socio-economic context requires redistribution to come at least in part in the form of an unconditional Basic Income and that it must be at least enough to meet an individuals’ basic needs. He also argues that Basic Income protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and other forms of economic distress better than traditional conditional welfare state policies.[xvii]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP4sBGbeF8w

Philippe Van Parijs at TEDx Ghent

Widerquist is not the first to recognizing the poverty effectively forces individuals to work in service to more advantaged individuals, nor is he the first to argue that Basic Income can relieve that effective force. The unique feature of his theory is the central role that it gives to “the power to say no” in an individual’s status as a free person.[xviii] This line of argument seems to have recently become more important to the movement for Basic Income with even Philippe Van Parijs, one of the movement’s long-term leaders, arguing along these lines in his recent TEDx Talk, “The Instrument of Freedom.”

Empirical and anthropological criticism of contemporary political theory

https://i0.wp.com/edinburghuniversitypress.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/650x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/9/7/9781474437790_1.jpg?resize=393%2C590&ssl=1

Prehistoric Myths, this book mentions Basic Income only once–on the last page

Widerquist’s criticism of right-libertarianism began in 2009 when he published both an encyclopedia entry on libertarianism and an article criticizing libertarianism. The article argues that the central principles that are meant to determine the just distribution of property in a right-libertarian economy can justify government ownership of the powers to tax, regulate, and redistribute property just as well as they can justify private ownership of property. It argues that there are no historical or principled reasons to believe that private owners holdings of their powers are any any better justified than government holdings of their powers.[xix]

Karl Widerquist began collaborating with anthropologist Grant S. McCall with the publication of two articles in 2015 and a book entitled Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy released in January of 2017.[xx][xxi][xxii] The book uses anthropological evidence to debunk claims in contemporary political theory. It shows how, since the 1600s, most forms of social contract theory and natural property rights theory—especially those in the propertarian or right-libertarian tradition—have relied on the false empirical claim that Widerquist and McCall identify as “the Hobbesian hypothesis. That is, everyone is better off in a state society with a private property rights regime than everyone is, was, or would be in a society with neither of those institutions. The book shows how this claim became a central feature in the social contract justification of the state with Thomas Hobbes’s publication of Leviathan in 1651. Very much the same claim entered property rights theory a few decades later when John Locke made the fulfillment of his famous “proviso” central to his justification of the private property rights system. The book shows how the Hobbesian hypothesis has reappeared throughout the history of political thought since then and that it continues to be passed on in twenty-first century political theory.[xxiii]

Grant S. McCall of the Center for Human Environmental Research

The book argues, few of the philosophers who pass on the Hobbesian hypothesis offer any evidence to support it. Early philosophers relied on the colonial-era prejudice that any civilized man must be far better off than any savage natives. Later philosophers have simply relied on how commonly this claim is repeated to give it the air of obviousness. Yet, it is not the type of claim that can be obvious. It involves a comparison between the least advantaged people in modern, capitalist states with people who live in small-scale, stateless societies very remote to most modern writes in time and/or in place.[xxiv]

Widerquist and McCall present several chapters of evidence making that comparison and showing that the Hobbesian hypothesis is false: contemporary society has failed to fulfill the Lockean proviso. The least advantaged people in contemporary state society are actually worse off than the remaining native peoples who live outside the reach of the authority of the state or the property rights system. Therefore, if either of the two theories is to successfully justify the state and/or the property rights system, societies have to treat their disadvantaged individuals much better than they do now—whether that be by providing a Basic Income or by some other means.[xxv]

Other political and economic theories

Widerquist coauthored a textbook entitle, Economics for Social Workers.[xxvi] He has argued that Piketty’s observation that the rate of return on capital tends to exceed the growth rate in the economy should be seen as an outcome of the institutional setting rather than as a natural law of capitalism.[xxvii] Widerquist has also examined the effect that relaxing public choice theory’s assumption of self-interested behavior. He shows that many public choice problems exist as long as political actors are rational and disagree about what government should do, even if their disagreement stems from adherence to competing ethical theories rather than from competing self-interested wants.[xxviii]

Although Widerquist’s work uses some sufficientarian assumption, he criticized other aspects of sufficientarianism.[xxix] He has done historical work examining the many different (and often contradictory) ways that Lockean appropriation theory has been interpreted and revised.[xxx] He has written critically about wage subsidies as a redistributive strategy.[xxxi]

Media appearances

Karl Widerquist has frequently appeared in print, radio, and television news networks, including:

Click here for an updated (hopefully updated) list of Widerquist’s media appearances.

Publications

Books

Michael Anthony Lewis and Karl Widerquist, 2002. Economics for Social Workers: The Application of Economic Theory to Social Policy and the Human Services, New York: Columbia University Press

Karl Widerquist, Michael Anthony Lewis, and Steven Pressman (eds.), 2005. The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate

Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (eds.) 2012. Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (eds.) 2012. Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform around the World, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Karl Widerquist, March 2013. Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Karl Widerquist, Jose Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.), July 2013. Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell

Karl Widerquist and Grant McCall. Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, January 2017

Journal Articles

Karl Widerquist, 1999. “Reciprocity and the Guaranteed IncomePolitics and Society, 33 (3): 386–401

Karl Widerquist, 2001. “Perspectives on the Guaranteed Income, Part I” the Journal of Economic Issues 35 (3): 749–757

Karl Widerquist, 2001. “Perspectives on the Guaranteed Income, Part IIthe Journal of Economic Issues 35 (4): 1019-1030

Karl Widerquist, 2003. “Public Choice and Altruism,” the Eastern Economic Journal 29 (3): 277-278

Karl Widerquist, 2005. “A Failure to Communicate: What (If Anything) Can we Learn from the Negative Income Tax Experiments?the Journal of Socio-Economics 34 (1): 49–81

Michael Lewis, Steven Pressman & Karl Widerquist, 2005. “The basic income guarantee and social economics,” The Review of Social Economy 63 (4): 587-593.

Karl Widerquist and Jurgen De Wispelaere, 2006. “Launching a Basic Income JournalBasic Income Studies 1 (1): 1-6

Karl Widerquist and Michael A. Lewis, 2006. “The Basic Income Guarantee and the goals of equality, efficiency, and environmentalism,” International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment 2 (1): 21-43.

Karl Widerquist, 2006. “Who Exploits Who?Political Studies 54 (3): 444-464

Karl Widerquist, 2006. “The Bottom Line in a Basic Income ExperimentBasic Income Studies 1 (2): 1-5

Karl Widerquist, 2008. “Problems with Wage Subsidies: Phelps’s economic discipline and undisciplined economicsInternational Journal of Green Economics 2 (3): 329-339

Karl Widerquist, 2009. “A Dilemma for Libertarianism,” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 8 (1): 43-72

Karl Widerquist, 2010. “The Physical Basis of Voluntary Trade,” Human Rights Review 11 (1): 83-103

Karl Widerquist, 2010. “Lockean Theories of Property: Justifications for Unilateral Appropriation,” Public Reason 2 (3): 3-26

Karl Widerquist, 2010. “How the Sufficiency Minimum Becomes a Social Maximum,” Utilitas 22 (4): 474-480

Grant S. McCall and Karl Widerquist, 2015. “The Evolution of Equality: Rethinking Variability and Egalitarianism Among Modern Forager Societies.” Ethnoarchaeology 7 (1) March: 21 – 44

Karl Widerquist, 2015. “The Piketty Observation Against the Institutional Background: How natural is this natural tendency and what can we do about it?Basic Income Studies 10 (1), June, 83-90

Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall, 2015. “Myths about the State of Nature and the Reality of Stateless Societies.

[i]Personal Web Page of Karl Widerquist”, at widerquist.com/karl/personal.html

[ii]Karl Widerquist”, at explore.georgetown.edu

[iii]Karl Widerquist”, at explore.georgetown.edu

[iv]Personal Web Page of Karl Widerquist”, at widerquist.com/karl/personal.html

[v]Selected Works of Karl Widerquist”, at works.bepress.com/widerquist/

[vi]About BIEN”, at basicincome.org.

[vii] Karl Widerquist, 2005. “A Failure to Communicate: What (If Anything) Can we Learn from the Negative Income Tax Experiments?the Journal of Socio-Economics 34 (1): 49–81

[viii] Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (eds.) 2012. Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

[ix] Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (eds.) 2012. Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform around the World, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

[x] Karl Widerquist, 1999. “Reciprocity and the Guaranteed IncomePolitics and Society, 33 (3): 386–401

[xi] Karl Widerquist, 2006. “Who Exploits Who?Political Studies 54 (3): 444-464

[xii] Karl Widerquist, 2010. “The Physical Basis of Voluntary Trade,” Human Rights Review 11 (1): 83-103

[xiii] Vallentyne, P. and H. Steiner (2000), The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An anthology of historical writings. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

[xiv] Vallentyne, P. and H. Steiner (2000b), Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Palgrave

[xv] Vallentyne, P. (2000). “Left-Libertarianism – A Primer,” in P. Vallentyne and H. Steiner, Eds.). Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Palgrave, 1-22

[xvi] Karl Widerquist, March 2013. Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

[xvii] Karl Widerquist, March 2013. Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

[xviii] Karl Widerquist, March 2013. Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

[xix] Karl Widerquist, 2009. “A Dilemma for Libertarianism,” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 8 (1): 43-72

[xx] Grant S. McCall and Karl Widerquist, 2015. “The Evolution of Equality: Rethinking Variability and Egalitarianism Among Modern Forager Societies.” Ethnoarchaeology 7 (1) March: 21 – 44

[xxi] Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall, 2015. “Myths about the State of Nature and the Reality of Stateless Societies.Analyse & Kritik 37 (2), August

[xxii] Karl Widerquist and Grant McCall. Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, January 2017

[xxiii] Karl Widerquist and Grant McCall. Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, January 2017

[xxiv] Karl Widerquist and Grant McCall. Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, January 2017

[xxv] Karl Widerquist and Grant McCall. Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, January 2017

[xxvi] Michael Anthony Lewis and Karl Widerquist, 2002. Economics for Social Workers: The Application of Economic Theory to Social Policy and the Human Services, New York: Columbia University Press

[xxvii] Karl Widerquist, 2015. “The Piketty Observation Against the Institutional Background: How natural is this natural tendency and what can we do about it?Basic Income Studies 10 (1), June, 83-90

[xxviii] Karl Widerquist, 2003. “Public Choice and Altruism,” the Eastern Economic Journal 29 (3): 277-278

[xxix] Karl Widerquist, 2010. “How the Sufficiency Minimum Becomes a Social Maximum,” Utilitas 22 (4): 474-480

[xxx] Karl Widerquist, 2010. “Lockean Theories of Property: Justifications for Unilateral Appropriation,” Public Reason 2 (3): 3-26

[xxxi] Karl Widerquist, 2008. “Problems with Wage Subsidies: Phelps’s economic discipline and undisciplined economicsInternational Journal of Green Economics 2 (3): 329-339

Karl Widerquist in speaking in front of (a painting of) the Danish Parliament

Karl Widerquist in speaking in front of (a painting of) the Danish Parliament

The left needs fresh ideas and a new language if it’s to win again

Image result for pics idea bulbsRutger Bregman spares so-called liberals and progressives no punches in the online Guardian 8/19/16. Bregman castigates the Left for its pathetic failure in not seizing the moment after the 2008 U.S. “financial crisis… borne of blind faith in market wisdom and an utter lack of public oversight”.

Bregman acknowledges that the Left has a long history of championing for the underdog, the poor, asylum seekers, the discriminated against, the disabled and others. But these groups do not stir the imagination of the masses. Instead, the masses look away, are distrustful and often too judgmental to care. We want winners, they cry!

For Bregman the Left needs to stand up, raise its collective voice and champion things like real, effective banking reform, meritocracy, innovation and investing in a nation’s human capital through the use of a Basic Income for all to reclaim that lost ground.

GOA, INDIA: Mining reform group releases Manifesto, calls for citizen’s dividend

GOA, INDIA: Mining reform group releases Manifesto, calls for citizen’s dividend

The Goenchi Mati Movement advocates for the reform of mining practices in the Indian state of Goa. Its proposals include the investment of all money from iron ore mining into a permanent fund, which would be used to finance a citizen’s dividend. 

Similar to Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, the fund’s income would be distributed equally to all citizens in the form of an unconditional cash grant, providing all Goans with a basic income.

 

Founded in 2014, the Goenchi Mati Movement (GMM) aspires to reform mining practices that it believes to deprive residents of Goa their deserved share of the natural resources in their homeland, while also rapidly depleting these resources and damaging the environment. Describing the state’s mining practices, the GMM’s Manifesto says, “The total loss was enormous: nearly twice the state revenues, or over 25% of per capita income, or thrice the poverty line. The loss was effectively a per head tax equally on everyone. A few have become rich from our children’s inheritance. This is clearly not a reasonable situation.”

Goa mines, CC BY 2.0 Abhisek Sarda

Goa mines, CC BY 2.0 Abhisek Sarda

While iron ore mining has a long history in Goa, it expanded rapidly during the mid-2000s, and quickly became plagued with malpractice and illegal activity. In September 2012, the Supreme Court of India temporarily suspended mining in the state while hearing a public interest litigation. In its final judgement in April 2014, the Supreme Court declared all mining activities to have been illegal, largely due to mining companies’ lack of valid leases and licenses.

The environmental action group The Goa Foundation submitted a series of letters to the government of Goa in 2014, wherein it demanded the recovery of losses due to illegal mining and a restructured mining system based on the Goenchi Mati Principles. However, the government did not respond and began renewing the leases of Goa’s iron ore mines near the end of the year. By early 2015, the government had renewed the leases of 88 mines.

 

The GMM Manifesto

The Goenchi Mati Movement has published a Manifesto that outlines its proposal, which centers on six core principles (bold typeface in original):

1. We, the people of Goa, own the minerals in common. The state government is merely a trustee of natural resources for the people and especially future generations.

2. As we have inherited the minerals, we are simply custodians and must pass them on to future generations.

3. Therefore, if we mine and we sell our mineral resources, we must ensure zero loss, i.e. capture of the full economic rent (sale price minus cost of extraction, cost including reasonable profit for miner). Any loss is a loss to all of us and our future generations.

4. All the money received from our minerals must be saved in the Goenchi Mati Permanent Fund, as already implemented all over the globe. Like the minerals, the Permanent Fund will also be part of the commons. The Supreme Court has ordered the creation of a Permanent Fund for Goan iron ore and already Rs. 94 crores [about 3.8 million USD] is deposited.

5. Any real income (after inflation) from the Goenchi Mati Permanent Fund must only be distributed to all as a right of ownership, a Citizen’s Dividend. This is like the comunidade zonn, but paid to everyone. [The comunidades of Goa are traditional villages in which land is owned collectively. Comunidades pay an annual dividend, called the zonn, to residents.]

6. The implementation of these principles will be done in a transparent participatory process with the people of Goa.

The GMM launched its Manifesto at a press conference on Monday, November 21, and hopes soon to publish it in multiple languages, as well as to develop a variety of supplemental materials (e.g. animated explainer videos, video-based FAQs, and even songs and street theatre).

Claude Alvares and Rahul Basu at Press Conference

GMM’s Claude Alvares and Rahul Basu at press conference

 

The Permanent Fund and Dividend

As stated in the manifesto, an important first step towards the creation of a Goan iron ore permanent fund is already in place: in April 2014, the Supreme Court of India issued an order that mandated the establishment of such a fund, which presently holds Rs 94 crores (or about 3.8 million USD). Commenting on the significance of the permanent fund, Rahul Basu of the GMM states, “It is, to our knowledge, the first such permanent fund on intergenerational equity grounds to be ordered by judicial pronouncement. If it stands up to the legal challenges, which will then also clarify some aspects of the order, it can become a global legal precedent, which makes it potentially very powerful.” However, the Supreme Court’s order did not require that the permanent fund be used to finance a citizen’s dividend.

GMM Workspace

GMM Workspace

According to the Goenchi Mati Movement, the citizen’s dividend is a crucial component of the mining reforms for several reasons. First, it gives Goan citizens a stake in the minerals in their land, creating a stronger bond between the citizens and the commons (as one of GMM’s blog posts puts it).

Second, it leaves the government without money from the sale of the state’s minerals. In the absence of money from iron ore, the government might then be forced to tax its citizens to raise revenue. Following thinkers like Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson (the authors of Why Nations Fail), GMM argues that this change would promote good governance: “If the government wants to do all the various good things that need to be done, let them make a case to the people directly. If the people feel the government is good, they will agree to whatever new tax is imposed.”

Third, it compensates for what GMM sees as a bald injustice. As Basu describes it, any appropriation of parts of the commons–such as minerals and the land containing them–is effectively a “per head tax” or a “negative UBI” (that is, a practice that takes a share of resources away from every citizen).

2014-03-18-claude-mines-presentation-to-aap45Further reflecting on the moral significance of the dividend, Basu comments:

“Fundamentally, we are turning a lump sum mineral into a perpetual stream of Citizen’s Dividend. The Citizen’s Dividend today is given equally to everyone, achieving intragenerational equity. The perpetual nature of the Citizen’s Dividend achieves intergenerational equity. In a sense, each generation benefits to the extent of the real income. From this, we get to a practical example of the Golden Rule (the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself), but even across generations.”

GMM has been influenced by the model of Alaska’s Permanent Fund and Dividend, and also considers itself closely aligned in its thinking with Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based organization that promotes global action for the adoption of carbon tax and dividend policies.

Speaking about GMM, BIEN co-founder and honorary co-president Guy Standing said:

This is the optimum way of promoting community development while giving every man, woman and child a sense of basic security and pride in their community. It is enlightened, it is sensible, and it is eminently feasible.

 

Goan State Elections

With state elections to take place in early 2017, the Goenchi Mati Movement is urging Goans to vote only for politicians who will implement its Manifesto, and is currently devoting much of its attention to this political action.

As other sources confirm, mining policy is expected to be a central area of debate in the 2017 state elections. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), a relatively young party in Goa, promises sustainable mining practices, while meanwhile calling for a doubling of the mining cap. Meanwhile, environmental groups such as the Goa Foundation oppose the AAP’s plans, calling for greater restrictions.

The two major parties in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress, were in power during the controversial and illegal practices documented by the Goa Foundation — the Congress while the illegal mining practice themselves were occurring, and the BJP when the leases of the companies were renewed.   

GMM states, “We urge whichever Government is elected in 2017 to immediately cancel the leases and reframe a fair and just mining policy for the people of Goa. We request the Public to join our campaign, fight for what is rightfully theirs and urge them to vote for those politicians that will change the system.”

GMM has produced a short video to emphasize this message:

YouTube player

 

Other Activities

Outside of direct political action, the Goenchi Mati Movement has been adopting other strategies to raise awareness of its vision. For example, on November 11, it sponsored an art show intended to promote reflection on the shared inheritance of the citizens of Goa. While this initial show was centered on paintings, GMM plans to host a second art show featuring cartoons, and third featuring photography.

Basu states, “Artists are at the leading edge of thinking, and they influence the masses in subtle and long term ways.”

Part of GMM's Art Exhibit

Scenes from GMM’s Art Exhibit

gmm-art-show-2

 

Additionally, the Goa Foundation is engaging in litigation — a challenge to the structure of the Goan permanent fund (including the demand for citizen’s dividend), and a challenge to the 2014-15 lease renewals of the mines — and beginning to undertake academic research.  

GMM Members at Create-a-Thon

GMM Members at Create-a-Thon

 

BI-Related Reading from GMM

Rahul Basu and Deepak Narayanan (August 3, 2016) “Viewpoint: What can we learn from a campaign for zero-loss mining in Goa?” Citizen’s Income Trust.

Connects the activities of the Goenchi Mati Movement to the worldwide movement for basic income. Published on the blog of BIEN’s UK affiliate, the Citizen’s Income Trust.

Goenchi Mati (September 20, 2016) “Why should all mineral receipts be saved in the Permanent Fund?

Argues that mineral receipts should be saved only in a permanent fund.

Goenchi Mati (October 28, 2016) “Why a Citizen’s Dividend? Why only a Citizen’s Dividend?

Addresses the counterargument that some of the revenue of the iron ore permanent fund should go to the government instead of directly to the citizens.

 

Longer Video on the Goenchi Mati Movement (22:59)

YouTube player

Thanks to Rahul Basu for supplying information and photos, and for reviewing an earlier draft of this article.

Cover Image CC Frederick Noronha

 

 

PORTUGAL: XVIII Autumn Conference in the University of Minho

PORTUGAL: XVIII Autumn Conference in the University of Minho

Dedicating its XVIII Autumn Conference to Thomas Morus’s 500 year anniversary of his work Utopia, the Political Science group from the University of Minho (through its center of humanistic studies) has organized an event to be held in the 17th and 18th of November.

 

This Conference, titled “A utopia de um rendimento básico incondicional” (“The utopia of a universal basic income”), aims at fueling the reflection upon basic income as a political and social project for a globalized world in constant technological change. Three keynote speakers have been invited: Martim Avillez Figueiredo, Jorge Silva and Raquel Varela.

 

More information at:

University of Minho XVIII Autumn Conference webpage

Grantcoin Distributed to 750 People in 69 Countries

Grantcoin Distributed to 750 People in 69 Countries

The Grantcoin Foundation, a U.S.-based nonprofit, distributes digital currency in the form of unconditional basic income grants. Grantcoin is the first cryptocurrency managed and distributed by an NPO.

On October 1st, Grantcoin made its second distribution of basic income grants, this time to 750 people in 69 countries–chiefly the US (227), Puerto Rico (114), and Germany (84). This was about three times as many people, and four times as many countries, as their first distribution on June 30th–which had 255 recipients in about 17 countries.

Some might think that this is a pyramid scheme, given that the year-and-a-half-old Foundation is handing out money, and that it promises extra payments for enrolling other members. But Grantcoin is free to join, and those who sign up receive basic income grants regardless of whether or not they refer others to sign up (one receives “referral bonuses” for that). Furthermore, the IRS officially recognizes The Grantcoin Foundation as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity. The Grantcoin blockchain stores evidence of their past distributions (their records are organized by country in the middle of this press release).

The Numbers

In this second distribution, Grantcoin gave a total of 10,647,758.62 GRT through Basic Income Grants (5,790,483.68 GRT) and Referral Bonuses (4,857,274.95 GRT). That is approximately $5,323.88 U.S. dollars (at the October 1 price of Grantcoin on Bittrex, the largest exchange for the currency) — an increase from the first distribution’s $1,322.19 USD.

The average recipient received 14,065.73 GRT (about $7.03 USD) in combined Basic Income Grants and Referral Bonuses — an increase from the first distribution’s $5.19 USD. Each recipient received an unconditional 7,649.25 GRT (about $3.82 USD) in Basic Income Grants alone — slightly more than the first distributions $3.80 USD.

While this may appear comically low for a “basic income,” remember that this is only the second distribution. The price of Grantcoin has doubled since the first distribution.

Besides, one of greatest values of Grantcoin is its ability to demonstrate a sustainable, equitable monetary system to the world.

“Grantcoin is… the first currency in world history that’s backed by a nonprofit NGO and designed to help create a more fair global distribution of wealth.” 

— founder and executive director Eric Stetson

Future Goals

The Grantcoin Foundation aims to start automating much of their work in order to grow and maximize efficiency (somewhat ironic for a BI-supporting organization). They expect to have the signup, verification, and distribution processes almost completely automated by the end of 2016.

Participants will be able to receive and spend their Grantcoin through Ekata.social, a social media platform, which the organization expects to provide an easier experience for the user.

Looking further forward, the foundation writes,

“Smart contracts can be setup to enable charitable givers to donate money directly, instantly, to the people of nations and localities. Grantcoin could therefore become a powerful tool for direct charitable giving.”

If they meet this long-term goal, it might be reminiscent of what GiveDirectly does currently.

Get Involved

The easiest way to get Grantcoin is to sign up and verify your account (the verification is simply to confirm that each account is held by a unique human being). The next distribution is on December 30th (distributions are quarterly).

Lastly, they are looking for help–asking people to consider donating to the Foundation, or buying Grantcoin, or volunteering their time and talent.

All of this effort goes toward creating a world in which money serves a humanitarian purpose.