The Revolutionary Basic Income

from book: What we learned from the practice of Basic Income — A compendium of Writings and Data (Translation by Monica Puntel, Leonardo Puntel, Carolina Fisher and Revison by Tracy Halls. Art by Júlia Cristofi.)
buy the book and read more or…
just donate for us, and read more…

I recently wrote an article defending an unconditional basic income, libertarian and independent from governments and corporations; the revolutionary basic income. Herewith some extracts of two recent books, which give an idea of the reasons of this defence:

“I don’t want the people who discriminate me to be arrested; I want the end of the segregation, especially regarding the natural right to the necessary means to self-preservation. I want the guarantee of fundamental liberties, not given as a help or a governmental favor, but as it should be: by natural right and in a decentralized balance of forces and equal authority over the common property.

I want the end of the states of deprivation and coercion, the end of the systematic violations. I don’t simply want the end of the violation of the free will of the people of peace, but the end of the theft of the private and common property by the supremacists. I want a territory where people can mutually and separately defend themselves against the appropriation of goods and the violation by these fanatics and by those who idolize power. A territory of liberties guaranteed as rights by constitutional dispositions, of mutual defense and provision as voluntary obligation.

I don’t want anyone to be forced to follow anything I say, I don’t want anyone who can’t stand me to be forced to live with me, just as I don’t want to be forced to serve or associate myself with them. For this to happen, it is necessary that all of us have not only our own free spaces and time, but also the necessary means to live, so that no one takes what belongs to another person out of necessity or appropriates those spaces and natural resources that can’t be taken or consumed by anyone without causing any damage to all.

I don’t want the end of governments, not even of the armed forces; I don’t want anybody to be prevented from having or not having them; may there be as many governments as people wish to have, as long as they pay for them and don’t force me to serve or sustain them anymore! Do I have to contribute like everyone else to the common good? Well, may my contribution be proportional to the proprietary participation that I have in the revenues of these common goods. You don’t like it? No problem, no one is forced to take part in any system. The ones who don’t wish to participate in this society should create one of their own and negotiate their values with everyone else, with the same rights to direct participation on the common good, to freedom of negotiation, valuation and peace association.

Naturally, I’m not content to simply sympathize with the cause of the violated, I defend not only the right of all people to proportional reaction against the violence, but, before that, also the guarantee of the basic resources, so that they’re never forced to sell themselves or to fight with all necessary means to end deprivation in their life or their dignity. I defend not only the decriminalization of the natural right to self-preservation, but also the restitution and the guarantee of the common goods and vital means, so that no one is compelled to face confrontation for his life or liberty.

I defend, consequently, the end of the monopoly of the common good and the equal authorities over the vital means, given not by promise, but in practice through mutual guarantees of fundamental freedoms, as equal participation on Basic Incomes of theses common properties.

“No one is obligated to support anyone or to give what is genuinely his to others, but one can’t turn what is his into the deprivation of other people’s vital means. All people, without distinction, have the natural right to make their living out of the vital means, according to their necessities, but the possession of a natural property is only legitimate without the deprivation of the basic needs of others, which means, before anything else, the preservation of the environment itself.

If all aggression is not criminalized and all self-defense decriminalized; if everyone (including the state) doesn’t answer equally for the use of violence; if we’re not equal in authority and liberty; without the abolition of the imposition of supreme powers and the rebalance of the forces between natural people; without the end of discrimination of natural rights and segregation of the common good; without equal authorities over the common properties and the guarantee of fundamental freedoms as a right to vital necessities; without the equal participation on the common properties according to the revenue; and, above all, without the mutual protection of the natural sources of all life: there’s no reform, there’s no state, there’s no revolution, there’s only the perpetuation of the same crime against liberty and fundamental equalities, the crime of the belligerent and bureaucratic state against the natural right of the peace movements and the free societies. The crime against all rights to life and to free communion with the purpose of imposing orders as well as private and state corporations.

The ordered and pacific appropriation, whether private or common, of a natural property, is only legitimate when it doesn’t deprive or destroy anybody’s access to the vital means or, put in another way, when it guarantees that everyone participates in the revenues of the common properties and in the natural part of all private property that can’t be destroyed, but preserved as a condition to legitimize this possession. In other words, all property, whether private or common, is only legitimate when it doesn’t harm anybody’s vital necessity, nor destroy the nature and the vital means necessary not only to everyone, but to all life.

The Law that stands up to this natural right is not a law, but a crime against nature and humanity. All living creatures have the right to access the vital means that are common in nature. And every society, in order to legitimately possess any piece of land inhabited by a single living creature or person, not only can’t deprive them from their vital means, but also must provide the necessary means for the life of those to whom they’re responsible due to their appropriation. Who’s not capable of providing the vital minimum to his dependents must give up the responsibility, and who doesn’t have the authorization of the other emancipated to assume this responsibility doesn’t have, in actuality the right to make it his own, let alone to criminally prevent them to pursuit, peacefully and connectedly, the guarantee of their self-preservation.

“I’m well aware that there are people in this world that are born with much less than what they need in order to work for themselves. But this is not life and this is not the world as it should be. Outside of this concentration camp, in nature, there is not one person who is born with nothing, no one is born without land or territory; in fact, there’s not one living creature on Earth that is born without an environment or vital means.

Put in another way: living creatures without an environment and vital means are, in fact, species doomed to extinction, as well as populations and persons without land and a guaranteed vital minimum are doomed to the holocaust. People who are denatured, expropriated, born without a land or the usufruct of their vital means are not only condemned to work until their death, but also condemned, generation after generation, to have each time a longer productive life and, in contrast, to reproduce in captivity, each time less.

The criminal or negligent act, regarded as legal or illegal, not repulsed nor prevented by the representatives of justice, demands nothing less than the retaking of the justice by their owners, by their true sovereigns: the people of peace and those who are voluntarily willing to legitimately defend their state of peace. Neither governments with their accomplices and henchmen, nor the reactionary or opponents, no one predisposed to aggression or deprivation of the people can maintain or impose their status quo.

The government that neither guarantees the vital minimum, nor protects unconditionally the vital means, is not only illegitimate, but criminal. The justice which overlooks this crime, if not an accomplice, is negligent and, therefore, illegitimate due to its lack of responsibility. Any person of peace who demands the rights of self-preservation or steps up to defend with solidarity those who are deprived of their natural rights, not only acts with justice as well as legitimacy. You may call him what you like, but this person who decided to fulfill his social responsibilities as he voluntarily should is the constituent of the true Constitutional State.

Where the law perverts the moral and the moral perverts the life and liberty, the natural law that legitimizes the defense of life and liberty must be restituted as a state; and if the constituent reform of the state doesn’t bring back the natural law, may the revolution constitute the natural rights state. The people of peace are thus not the ones who should be recriminated or persecuted by the law and the order, but the order is the one who should immediately and correctly legislate for the natural right to life and liberty. If the law and the moral ignore the necessary, they’re not flawed. If the law and the moral establish the undoable, they’re void. If the law and the moral establish what should be immoral and illegal, they’re corrupt and must be opposed. Nevertheless, if the moral and the law establish the inhuman and the unnatural, they’re perverse and must be not only brought down, but also harmonically reconstituted with the free and natural order: of the vital needs of people and nature.

Slavery will never be abolished merely through the prohibition against the possession of one human being by another, but through guarantees that all human beings have the same natural right to liberty — and not on paper, but in actuality. Equally, the deprivation will not be abolished through any prohibition against the exclusive possession of the vital means, but through the guarantee of everyone’s access to them, without any kind of segregation. Nature does not protect itself by prohibiting its exclusive possession by someone, nature isn’t everybody’s property, it’s nobody’s. Nature is not a property to be taken or consumed, whether to have an environment or to have his part of the necessary Basic Incomes, every person has the right to protect nature with the same necessary and proportional strength with which he defends his own self-preservation.

Power is only a monopoly, a “necessary evil” and the “exclusive provider of good” because it persecutes and eliminates all free competition for the production of the common good and of social services. The state is the procurer, forcing people into prostitution and, when they say they want to leave, he asks: how are they going to protect themselves without him? The state of power is the justification of the violence by the own deprivation of the necessary means to escape from it, the disqualification of liberty as a real possibility through the legalization of violence as a mean of silent threat (and explicit, if necessary) to stop the independency of the persons and populations.”

“I’m well aware that there are people in this world that are born with much less than what they need in order to work for themselves. But this is not life and this is not the world as it should be. Outside of this concentration camp, in nature, there is not one person who is born with nothing, no one is born without land or territory; in fact, there’s not one living creature on Earth that is born without an environment or vital means.

Put in another way: living creatures without an environment and vital means are, in fact, species doomed to extinction, as well as populations and persons without land and a guaranteed vital minimum are doomed to the holocaust. People who are denatured, expropriated, born without a land or the usufruct of their vital means are not only condemned to work until their death, but also condemned, generation after generation, to have each time a longer productive life and, in contrast, to reproduce in captivity, each time less.

The criminal or negligent act, regarded as legal or illegal, not repulsed nor prevented by the representatives of justice, demands nothing less than the retaking of the justice by their owners, by their true sovereigns: the people of peace and those who are voluntarily willing to legitimately defend their state of peace. Neither governments with their accomplices and henchmen, nor the reactionary or opponents, no one predisposed to aggression or deprivation of the people can maintain or impose their status quo.

The government that neither guarantees the vital minimum, nor protects unconditionally the vital means, is not only illegitimate, but criminal. The justice which overlooks this crime, if not an accomplice, is negligent and, therefore, illegitimate due to its lack of responsibility. Any person of peace who demands the rights of self-preservation or steps up to defend with solidarity those who are deprived of their natural rights, not only acts with justice as well as legitimacy. You may call him what you like, but this person who decided to fulfill his social responsibilities as he voluntarily should is the constituent of the true Constitutional State.

Where the law perverts the moral and the moral perverts the life and liberty, the natural law that legitimizes the defense of life and liberty must be restituted as a state; and if the constituent reform of the state doesn’t restitute the natural law, may the revolution constitute the natural rights state. The people of peace are thus not the ones who should be recriminated or persecuted by the law and the order, but the order is the one who should immediately and correctly legislate for the natural right to life and liberty. If the law and the moral ignore the necessary, they’re not flawed. If the law and the moral establish the undoable, they’re void. If the law and the moral establish what should be immoral and illegal, they’re corrupt and must be opposed. Nevertheless, if the moral and the law establish the inhuman and the unnatural, they’re perverse and must be not only brought down, but also harmonically reconstituted with the free and natural order: of the vital needs of people and nature.

Slavery will never be abolished merely through the prohibition against the possession of one human being by another, but through guarantees that all human beings have the same natural right to liberty — and not on paper, but in actuality. Equally, the deprivation will not be abolished through any prohibition against the exclusive possession of the vital means, but through the guarantee of everyone’s access to them, without any kind of segregation. Nature does not protect itself by prohibiting its exclusive possession by someone, nature isn’t everybody’s property, it’s nobody’s. Nature is not a property to be taken or consumed, whether to have an environment or to have his part of the necessary Basic Incomes, every person has the right to protect nature with the same necessary and proportional strength with which he defends his own self-preservation.

Power is only a monopoly, a “necessary evil” and the “exclusive provider of good” because it persecutes and eliminates all free competition for the production of the common good and of social services. The state is the procurer, forcing people into prostitution and, when they say they want to leave, he asks: how are they going to protect themselves without him? The state of power is the justification of the violence by the own deprivation of the necessary means to escape from it, the disqualification of liberty as a real possibility through the legalization of violence as a mean of silent threat (and explicit, if necessary) to stop the independency of the persons and populations.”

Marx was wrong: Who takes the common good disregarding natural law is not only a thief or a compulsive accumulator, exploiter of work or usurper of the means of production, who takes the vital means of all to compel them into forced labor and to political obedience, even if it leads to the death of entire populations, is worse than a supporter of slavery, is a mass murderer, one who commits genocide.

The problem is not capitalism, nor socialism, but state monopoly. The problem is the theft of all natural capital and of the participation in its revenues from all people, as their due share of the usufruct of their necessary means to life. Neither the property, nor the income can be taken or restituted by force. The problem is not who has the property, but how. The question is whether there’s a centralizing power that defines what belongs to whom, or values, or whether the values and properties are defined in peace by people equally free to negotiate.

For this reason, if we naturally don’t have the right to deprive anyone from these goods, whether taking or destroying them, we should humanly, socially and intelligently do, with justice, the opposite of what has been done: we should not only fairly bring back the vital means to every person as it’s due by natural law, but also guarantee that no one is deprived of his basic needs, whether by natural causes or not. All people who consider themselves free, capable and emancipated should voluntarily affirm their capacity, freedom and independency, assuming their social responsibility to maintain the peace and liberty within their own state. They should assume the mutual commitment to guarantee the universal rights of all to the provision of the basic needs through the guarantee of their participation on the revenues of the common properties.

The use of violence is not required to recover what is naturally common to all or what belongs to each person in particular, what’s essential is the willingness to self-defense with all necessary strength, especially the hardest ones to mobilize: the proactive and non-violent ones, capable of neutralizing the causes of the violence in advance and preventing the appearance of the conflict and the deflagration of the confrontation as a need. To react and to defend is a need, but only when there are no alternatives left; therefore, to wait for the moment of the conflict while everything runs its course, without searching for other possible worlds, would be even criminal if this omission wasn’t a result of sheer laziness or even a lack of intelligence. The true revolution isn’t reactive, but proactive and is established by the construction of the new world inside the old one. To defend the new generations against the mummies and vampires of the materialistic status quo, is the true immediate and necessary preventive action.

(…) To work proactively in order to overcome the situations beyond their limit, to create new situations that transpose the limitations and horizons of artificial events of the imposed reality; to work to overcome the apparently inevitable and create not the end, but something new, is not only legitimate and productive, it’s revolutionary. To work to overcome the cycle of violence and of conflicts and sacrifices, to work for the transcendence of the original causes of the states and holocausts, to work for the end of the deprivations and the segregation of the discriminated who need the end of the costless gains of the violators and supremacists, to work for the end of the redistribution of the costs of violence amongst the victims of violence themselves, to work for your own benefit and not against it is simply liberating. And the evolution is exactly the following: the fight of humanity for the natural rights against the violence of the nationalization of the common property for the socialization of the costs derived from the privatization of estranged life.

And if Independence Day is in fact liberation day, the equality isn’t going to be established by the imposition of any other supreme authority or by the destruction of the natural authority of each person. It will come through the mutual and equal respect of each person to the authority of others over their private property and to everyone’s authority over their common properties. The equality won’t be established by the supremacy of forces, but by the symmetry and balance of authorities regarding the common property, derived from the guarantee of actual liberties for all — not as an artificial right (positive or negative), but a natural one — as a fundamental property which really belongs to everyone, not to be destroyed, but to be used by each person as his vital mean.”

“The liberty is not given according to one’s values, but according to how free one is to constantly create and recreate his own values. It’s not a status, it’s a movement. Libertarianism isn’t an ideology; it isn’t a moral truth, but a natural one. Rights, freedoms and natural properties are always legitimate needs, not because of any invention of faith or reason, but for the simple fact that there’s no faith or reason, there’s no life or existence without the preservation and the guarantee of these basic means and necessities. Peace is a moral necessity to the human being, humanity’s choice, not only as its way of life or social organization, but as the behavior that one day will distinguish our species.

Human beings don’t reject the use of violence simply because they perceive that peace is the best evolutionary strategy, their identity or simply the way they want to be and to live, human beings reject violence in particular because they’re not oppressed by vital needs. When reduced to our basic needs, there’s no immorality or illegality in our actions, we’re not lions and those who prey to survive are not free from answering for their actions, but only in the exact measure of the actual freedom they have to exercise their human capacities of self-determination when confronted by the need of self-preservation. And not only can no one be held accountable for his lack of self-determination when facing the absolute danger of self-preservation, but also it’s through the guarantee of all actual rights to self-preservation that we allow the development of the self-determination of the populations and the people.

Fundamental liberties are not mere social rules, they’re natural rights, because they’re needs that can’t be violated or constituted by human rules, but must be observed by the moral and social order if we want to build societies that aren’t perverse, destructive, unnatural or entirely violent, unintelligent and unsustainable. Natural rights aren’t above all judgment, law, morality or truth, they’re beyond their domains, because they don’t even exist where natural rights aren’t respected, it’s basically as simple as that.

The nature will actually begin to be respected through the socially established pacific coexistence. When the self-defense against violence and power against its fanaticism and supremacy is established as a necessary disposition, we’ll not only have the beginning of a revolution, but in fact of a new world founded on the libertarian preservation of nature. A state of peace and natural rights sustained not by moralist speeches or theoretical rights, but by the protection of the vital means and the defense of the liberty as a permanently revolutionary practice.

The revolution is not a speech but a practice, it’s not an end but a mean, and it’s not a status but a movement. It doesn’t belong to any century or to any generation; it belongs to the timeless modernity that rises for its freedom and creativity against everything that should be already obsolete. May the modernity come and overcome all monopolist and violent ancient power that tries to stand in its path. Because the ancient do not need to be wise to not be a charlatan that stands against the future, he simply mustn’t block the ways anymore.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Marcus Brancaglione’s story.