17/12/2012

The Common Welfare Economy

The Common Welfare Economy is an economic system based on values that favour social welfare. These values are already covered in the large majority of national constitutions and guaranteed by law (justice, equal opportunities, etc) so really what is actually being proposed is just putting them into practice. It is a real alternative (many companies have been following its principles since it was created in 2010) and a force for social, economic and political change.

According to a study by the Bertelsmann Foundation, 80% of Germans and 90% of Austrians expect a new economic order to appear. The economist and university professor Christian Felber, interviewed in the video, developed an alternative to current systems in his book ‘New values ​​for the economy’ (Deuticke, 2008), in order to escape the sterile dichotomy which holds that ‘who is against Capitalism, is for Communism’ and offer a specific and viable system for the future. Subsequently, these approaches were reviewed and refined by a group of entrepreneurs who, along with Felber himself inaugurated the movement with the publication of the book ‘Economics for the Common Welfare (Deuticke, 2010), which reflects its founding principles, and which can be summed up by the following 20 points:

1. The Economy of the Common Welfare is based on values ​​that make our personal relationships thrive: trust, cooperation, affection, democracy, solidarity… Numerous studies and research concur that achieving satisfying relationships is the main source of motivation and happiness in human beings.

2. The economic legal framework undergoes a radical shift, changing the equation ‘Profit + Competition’ to ‘Desire for public welfare + Cooperation’. Entrepreneurs with a spirit of cooperation are rewarded, and competitive behaviour is penalised.

3. Economic success is not measured by prioritizing the amount of money obtained, but with the Common Welfare Balance Sheet (CWBS, on a company level) and the Common Welfare Product (CWP, on a system level). The Common Good Balance becomes the principal balance of all companies and the more social, ecological, democratic and committed the activity, the better the results. Improving the results of the Common Welfare Balance Sheet of a country’s companies improves their Common Welfare Product.

4. Companies with healthy Common Welfare Balance Sheets enjoy legal advantages: reduced tax rates, advantageous tariffs, cheap loans, privileges in public procurement, concessions in research programs, etc. The entry into the market is therefore more favourable for ethical products and services than for those are not.

5. The balance sheet is secondary, changing from an end in itself into the way to increase the ‘new’ business purpose: contribution to the Common Welfare. Balance surpluses should be used to finance investments with social and ecological gains, loan payback, deposits in limited reserves or limited bonuses to employees, as well as interest free loans for cooperating companies. No surplus will be used as bonuses for people who do not work in the company, for hostile takeovers of other firms, investment in financial markets (which will cease to exist) or contributions to political parties.

6. As financial gain is now a means and not an end, companies can have and maintain their own optimum size. They do not need to be afraid of takeovers or feel forced to grow to be bigger, stronger or show greater profits. All companies are freed from the pressure of the growth or buy–outs.

7. With companies being able to grow to their optimum size without fear, there will be many small businesses in all sectors. With no pressure to grow, it will be easier for them to cooperate together. They can help each other with knowledge, technology, commissions, staff or interest–free loans. They will be rewarded with positive results in the Common Welfare Balance Sheet. Companies create a disinterested learning community and the economy becomes a win–win system.

8. Differences in income and assets will be regulated: the maximum income limited to 20 times the minimum wage; properties may not exceed a 10 million euro value; the right of transfer and inheritance will be up to €500,000 per person, and up to 10 million euros per child in family businesses. Any surplus generated beyond these limits will be distributed as ‘democratic endowment’ for future generations: equality in the initial capital means greater equality of opportunity (the exact margins must be defined democratically in an economic assembly).

9. In large companies, over a certain number of workers (e.g., over 250) the rights of decision and ownership move over partially and gradually to employees and citizens. The population can be represented directly through ‘regional economic parliaments’. The government has no right to intervene or make decisions in public companies.

10. This is equally true for the democratic commons, the third property category together with a majority of small and medium businesses and large mixed ownership firms. For democratic commons we understand public institutions in the fields of education, health, social welfare, transport, energy and communication: society’s basic infrastructures.

11. A major democratic commons is the democratic bank. It serves, like all companies, the Common Welfare and, like all of them, is controlled by the people and not by the government. Its services include guaranteed savings deposits, free checking accounts, reduced interest loans and social risk loans. Financial markets will no longer exist as we now know them.

12. Based on John Maynard Keynes’ proposal in 1944, a global monetary cooperation is established based on a unit of calculation (‘Globo’ or ‘Terra’) for international trade. Locally, regional currencies can complement the national currency. To protect against unfair competition, the EU becomes a fair trade zone (Common Welfare Area) with harmonized standards or where customs duties are linked to with the CGBS of the producing company. A long–term goal is a Common Welfare Area in the United Nations.

13. Nature is given its own value, and cannot be turned into private property. When somebody needs a piece of land to live, to cultivate or for business, they are given a limited amount for free or paying a usage fee. The use of the land is conditioned by ecological criteria and limited to its specific use. This will end building speculation, land-grabbing and large–scale individual land ownership. In consequence, taxation on land ownership will be eliminated.

14. Economic growth ceases to be an end in itself, improving the ecological footprint of people, companies and nations. Kant’s catagorical imperitive will be extended to the environmental dimension. Our freedom of to choose a specific lifestyle will be limited when it in itself limits the freedom of others to choose the same lifestyle or to live in dignity. People and companies will be encouraged to measure their ecological footprint and reduce it to a sustainable and fair global level.

15. The working week will be gradually reduced towards the figure (agreed upon by the majority) of 25–30 hours per week. Therefore there will be free time for other areas of highly important work: relationships, caregiving (of children, the sick and the elderly), personal growth (self–improvement, the arts, leisure activities) and political and public activity.

16. Every tenth year will be taken as a sabbatical that will be financed by a minimum wage with no obligations attached. People can do whatever they wish in this period. This measure will reduce the burden on the labour market and make European Community unemployment levels fall by 10%.

17. Representative democracy will be complemented by direct participatory democracy. The people must be able to control and correct their own representation, enact laws themselves, amend constitutions and manage supply infrastructures (railways, post office system, banks, etc). In a real democracy, the interests of the people and its representatives are identical. A basic requirement for this is for the people to have the freedom of collaboration and control.

18. All major points must mature through intense discussions on a broad popular base before becoming laws made by an directly elected economic assembly: the outcome will be voted democratically by the people. What is accepted will be introduced in the constitution and can only be modified once again by the people’s will. Apart from the Economic Assembly of the Common Welfare, there will be other assemblies to study democracy in depth: a education convention, a communication media convention and a convention for the creation of democratic goods.

19. To establish in children the values ​​of the Economy of the Common Welfare and provide them with tools so that they can learn, the following subjects will be introduced in educational programs: emotionology, ethics, communication, democratic education and the experience of nature.

20. Given that in the Common Welfare Economy the concept of business success means something quite different to its present day meaning, other forms of management shall be established: those individuals most responsible and competent, the most empathetic and sensitive, those who think and feel in an ecological and social manner, will be in higher demand and will become role model for society.

Related posts
899
25
array(2) { [0]=> int(899) [1]=> int(25) }
array(4) { [0]=> object(WP_Post)#1728 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(7333) ["post_author"]=> string(3) "390" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2015-03-14 13:21:41" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2015-03-14 12:21:41" ["post_content"]=> string(9034) "Sabemos que vivimos en una sociedad profundamente individualista y de consumo. Es una realidad que este tipo de organización social, centrada en el individuo, en la libertad y en la felicidad, está teniendo unos costes sin precedentes para la vida del planeta, pero también para muchas personas a las que no tiene en cuenta. La sociedad de consumo actual también ha sido llamada del conocimiento y de la información. Hoy, el conocimiento de lo que ocurre a las afueras no sólo de nuestras casas, sino también de nuestras fronteras, es accesible para todo el mundo. Sin embargo, somos sociedades inmóviles ante las injusticias y horrores dentro y fuera de nuestras esferas más cercanas. Sólo consumimos ese conocimiento. Somos lo que se ha denominado 'consumidores pasivos'. ¿Cómo empezó esta forma de individualidad y que utilidad tenía? ¿Cómo hemos llegado hasta aquí? ¿Cómo se surgió la sociedad de consumo? ¿Cómo llegamos a ser quienes hoy somos? ¿Cómo llegamos a identificarnos con cosas y no con pensamientos, con necesidades inmediatas y no con ideales a largo plazo? ¿Cuándo dejamos de ser una comunidad para ser solamente nosotros? Estas son algunas preguntas a las que da respuesta el documental que proponemos: El siglo del yo. Dirigido por el documentalista británico Adam Curtis, es la primera de las cuatro partes que conforman el documento completo. Fue publicado en 2002, nominado a numerosos premios y ganador en las categorías de mejor serie documental en los Broadcast Awards y mejor película histórica del año en los Longman History Today Awards. Adam Curtis indaga en la influencia activa que tuvo la teoría del psicoanálisis de Freud, importada por Edward Bernays, su sobrino, de Europa a Estados Unidos en la economía, política y sociedad a partir de los años 20. A través del conocimiento de las teorías de Freud, Bernays, una figura híbrida entre ideólogo, publicista, una especie de incipiente figura del actual relaciones públicas, descubrió cómo a través de la psique se podían modificar los comportamientos de las personas. Cómo creando símbolos acerca de los productos de consumo se podían manipular las preferencias de las personas respecto a estos. Vio cómo se podían vincular los sentimientos a los bienes. Inventó la teoría de la propaganda y de persuasión del yo hacia las masas.
Edward Bernays se inspiró en las teorías de su tío Sigmund Freud para convertir necesidades en deseos y crear así la sociedad de consumo —Imagen Unknown Author
Años 20, la industria crece, y el miedo a la superproducción y la gestión del excedente aumentan a la par. Las grandes corporaciones necesitaban lo que Bernays les ofreció, un modo de transformar el consumo de necesidades en consumo de deseos. Son los felices 20, que vinieron seguidos del gran crack del 29. Pese a esa gran caída, desde ese momento el capitalismo no ha dejado de acercarse al capitalismo liberal que hoy conocemos. Hubo, después de la gran depresión, una fase intermedia de capitalismo intervenido y regulado  —como el keynesianismo o el New Deal de Roosevelt, lo que se ha llamado posteriormente 'los años dorados del capitalismo'—. Esta fase fue de lucha entre las corporaciones y los intereses privados frente los intereses públicos y del Estado. Lucha que culminó en 1979, con la crisis del petróleo y la transformación definitiva de este modelo de producción en su versión más feroz, en Inglaterra con Thatcher y en Estados Unidos con Reagan. El documental nos da muchas de las claves necesarias para entender cómo se dio ese proceso, y cómo el supuesto matrimonio entre democracia y capitalismo liberal se ha presentado cómo inquebrantable, cuando en realidad, como veremos, es un matrimonio de conveniencia —y no precisamente bien avenido— donde el aumento de la libertad en el consumo está reñida con nuestros derechos y con la libertad en su sentido más profundo. Los interesados en este matrimonio os resultarán familiares: Lehman Brothers, Rockefeller, General Motors… y Edward Bernays, que sería el divulgador de las ideas en las que posteriormente se basaría Goebbels para el desarrollo de sus técnicas de propaganda e ideologización en la Alemania de Hitler.We all know that we live within advanced societies of liberal capitalist model, in a profoundly individualistic and consumer society. It is a reality that this society, centered on the individual, freedom and happiness is having costs seamless background for life on the planet, also for the humans out of this advanced and liberal capitalist societies. Today's society has also been called the Society of knowledge and information, but today, knowledge of what happens outside not just our house, but also our borders is accessible for everyone, and we are the most immobile and inactive societies against the injustices and horrors outside and inside our closest areas. Only we consume that knowledge. It is the century of the self. How is started this form of individuality and which one is the utility? How did we get here? How the consumer society was founded? How we become who we are today? How do we are identifyed with things and not with thoughts, with immediate needs and not ideal long term, when we stop being a community to be only us? Here are some questions to which answers the documentary we propose: The Century of the Self. Directed by Adam Curtis, this is the first of the four parties that make up the entire document. It was published in 2002, and was nominated for numerous awards and winner in the categories of Best Documentary Series Broadcast Awards, and best historical film of the year, Longman History Today Awards. Adam Curtis delves into the active influence did the theory of psychoanalysis of Freud, imported by Edward Bernays, his nephew, from Europe to the United States. Through knowledge of the theories of Freud, Bernays, a hybrid among the ideologue, publicist and agent of the emerging figure of PR, discovered how through the psyche could change the behavior of people how creating symbols on consumer products could manipulate the preferences of individuals with regard to these. He saw, how they could link feelings to property. He invented the theory of propaganda and persuasion of self to the masses. W_elsiglodelyo3
Edward Bernays was inspired by the theories of his uncle Sigmund Freud to turn needs into desires and thus create the consumer society —Image Unknown Author
We are in 20's, the industry grows, and the fear of overproduction and increase management grows also. Big corporations needed what Bernays offered: a way to transform consumption needs in consumption desires. We are in happy 20's, followed by the big Crack of 29. Despite the big drop, from that moment capitalism he has not ceased to become liberal capitalism we know today. There was, after the Great Depression, an intermediate stage of the fight for the intervened and regulated capitalism —how Keynesianism or Roosevelt's New Deal, which were later called 'the golden age of capitalism'—. This fight was a tug of war between corporations and private interests against the public interest and the state, which culminated in 1979 with the oil crisis and definitive transformation of the mode of production in its ferocious more liberal version, in England with Thatcher and US with Reagan. The documentary gives us many of the necessary tools to understand how that process was key, and how the supposed marriage between democracy and liberal capitalism is presented how unshakable, when in fact, as we shall see, is a marriage of convenience, and where the increase of freedom in consumption is at odds with the loss of our rights and freedom in its deepest sense. Those interested in this marriage you will become familiar for you: W. Lippmann, Lehman Brothers, Rockefeller, General Motors... and Edward Bernays, who would be the disseminator —although manipulator should say, because he used science to private interest— ideas, later would be used by Goebbels for the development of techniques of propaganda and ideology in Hitler's Germany." ["post_title"]=> string(117) "Yo, mi, me, conmigo en el siglo del yoMe, myself and I in the century of the self" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(23) "the-century-of-the-self" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2021-06-13 14:10:50" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2021-06-13 12:10:50" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=7333" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [1]=> object(WP_Post)#1722 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(1829) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2012-05-18 00:14:04" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2012-05-17 22:14:04" ["post_content"]=> string(3315) "El Decrecimiento es una corriente de pensamiento político, económico y social que propone la disminución regular y controlada de la producción económica, con el objetivo de establecer una nueva relación de equilibrio entre el ser humano y la Naturaleza, y también entre los propios humanos. Nacido en la segunda mitad del siglo XX, se presenta a principios del XXI como candidato a suceder al Capitalismo. Sostiene que estamos jugando con la resistencia del planeta y debemos aprender a vivir felices con menos bienes de consumo, a un ritmo más natural, y para conseguirlo cree necesaria la combinación de tres tipos de actuaciones: la personal —mayor responsabilidad, reducción del consumo, reutilización de las cosas, menor uso del coche, etc—, la colectiva o local —consumo de productos locales, apoyo a la movilidad sostenible, rechazo a la especulación urbanística, etc— y la política o global —control de la publicidad, elección de bancos locales y éticos, reparto del empleo con reducciones de jornada, protección de los sectores más vulnerables, etc—. Dice el economista Serge Latouche, uno de sus máximos defensores, que 'la gente feliz no suele consumir'. Otro de ellos, Paul Ariès, politólogo y escritor, defiende en este vídeo la necesidad de construir una sociedad que respete el planeta y cuyo objetivo sea el bienestar de la inmensa mayoría de sus integrantes.Degrowth is a current political, economic and social thought which proposes regular and controlled reduction of economic output, with the aim of establishing a new equilibrium relationship between man and nature, and between humans themselves. Born in the second half of the twentieth century, is presented at the beginning of XXI as a candidate to succeed Capitalism. He argues that we are playing with the resistance of the planet and must learn to live happily with less consumer goods, at a more natural, and believes necessary to achieve the combination of three types of actions: the personal —more responsibility, reducing consumption, reuse things, less use of the car, etc—, the collective or local —consumption of local products, support sustainable mobility, urban speculation rejection, etc— and policy or global —control of advertising, choosing local and ethical banks, job sharing with reduced working hours, protection of the most vulnerable sectors, etc—. The economist Serge Latouche, one of its greatest advocates, says that 'happy people do not usually consumes'. Another, Paul Ariès, political scientist and writer, argues in this video the need to build a society that respects the planet and aimed at the welfare the vast majority of its members." ["post_title"]=> string(103) "La gente feliz no suele consumirHappy people do not usually consume" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(35) "happy-people-do-not-usually-consume" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-02-16 16:51:00" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-02-16 15:51:00" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=1829" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "8" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [2]=> object(WP_Post)#1730 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(2715) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2012-06-25 00:04:56" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2012-06-24 22:04:56" ["post_content"]=> string(2119) "La Felicidad Nacional Bruta (FNB) o Felicidad Interior Bruta (FIB) es un indicador que mide la calidad de vida de las personas en términos más holísticos y psicológicos que el tradicional Producto Interior Bruto (PIB). El término fue propuesto en 1972 por Jigme Singye Wangchuck, rey de Bután, como respuesta a las constantes críticas sobre la mala marcha de la economía del país. Las medidas derivadas de este concepto se aplican en la vida cotidiana de los butaneses teniendo en cuenta las peculiaridades de su cultura, basada principalmente en el budismo. Mientras los modelos convencionales observan el crecimiento económico como objetivo principal, el concepto de FNB se basa en la premisa de que el verdadero desarrollo de la sociedad humana se encuentra en la complementación y refuerzo mutuo de los desarrollos material y espiritual. Sus cuatro pilares son la promoción del desarrollo socioeconómico sostenible e igualitario, la preservación y promoción de valores culturales, la conservación del Medio Ambiente y el establecimiento de un buen gobierno.Gross National Happiness (GNH) or Gross Domestic Happiness (GDH) its an indicator that measures people's life quality in more holistic and psychological terms than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The term was proposed in 1972 by Jigme Singye Wangchuck, King of Buthan, as an answer to the constant criticism to the bad economy of the country. The measures resulting from this concept are applied in everyday life of the Bhutanese taking into account the peculiarities of their culture, based mainly in Buddhism. While conventional models observed economic growth as its main objective, the concept of GNH is based on the premise that true development of human society is in the complementarity and mutual reinforcement of material and spiritual developments. Its four pillars are: the promotion of sustainable and equitable socio-economic development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the environment and the establishment of good governance." ["post_title"]=> string(116) "El índice de Felicidad Nacional BrutaThe assessment of Gross National Happiness" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(42) "the-assessment-of-gross-national-happiness" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-03-03 03:16:53" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-03-03 02:16:53" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=2715" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [3]=> object(WP_Post)#1830 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(5549) ["post_author"]=> string(3) "390" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2014-01-19 00:01:08" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2014-01-18 23:01:08" ["post_content"]=> string(16800) "La Renta Básica Universal es una política económica, en materia de economía y filosofía política. Aunque cuenta con numerosos precursores —Paine, Fourier, Van Parijs, More o Tobin, dentro de las disciplinas mencionadas— ha sido difundida y popularizada en España por Daniel Raventós y la Red Renta Básica. Con su propuesta se pretenden reformar algunas de las estructuras claves del capitalismo contemporáneo: la propiedad en sentido amplio, el trabajo y la libertad e igualdad de los individuos, para así suavizarlo y convertirlo en un modelo económico donde se vea aumentado el equilibrio social y menguada la desigualdad y la injusticia que hoy vivimos a nivel planetario. Según la definición que ofrece la Red Renta Básica, la RBU es un ingreso pagado por el Estado, como derecho de ciudadanía, a cada miembro de pleno derecho residente de la sociedad donde se implante, independientemente de si no quiere o no puede trabajar de forma remunerada, sin tomar en consideración si es rico o pobre o, dicho de otra forma, independientemente de cuáles puedan ser sus otras posibles fuentes de renta, y sin importar con quién conviva. Es por tanto universal y sustituye cualquier otro tipo de prestación condicionada.
La Renta Básica Universal no toma en consideración tus ingresos o rentas, del mismo modo que la Seguridad Social —Imagen Unknown Author
Es una cantidad fijada según los datos económicos de cada país y coyuntura; en el caso de España, podría ser de alrededor de unos 500 euros —en términos más exactos, en 2007 podía ser de 451,6 euros, hoy se estima en 664— para los adultos y una quinta parte para los menores de 18 años. Esta cantidad es cercana al salario mínimo interprofesional y garantiza las condiciones de existencia básicas y dejaría a todo ciudadano por encima del umbral de la pobreza, referencia clave para la cantidad fijada por cada estado. Financiación y regulación Se puede financiar de diferentes maneras, pero la más aceptada y defendida por la Red Renta Básica —en España y otros países asociados— y de más valor redistributivo de la riqueza se realizaría a través de una reforma fiscal del IRPF, fijando un tipo único del 57,5% para todas aquellas rentas superiores a la RBU y liberando a las inferiores de cualquier carga impositiva. La RBU también es financiada, según este modelo, a través del ahorro de los costes de todo el aparato administrativo y burocrático que requieren los subsidios condicionados. Raventós, sostiene que con esta reforma fiscal, el 70% de la población con menos renta saldría beneficiada de la reforma, el 20% más rico perdería —se redistribuiría su riqueza— y el 10% entre esos dos tramos quedaría indiferente después de la reforma. Dividiendo la población en lugar de por porcentajes por deciles en la riqueza, perderían riqueza a partir del sexto decil más rico, esto se imbricaría y tomaría sentido con el concepto rawlsiano de 'desigualdades justas', las que crean desigualdad positiva a los que están peor situados. Los que más ganan después de esta reforma, sin duda son los que no tienen ingresos de partida. La riqueza se distribuye desde los más ricos hacia los más pobres, dirección contraria a la de hoy, donde la acumulación del capital se hace a través del expolio y la desposesión —D. Harvey, 'Acumulación por desposesión'—, se concentra en unos, se escapa a los otros. La RBU, por supuesto, una vez implantada, debe ir acompañada de una cierta regulación en las leyes que atañen al mercado de bienes y al mercado de trabajo. La RBU es condición necesaria pero no suficiente. También, la preparación social para entender y exigir como propio el derecho a la existencia y una viabilidad política que la haga posible serían algunas de las condiciones claves para su implantación y desarrollo. El derecho básico Durante la Revolución Francesa, cuna de los valores europeos y occidentales —Igualdad, Libertad y Fraternidad—, Robespierre, empapado de las ideas de la Ilustración, propagaba la idea, apoyado en los autores clásicos, de que el primer derecho del que emanan todos los demás es el derecho a la existencia; en el marco actual este derecho primordial es una lucha diaria, y en muchos casos una verdadera carrera de obstáculos. W_lalibertadguiandoalpueblo
Durante la Revolución Francesa, Robespierre difundió la idea de que el primer derecho del que emanan todos los demás es el derecho a la existencia —'La libertad guiando al pueblo', Eugène Delacroix, 1830
La existencia material garantizada como camino a la libertad e igualdad real de las personas es y ha sido un concepto manejado y trabajado por muchos filósofos clásicos y contemporáneos dentro de la tradición republicana —Aristóteles, Maquiavelo, Cicerón—. La idea de que un ciudadano no es libre si no tiene la libertad de no necesitar depender de otro para vivir, es antigua y está llena de fundamentos filosóficos: si un individuo no puede depender de sí mismo para vivir, si necesita de un tercero para ese fin, no es libre, no es sui iuris —en latín, (ciudadano) 'de propio derecho'—, es decir, tiene que pedir permiso para vivir. Está en ese caso, a merced de las condiciones del otro y en el marco actual, de los vaivenes y cambios del mercado de trabajo y de sus condiciones, y en consecuencia no de sus necesidades y elecciones reales. Capacidades y necesidades La RBU se basa en el principio filosófico que afirma 'a cada cual según sus capacidades, a cada cual según sus necesidades' —Saint Simón, Fourier, Bakunin—, con la libertad y la igualdad como paraguas filosófico para una sociedad justa de ciudadanos libres e iguales. Intenta resolver el problema filosófico acerca de la libertad individual, que desde los clásicos ha preocupado a muchos pensadores. En su formulación contemporánea, Philippe Van Parijs, reformulador teórico entre otros de la actual Renta Básica y autor de 'Real Freedom for all' —Libertad real para todos—, una sociedad realmente libre es aquella que satisface las tres condiciones siguientes, en este orden de prioridad: 1—Seguridad: existe una estructura de derechos y libertades básicas bien articulada; 2—Propiedad de uno mismo: en esa estructura, cada persona es propietaria de sí misma y de las decisiones sobre su vida; y 3—Ordenamiento leximin de la oportunidad: es decir, en esa estructura, cada persona cuenta con la mayor oportunidad posible para hacer cualquier cosa que pudiera querer hacer. En una sociedad realmente libre, quienes tengan menos oportunidades de partida, tendrán las máximas que podrían tener en cualquier otro orden social que podamos llevar a cabo. Algunas de las ventajas de facto que podrían crear la implantación de la RBU a través de una reforma fiscal del IRPF, serían las siguientes: 1— Redistribución de la riqueza. 2— Mejora de los estratos socio-económicos más bajos de la sociedad a todos los niveles, siempre más vulnerables y al límite del no acceso al empleo y otros recursos para la vida. Aumento de las oportunidades. 3— Aumento de la capacidad de negociación del trabajador, por la eliminación del factor necesidad que imposibilita la libertad en sentido profundo —de elección—. 4— Aumento de las condiciones de los trabajos más desagradables —al disminuir su demanda y tolerancia delante de según qué condiciones—. 5— Ahorro de los costes administrativos de vigilancia y control: al encontrar trabajo no se pierde la RBU, con el consiguiente probable descenso del trabajo ilegal y de la economía sumergida. 6— Redistribución del trabajo entre más de uno, o partición de las jornadas de trabajo entre más de uno. No necesidad de las ocho horas, libertad de elección de cuánto tiempo se destina al trabajo remunerado —según necesidad—. Y por tanto aumento en el número de puestos de trabajo, con el consiguiente descenso del desempleo. 7— Aumento del equilibrio y la elección entre los tres tipos de trabajo que existen: el trabajo remunerado, el trabajo doméstico y el trabajo voluntario o autotélico. Según las necesidades y elección de cada individuo. Mayor equilibrio social. 8— Y la más importante y que sustenta a las demás: aumento de la igualdad entre las personas, pero sobre todo de la libertad.The Universal Basic Income is a theory, in relation with economic policy. Although there are numerous precursors —Paine, Fourier, Van Parijs, More, Tobin— in Spain has been spread by Daniel Raventós and Red Basic Income, which amends some of the key structures of contemporary Capitalism as the property in broad meaning, work and freedom of individuals, softening the contemporary Capitalism and makes increasing balance and diminishing social inequality and injustice that we now live on a planetary level. The Universal Basic Income or UBI as defined by the Basic Income Network 'is a income paid by state, as a right of citizenship, each full member or resident of society income even if you do not want to work for pay, if you are rich or poor or, no matter what may be the other possible sources of income, and no matter who coexist. It is therefore universal and supersedes any other provision conditional'.
Universal Basic Income does not mind if you are poor or rich, in the same way as Social Security —Image Unknown Author
It is a fixed amount according to economic data for each country and situation, in the case of Spain, it could be around 500 euros —in exact terms, in 2007 was 451,6 euros, today is estimated at 664— for adults and one-fifth for those under 18. This amount is close to the minimum wage and basic conditions of existence and let every citizen above the poverty line, the basic reference for setting the amount. Financing and regulation The UBI can be financed in different ways, but the most accepted and defended by the Income Basic Network —Spain and other associated countries— and more redistributive value of wealth is done through a fiscal reform of income tax, setting a single rate of 57,5% for those above the UBI —any for below incomes—. Basic Income is also funded in this model, through cost savings for all administrative and bureaucratic apparatus requiring conditional grants. 'With this tax reform, 70% of the population with less income would benefit from the reform, the richest 20% lose —their wealth be redistributed— and 10% in between these two sections, would be indifferent after the reform', says Raventós. If we divide the population rather than percentages by deciles, would lose wealth from the richest sixth decile of the population, makes sense and relates with the rawlsian concept of 'fair inequalities', which create positive inequity those who are worse off. So all were more equal —indivisibility of freedom and equality, in the philosophy of Kant, for example, are inseparable—. Which are most benefited after the reform are undoubtedly those without any income. The wealth goes of the richest to the poorest, the opposite direction from today where capital accumulation is distributed through the plundering and dispossession —D. Harvey, 'Accumulation by dispossession'—, is concentrated in some and escapes to the others. Basic Income, of course, should be accompanied by some regulation in the legislation concerning the market and the labor market, once implanted. The UBI is necessary but not enough. The social preparation to understand and demand as its own the right to existence, and political viability that would make possible, are some of the key conditions for the its implantation and development. The basic right As Robespierre said during The French Revolution, the first right which emanate all others is the right to exist, in the current framework this fundamental right is a daily struggle, and in some cases a real obstacle. W_lalibertadguiandoalpueblo
During the French Revolution, Robespierre spread the idea that the first right from which everyone else emanates is the right to existence —'Liberty leading the people', Eugène Delacroix, 1830
The guaranty of material existence, as a path to freedom and real equality of persons, is a concept has been studied and worked for many classic and contemporary philosophers in the republican tradition —Aristotle, Machiavelli, Cicero— but also many others. The idea that a citizen is not free if don't have the freedom to not need to rely on another to live, even if it sometimes, is old and is full of philosophical foundations around the idea that if one can not depend on itself to live, if you need a third person you are not free, is not sui iuris —in Latin, 'citizens of the rights itself'—, that is, you must ask permission to live. It is depends of other conditions, and in the current framework of the fluctuations and changes in the labor market and its conditions and not their real needs and choices. Capacities and needs Basic Income is based on the philosophical principle that says 'to each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' —Saint Simon, Fourier, Bakunin—, freedom and equality as a philosophical umbrella for a just society of free and equal citizens. Try to solve the philosophical problem about individual freedom, which from the classical has concerned many thinkers. In its contemporary formulation, Philippe Van Parijs, theoretical reformulator including the current Basic Income and author of 'Real freedom for all', a truly free society is one that satisfies the following three conditions in this order of priority: 1— Security: there is a structure of rights and well articulated basic freedoms; 2— Self-ownership: structure in that each person owns his life decisions; and 3— Leximin system opportunity: by that structure each person has the greatest possible opportunity to do anything could want to do. In a truly free society, those with fewer opportunities starting, have the maximum that could have in any other social order that we can perform. Some of the advantages that create de facto implementation of the UBI through a tax reform of personal income tax would be: 1— Redistribution of wealth. 2— Improving the lower strata of society at all levels, always more vulnerable and limited access to employment. Increased opportunities. 3— Increased bargaining power of the worker, eliminating the need for factor, which makes freedom impossible. 4— Increasing the conditions of the most unpleasant jobs. 5— Savings in administrative costs control, receiving the UBI, to find work not lose, probably decrease of illegal work. 6— Redistribution of work among more than one partition or the working days between more than one. No need for eight hours, freedom to choose how much time is allocated to paid work —as required—. 7— Increased balance between the three types of work exist: paid work, housework and volunteer work. Depending on requirements, and choice of each individual. Best social balance. 8— And the most important: increasing equality between people, but especially of freedom." ["post_title"]=> string(100) "El derecho a una existencia dignaThe right to a decent existence" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(31) "the-right-to-a-decent-existence" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2021-06-16 09:25:49" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2021-06-16 07:25:49" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=5549" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } }