TTIP or the law of the jungle

If it is true that today the world is at a crossroads, two forces are currently in times of struggle. And if it is true that the we are the system, becomes ever more urgent that we start taking sides in this fight, because the reality seems to be happening above us, and we are not realizing.

Exists and is working now in a transnational trade agreement that will affect the whole world, will the change many of the already minimal structures of protection and of rights of the  citizens and why not say, of governments themselves. But you will have not read in any newspaper or on television, or by any means of mass communication, so that once again they have been heralded as genuine accomplices of power, not the citizenry and public opinion, by the theoretically have their rationale.

Politically, the agreement will eliminate differences between American and European regulations —’Eeuuroflags’, Javier Aristu, 2014

On November 28 2011 was created the Working Group High Level Jobs and Growth, in order to explore possible avenues for increasing investment and trade between the US and the EU. In June 2013, EU and US announced ‘the solution’: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Agreement —TTIP is its acronym in English—. This agreement is a free trade agreement with historical and terrible precedents, terrible why none have achieved the objectives posed to social and employment level, if not the opposite. The NAFTA, for example, was predicted by the voice of Bill Clinton the creation of 20 million new jobs and after years has destroyed a million jobs and has increased the insecurity of those left standing.

Well, the TTIP has its reason for being, in theory, because will create —said by the most optimistic voices— two million new jobs and a GDP growth of 1% per annum for US and EU. However, in front of such encouraging figures, none of the powers —including Spain— has made public these estimates, neither have said a word about the treaty nor included as part of its political program, to get voters. Curious, very curious.

What pretends the treaty is to reduce all trade restrictions between the two powers, tariff and which are not tariff. Tariffs between the US and EU are already very low, almost symbolic, there is an almost free trade between the two powers. However, non-tariff restrictions maintaining sovereignty in type laws, labor, social, environmental and economic policies themselves are very different on either side of the ocean. It is here where the treaty aims to influence more strongly, and is basically his real reason for being.

Very different regulations

Europe has a policy more stringent than US levels. For start there are the welfare states in Europe stronger and more extensive in the world, compared to the US which has the weakest welfare state that exists in the Western world. In the dimension of rights cannot be further from each other, neither the regulations concerning the use, production, or use of agricultural chemicals and genetically modified products. In the US there are tens of chemicals, but are banned in Europe. In the US, for example, to determine which products are dangerous for human consumption is the government itself who studies and concludes and if you can market or not. In Europe the process is reversed, the companies who must prove that these products are not toxic, then the government approves or not for consumption.

Environmental laws are much laxer there than here, and returning it to name those concerning social rights are incomparable. Moreover, the economic models and production differ at all levels. In the EU, 99% of GDP consists of small and medium enterprises and their destruction would adversely affect their economies, something that has been said ad nauseam in EU. US has a model that is inversely based on large multinational corporations  and large armies of workers, technically called working-poors, only two of the rights established by the International Organization of Workers are met, in front of the eight rights respected in Europe. Moreover, since their model of welfare and production, US have the most deregulated, free-market and most neoliberal economy of the world.

Economically, the agreement between the United States and the European Union will affect to 60% of global GDP —’Eeuuromoney’, Javier Aristu, 2014

Leveling contingencies

Well, the TTIP it aims to standardize these differences, and on either side of these barriers or restrictions —called contingencies— want to be equivalent by both parties of the agreement. But the fact is, to achieve this, clearly Europe will have to do more lax regulations for all, because if what is needed is leveling Europe, must necessarily lower the level of its laws towards new and less restrictive. As Juan Torres López, specialist in Applied Economy and member of the Scientific Council of ATTAC, says in an interview for the website DailyMotion, this agreement as to the contingencies will mean three major changes:

1 —The agreement will make the exchange of products equivalence is established,what is good there, here is good too , the rules are standardized, and products that are banned here may be marketed and therefore consumed. Some examples are:  with hormone-treated beef and veal, turkey and chicken cleaning with  chlorine or greater number of transgenic products, all hitherto banned in the EU. And it is not necessary contained on labels —another fundamental difference—.

2 —Laws and specific courts for what is called ‘investment protection’. If an investor or company operates for example in the same sector as the public, can ask the same condition or better to compete with it freely and therefore the public sector be left unprotected.

3 —Creation of specific courts for such regulations, that historical experience with similar treaties said to be discrete and silent publicly and often highly arbitrary.

In short, an authentic and definitive blow to democracy and sovereignty of nations, governments and the public sector. A final blow to the emerging economies, because the West is allying with the West —US and EU account for 60% of global GDP—, but with the freedom to continue relocating. And finally, the triumph of one of the two tendencies in struggle, the no democratization and free markets where the maximum benefit reigns above all else, nature, individual rights and society. The treaty still in negotiations now; the Commissioner DeGucht, one of his captains, said that negotiations should remain confidential until its end. The deal could be in place later this year or early next. In Spain, on May 6 2014, IU raised a referendum for TTIP which was rejected by voting against PP, PSOE, CiU, PNV and UPyD, i.e., all major parties. One last item of interest: nine of the ten parts that make up the treaty negotiators are formed by lobbyists and corporations.

Bye bye Old Continent, hello Mc Donald’s! What can we do?

Related posts
array(2) { [0]=> int(899) [1]=> int(25) }
array(4) { [0]=> object(WP_Post)#1643 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(2232) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2055" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2012-05-28 00:04:03" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2012-05-27 22:04:03" ["post_content"]=> string(6450) "La no violencia activa es una táctica de protesta, relacionada con la desobediencia civil, que propugna el logro de un cambio político, social y cultural revolucionario sin necesidad del empleo de la violencia. El término se acuña en los años 30 y 40 del siglo XX con el movimiento de independencia indio liderado por Mahatma Gandhi, que a su vez se inspiró en León Tolstói, con quien incluso mantuvo correspondencia, y en el escritor y filósofo estadounidense Henry D. Thoreau. Aunque ha habido numerosos ejemplos posteriores y bien conocidos, como Martin Luther King y Jesse Jackson en Estados Unidos, la Revolución de los Claveles en Portugal o el sindicato Solidaridad de Lech Walesa en Polonia, también existen sólidos éxitos anteriores en la aplicación de estos métodos: los finlandeses consiguieron mayor autonomía de la Rusia zarista en 1905, Hungría se independizó de Austria en 1867 y los plebeyos romanos se rebelaron contra los patricios por sus derechos como ciudadanos, en la que quizá sea la lucha sin violencia original. W_novecento
Las luchas plebeyas suponen el origen de las huelgas generales, que tan bien retrató el cineasta Bernardo Bertolucci en su película 'Novecento' —'El cuarto Estado', Giuseppe Pellizza da Volpedo, 1901
La lucha plebeya consistió en realidad en varios episodios, conocidos como Secessio plebis —Secesión de los plebeyos—, que sucedieron entre el año 494 y el 287 aC, siendo los más importantes el primero y el último. En el año 494 aC organizaron una especie de huelga general que paralizó la ciudad y amenazaron con crear una nueva comunidad independiente en el Monte Sacro, a las afueras de Roma. La protesta culminó con un acuerdo, conocido como Lex duodecim tabularum —Ley de las XII tablas—, que contenía evidentes mejoras para la vida de la plebe y pasa por ser el origen del Derecho Romano. En el año 287 aC paralizaron de nuevo la ciudad y volvieron a echarse al monte, esta vez al Monte Aventino, y el Senado de la República terminó aceptando las decisiones de la asamblea de la plebe —plebis scitum— como contenido válido para crear leyes, por encima incluso de la voluntad de los legisladores. W_banksyflowers
Se puede luchar con flores —'Flower Thrower', Banksy, 2005
Active non-violence is a protest tactic, related to civil disobedience, which calls for a revolutionary politic, social and cultural change without the use of violence. The term was coined in the 30s and 40s of the XXth century with the Indian independent movement led by Mahatma Gandhi, which in turn was inspired by Leo Tolstoy, to whom he even wrote letters, and the American writer and philosopher Henry D. Thoreau. Although there have been numerous later and well-known examples such as Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson in the United States, the Carnation Revolution in Portugal or the Solidarity Union of Lech Walesa in Poland, there are also solid past success in the application of these methods: Finns won greater autonomy from the Tsarist Russia en 1905, Hungary’s independence from Austria in 1867 and Roman commoners revolted against the patricians for their citizens rights in what it may be the first non-violence fight. W_novecento
The plebeian struggles suppose the origin of the general strikes, which the filmmaker Bernardo Bertolucci portrayed so well in his film 'Novecento' —'The Fourth State', Giuseppe Pellizza da Volpedo, 1901
The commoner fight actually consisted in several episodes known as Secessio Plebis —Commoner’s Secession— which happened between 394 and 287 BC, the most important being the first and the last. In the year 494 BC, they organized a kind of general strike which paralyzed the city and threatened to create a new independent community in the Monte Sacro, on the outskirts of Rome. The protest culminated in an agreement, known as Lex Duodecim Tabularum —Law of the XII Tables—, which contained obvious improvements for peoples’ life and it is considered as the origin of Roman Law. In 287 BC they paralyzed the city again and took the mountains again, these time the Monte Aventino, and the Senate finally accepted the commoner’s decisions —plebis scitum— as a valid content to create laws, even above legislators’ will. W_banksyflowers
You can fight with flowers —'Flower Thrower', Banksy, 2005
" ["post_title"]=> string(92) "Nadie manda si nadie obedeceNo one rules if no one obeys" ["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(28) "no-one-rules-if-no-one-obeys" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2021-06-13 14:23:06" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2021-06-13 12:23:06" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=2232" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "2" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [1]=> object(WP_Post)#1630 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(5216) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2013-09-09 00:01:57" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2013-09-08 22:01:57" ["post_content"]=> string(1703) "'La vida, y no solo la humana, será la protagonista del futuro'. Fundador de Ideas for Change, un think-tank estratégico para clientes como Telefónica, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, el Gobierno Vasco o el Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, Javier está considerado uno de los principales estrategas y pensadores sobre economía colaborativa, modelos de negocio P2P e innovación ciudadana en España. Ha sido planificador estratégico freelance para la mayoría de las mejores agencias de publicidad del país y profesor de marketing en ESADE, además de co-fundador de Digital Mood y del espacio multidisciplinar @kubik. Co-autor del libro 'No somos hormigas', publica regularmente en la revista Yorokubu y es miembro activo de Open Knowledge Foundation, Ouishare, The School of Commons y MLove.'Life, and not only human life, will be the protagonist of the future'. Founder of Ideas for Change, a strategic think-tank for clients such as Telefónica, Open University of Catalonia, the Bask Goverment or the City Council of Barcelona, Javier is considered to be one of the primary strategists and thought leaders in collaborative economy, open and P2P business models, citizen innovation and the networked society in Spain. He has been a freelance strategic planner for many of the most creative agencies in Spain, co founder of Digital Mood incubator and @kubik multidisciplinary space, and services marketing professor at ESADE. Co-author of 'No somos hormigas' (We are not ants), publishes regularily at Yorokobu magazine and is an active member of the Open Knowledge Foundation, Ouishare, The School of Commons and MLove." ["post_title"]=> string(112) "WHAT ABOUT: El futuro por Javier CreusWHAT ABOUT: The future by Javier Creus" ["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(37) "what-about-the-future-by-javier-creus" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2021-05-05 15:01:28" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2021-05-05 13:01:28" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=5216" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [2]=> object(WP_Post)#1644 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(4613) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2013-04-15 00:01:01" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2013-04-14 22:01:01" ["post_content"]=> string(2684) "'La libertad como la conocemos hoy, sin límites, no va a existir en 30 ó 50 años'. Economista jefe y líder del equipo regional de Desarrollo Humano y Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio en la Dirección Regional para América Latina y el Caribe del PNUD —Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo— en Nueva York, George viene del Instituto Alternativo, donde condujo investigaciones sobre desarrollo económico, sostenibilidad ambiental, pobreza e inequidad en América Latina. Previamente fue miembro de la sociedad de Líderes Globales de la Escuela de Asuntos Públicos e Internacionales Woodrow Wilson, en las Universidades de Princeton y Oxford, donde su investigación estaba enfocada en nichos de crecimiento económico dentro de economías de bajo crecimiento. Fue también investigador asociado del Centro de Investigación sobre Desigualdad, Etnicidad y Seguridad Humana —CRISE— de Oxford y miembro del Centro Diálogo Interamericano en Washington. Entre 2004 y 2008 fue coordinador del Informe de Desarrollo Humano PNUD en Bolivia, y contribuyó al Informe de Desarrollo Humano Global durante 2008 y 2009. Fue director de la Unidad de Análisis de Política Económica del Gobierno Boliviano —UDAPE— y director del Programa de Maestría en Política Pública de la Universidad Católica de ese país. George tiene además un doctorado en Filosofía y Política de la Universidad de Oxford, un máster en Política Pública de la Kennedy School of Government de la Universidad de Harvard y un pregrado en Economía y Antropología de la Universidad de Cornell.'Freedom as we know it, without limits, will not exist in 30 or 50 years'. Chief Economist in the Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean at UNDP —United Nations Development Programme— in New York, he is currently working on poverty and inequality research in the region, middle income challenges and measurement of subjective well-being. In his home country, Bolivia, he was the coordinator of the Bolivian Human Development Report Office and the lead author for four National Human Development reports, between 2004 and 2008. From 2002 to 2004, he was director of the Bolivian Ministry of the Presidency’s social and economic think-tank, UDAPE —Unidad de Análisis de Políticas Sociales y Económicas—, and Coordinator of the Catholic University’s Public Policy Master’s Programme, MpD from 2000 to 2002. George holds a BA in Anthropology and Economics from Cornell University, an MPP in Public Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and a DPhil in Politics from Nuffield College, University of Oxford." ["post_title"]=> string(124) "WHAT ABOUT: El futuro por George Gray MolinaWHAT ABOUT: The future by George Gray Molina" ["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(43) "what-about-the-future-by-george-gray-molina" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2021-05-05 15:07:49" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2021-05-05 13:07:49" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=4613" ["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)#1799 (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" } }