From Zero Sum War to Win-Win Life Support



Fear is the starting point of our actions or inactions, of every thought we create and act upon. Why is this? Well, because we haven’t mostly learned how to consider each other in our actions or inactions – we haven’t learned how to communicate in order to establish agreements to, for example, get to share things in a way where all involved are considered and so, no one would have to fight to get their ‘share of the pie’ so to speak. Fear is what drives us to want to ‘secure’ our resources or get someone else’s because we fear not having enough for tomorrow – or simply wanting to have more just to have more power, more control, more ‘security’ which is once again all coming from fearing losing it all, and ultimately fearing our own death. This sounds like the reason for wars at the moment and one would tend to look at it as a problem between nations only, however, this within each one of us and it has to exist within us first in order to now ‘make sense’ and justify wars as righteous actions to secure (grab, steal) someone else’s resources/territory or people to serve as slaves – this might sound ‘outdated’ or how it was in the old days, however things haven’t really changed no matter how much ‘evolved’ we might be with all our super-powers to crate all of these technological gadgets and plan super-sustainable cities, which is great but one thing is certain: if we do not change our starting point from Fear toward a genuine principle of cooperation, solidarity, communication, ability to work together, to share, to establish agreements, to consider each other’s right to live in dignity = it will be rather difficult to get to any real evolution.

The reason why we cannot continue following a system of ‘morals’ of right and wrong is because that is the foundation of our ‘justice’ mind construct. For example, what one grows up believing is ‘right’ and ‘fair’ in America might not be the same as what someone in Russia grows up learning is right – in one or the other war can be justified as a means to ‘secure one’s homeland’ and in the other war is seen as a self-destructive action and last resort, while agreeing that it is right to stock on nuclear weapons to ‘defend our people.’ The point here being that in common sense, there cannot be any ‘right’ or ‘righteousness’ in promoting war or defense tactics, because the obvious principled living point is missed: how to Not wage wars but rather learn how to communicate, to know what each other is fearing, to know what each faction is requiring and so get to establish agreements, solutions where both or all parts are considering self-responsibility. Oh wow, such a simplistic way to avoid stocking on nuclear weapons or spending 20 million dollars a day on warfare while we starve 2+ billions of people and destroy the most precious resources we have on Earth! So you tell me whether there’s anything ‘righteous’ or common sensical in war as in there being any ‘fair’ or ‘just’ excuse to wage it…. There is NONE.

Where do we as ‘the people of the world’ fit in this scheme? Well, as much as we would like to think wars are a problem of the ‘super high spheres in society,’ it is not really only ‘them’ that have the ultimate say to wage wars. We all do this within ourselves, against each other, all the time. Have a look at our own thoughts, how much inner conflict we create within ourselves that we eventually create into actual problems between one another and ‘against someone’ just because we want to defend what we believe is ‘right’ which is actually – as the justifications for wars show – an excuse, a reason, a justification to get benefits for oneself and so justify doing ‘whatever it takes’ to get them. In this world, it is rather – unfortunately – common to have to lie, cheat, deceive, fool and abuse another/others in order to get ‘what one wants.’

One might think this is not so at all, because one plays ‘fair’ – but can there be any real fairness in this world in fact? Can there be any real cleanliness we even ignores how money is created as debt to tie us to a system of enslavement and how the very life we trade with is embedded in a monetary system that devalues life and ponders money as the right over life? No, no one can really escape from the actual thwarted foundation that moves every single cent in this world. This is no different to how we justify the means to get to an end, where we as individuals do not really question the outflows and consequences of us wanting to get something/someone in certain place that benefits us as individuals.

We rarely – if not never genuinely – consider everyone that is directly or indirectly involved and affected by our decisions, by our actions and how within creating of our world system a zero sum game – where one’s earnings is another’s loss – we actually bite our own tail all the time, because we have missed the understanding that by denying another’s growth and wellbeing is shooting ourselves in the leg as well, because we are all in fact interconnected by the sheer realization that we live in the same world. This is not a spiritual or metaphysical connotation here, but quite a factual aspect of our lives in this world.

Therefore, when we decide to go against others to get what we want, within following our fear to have none or our desire to have more, within believing that control and power are real as they make us even ‘more powerful’ and so intimidating others to not mess with us, we become in fact our own worst enemy – no matter who you are, where you are, what ‘right or wrong’ morality you base your actions on: physical laws of action and consequence dictate that the moment that we disregard a part of the whole and wage war against it = everyone else will be affected.


War Against Life - Democracy Against War

Maybe we will only realize this when it is too late and we have no resources to wage war on… we haven’t consider that everything in this world is alive and that our very decisions and principles dictate how we create ourselves, how we shape our reality, how we create or destroy life around us – being humans, animals, plants, the ecosystem in itself. What nature is showing us is that if we continue ‘waging war’ against each other, nature/ the animal kingdom will also demonstrate the outflows of our inability to coexist in harmony, maybe that’s what we require to see in order to wake up from our warmongering slumber.

Ultimately, isn’t it that all that we want is our secured access to resources, to live at peace and in dignity? Then why haven’t we yet actually worked on creating a system that guarantees just that? Why haven’t we placed our collective effort and work in gear to get that done and secured? Makes no sense to only keep ‘fighting injustice’ and ‘fighting against terror’ which is a paradox in itself, we have to instead focus on living the principles that we want to see reflected in this world .

If we want fairness and Justice we have to create it from within ourselves: to consider at all times what is Best for All, to do onto another as we would like to be done onto ourselves as ‘they’ are also ‘me’ as well, to give as I would like to receive and to ensure that no harm or abuse is waged in means of one’s benefit – that must be recognized as self-destruction, period.

So, there can be no excuse to not give to each other the right to a guaranteed Living Income, which is a first stepping stone to get everyone their share of the economy, no matter how thwarted it is in its foundation at the moment – this is a first step to begin straightening the crooked tree we have all allowed to grow ‘by itself’ without any clear definition of what we want that money to be. Our current zero sum economic system is our collective consequence, it is our responsibility, so we have to begin placing solutions to get everyone on the playing field, so that then we can look at how to best generate fairness embedded in the way that money is created, in the way that our laws are created – which would be turned into living principles that do not focus only on ‘punishing people,’ but rather on preventing crime, on preventing war, on preventing inequality, on preventing spite and desire for power. These are the living principles we have missed as humanity – we are witnessing the results of this as ongoing wars and environmental degradation keep going on until we one day we might find there’s no more clean water to drink, no bees to pollinate our flowers, no food to fill our stomachs with, no trust between one another at all and no strength to survive – that would be most undesirable chaos.

We are at a crossroads here: either we connect the dots and realize how we are waging a war against ourselves on all fronts, stop and decide to rather focus on collaborating, developing solidarity and implementing solutions that guarantee our decision to cooperate and coexist supporting one another or we obliterate ourselves.

I suggest we rather gear our minds, our bodies and our intentions to focus on establishing and creating solutions to prevent getting ourselves to that worst case scenario where no ‘win’ can exist – let’s prevent our children having to come to us and ask us why we didn’t do anything to stop this mess.

There’s still time, but it’s running out…. It is now or never that we create a world-system where no one ends up losing and everyone actually wins.

Join us and Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed: The Proposal

Environmental Sustainability LIG

Democracy Against War Now:

Nice Guys Will Finish First– Living Income Guaranteed


Nice guys don't finish last, we run a different Human Race


I’ve pondered many times why we tend as a society ‘shoot ourselves in the leg’ which means not cooperating, most likely bashing each other just to ‘get to the top first’ and do anything required to get such desirable success, position of power or having ‘more than others’ which even at times implies damaging, abusing and harming others which is the foundation of this current dog-eat-dog world.

We can ask ourselves: well, why aren’t we working in a win-win type of mentality where we are living in solidarity and we cooperate and we get to live in mutual reciprocity as individuals? And in researching a bit more into this, you get to find Game Theory of course which is essentially that mathematical assessment behind all our decisions when for example, seeing ourselves in a game with two or more people wherein essentially there is a choice available: to either act in the interest of both/all the players involved or you decide to simply act in selfishness, in self-interest and only care for your own benefit – the latter seems to be the most popular and common drive of our everyday decisions.

What has been demonstrated in the BBC Production by Richard Dawkins Nice guys finish first – is that this kind of behavior has been observed in human beings playing games wherein they have to continually decide either to cooperate with the other players – which would actually lead them to make more points/more money whichever they are gambling or gaming for – than if they only think that ‘you know I rather get ahead of you first because I know that you will most likely retaliate back – in this we’re constantly existing in a ‘defensive mode’ because of knowing beforehand that we tend to – from the get-go – act in self-interest and so protect ourselves from others’ attack. So he actually shows how people seldom begin with a cooperative starting point or in a mutually supportive frame of mind.

Within this what is explained as a supportive game strategy is known as Tit for Tat. So for example, if the other player decides to cooperate, then you follow through with that decision the player made and cooperate back – so if the other person defects, then you defect as well which means: ‘If you jump = I jump’ – ‘if you don’t = then I don’t jump.’ So in this, there is a sense of stagnation as in there’s no perceived major loss or major win – yet, this is perceived as a ‘stagnant’ because there is no agreed or explicit agreement established to Cooperate and so build up together, because it would be possible to create such framework or starting point IF we as human beings for example explicitly decided to cooperate and to have a mutually beneficial foundation and so, made a decision to work together, to have an agreement to make of Success something that is Beneficial for both parts – instead of just for a few individuals.

So in this Tit for Tat strategy, success is in a way guaranteed because it is always like playing ‘nice’ or playing ‘clean’ – whereas it is also proven that people that decide to play ‘dirty’ or ‘cheating’ eventually end up at the bottom fighting/playing against each other and so losing – of course in some games they are meant to be the winners. So then we have to also consider how games are structured to make of the people that cheat, that lie, that play ‘dirty’ the ones that get to win. It’s then the rules of the game which we have to change in order to decide cui bono in our everyday social agreements.


Giving and Receiving


Success is currently measured with whether you are ‘winning’ over another individual – or it could become the definition of creating a supportive, cooperative outcome wherein all parties involved that cooperate with one another get equally benefited – this is the definition of win-win solutions, it is the definition of what is Best for All.

But the reason why this doesn’t work as such yet is because our usual first move, our first starting point, our first decision is not founded upon the consideration of ‘I’m going to Cooperate’ ‘I’m going to Bid for the Common Good/ For the Common Goal’ and instead, the immediate and innate move is actually out of Fear, out of ‘wanting to survive’ first, out of wanting to be ‘The Fittest’ – and this is where the whole Survival of the Fittest mentality has been actually blatantly used and made popular to manipulate our own – and already existent – desire to survive and desire to get the most money and desire to be the strongest because we have considered that That is ‘the most power’ one can get and so the meaning of success.

But if we look at it: it is simply an idea, an equation in our minds that ‘the one that gets the most, is the most powerful/the most successful’ – yes of course, at an individual basis you can have all the money and be the king of the hill, but if you look at the entire reality it’s as if you cannot really get into a better position economically speaking without making someone poorer or diminishing their ability to improve themselves too, or taking from the others to make yourself richer – which is the what’s currently happening with our growing inequality: some accumulate wealth and so provoking economic stagnation at all levels of society.

So in our economic system, we have to come to an Agreement – a without-greed solution as the sound of the word a = without and greed – that we don’t have to continue living in this mentality of ‘Survivalism’ and ‘Fighting for each other’s desire to win,’ but instead realizing that the greater success, the most stable relationships, the most reliable and cooperative systems start when both/all parties involved as the whole community or society decides to act in the interest of everyone. So that’s the real definition of success wherein it is no longer the ‘Survival of the Fittest’ mentality which has been exploited from what has been witnessed in the animal world. So it’s as anything, you get to be conditioned to then also fight for your own survival once that throughout time, throughout various cycles of relationships between individuals one gets to realize that ‘well if I don’t get anything back with me cooperating, I don’t want to remain the sucker, so now I’m going to fight once again to get to my own success.’

Richard Dawkins explains the value that is implied within self to have that starting point of ‘being nice’ or ‘playing nice’ which is deciding to be cooperative, to look for the common good – and to also not immediately retaliate when seeing that the other one is defecting/ not cooperating or attacking, because then: once that one gives into that attack, of course you become part of the ‘cheaters’ as the ones that play ‘dirty’ and so forth.

Nice guys race

All of this of course boils down to what should be a common agreement: instead of constantly fearing that one and another is able to win over you or that you have to attack to get the most. Why don’t we rather realize that if we build up societies that can cooperate with one another, it will be easier to keep each other alive and eventually efface or weed out and purge the abusers, the greedy ones and make them extinct because one can actually decide that: if you get the benefit = then you have to give back to society for example. And so giving that starting point: if you get this benefit, then you must cooperate, then you must be considered part of the whole group. Because what we tend to do as human beings is that of course we want to get the benefits but we don’t want to really do something, in terms of reciprocity and giving something back, which is not the expected ‘forced labor’ type of mentality, but simply regarding one’s life to be a +1 person that can contribute to make things work in a supportive manner in this world.

So we have to teach each other that selfish mentality leads us to parasitical relationships wherein some work for example and some others don’t yet benefit from the taxes paid by the ones that do work. And that’s actually one of the main and common type of dissonances that exist whenever someone talks about providing a Living Income or Money for people to live, and they say ‘well there’s always going to be someone that will be benefiting from you’ and do just like the Cheaters in the game that will simply get the benefit but they won’t give anything back. But if we don’t create a platform and an actual system that can work in a symbiotic manner, in a reciprocal supportive foundation, then we just create this mind game within ourselves as individuals, which is the starting point of our speculative financial system in fact. Instead of rather realizing ‘well, what in this system – for example in our economic system – is working in a way that this kind of abuse can happen? Why haven’t we established the rules of the game in such a way that if we cooperate, we get used to the idea of mutual or reciprocal benefit as the road to success?

And so we can instead educate ourselves of the various ways we’ve come to destroy each other – and even the initial self-interested individual will be left out and won’t be able to ‘win’ any longer – if they don’t get into the new societal principle which is ‘you support me, I support you, we support each other to win.’




So in essence, it’s quite interesting because game theory or ‘gaming’ in itself wouldn’t exist in such a complex manner if the starting point of both players was obviously to support each other as equals – the ‘struggle,’ the ‘fighting’ and the eventual conquering of one over the other would simply not exist. Therefore, we actually make our lives very complicated when we are constantly ‘strategizing’ and ‘scheming ways to win,’ cheat and live by the law of the least effort.

We have been indoctrinated culturally – and maybe even at a genetic level –  that you have to win, you have to get the most, because you can die if you don’t get the most, if you don’t hoard all that you can because that’s your security, that’s where the power resides, that’s what success is: to get the most. And in that, any sense of cooperation, common agreement, commonality, common ground … all of that is feared – why? Because no one wants to end up being ‘the sucker’ which is explained also in the video on how tickbirds cooperate with each other to take off each other’s tics. So there are three kinds of tickbirds. First kind are the ones that cooperate between each other, then there are the ones that take the ticks off birds ‘B’ but birds ‘B’ decide that they don’t want to cooperate and take off the ticks of the other bird, so that makes him a cheater. But then, there’s the third kind: the ‘sucker’ who is the bird that goes taking off ticks and he never gets anything back meaning, no one takes his ticks off. So, both that lose are the one that abuses the others’ voluntary move to take off his tics, and also the sucker because the sucker is actually doing it all for others – but he’s not looking after himself either.

That’s also interesting when it comes to this idea that you have to give to everyone else but not to yourself because that is also not considering yourself as an equal, it’s just the law of equality that can really get things stable which means: not abusing, not devaluing yourself either, but just finding that equilibrium which in all ways, it’s simply acting in the best interest of everyone. And within this, learning that there are more benefits in fact when we cooperate and we consider each other’s benefit than if we live in this constant ‘scheming’ as an offense-defense balance which, if you study International Politics for example, that’s the whole thing that you learn, offense-defense balance: if you attack me = I’ll retaliate, if you retaliate this way = I’ll retaliate this other greater way – if you stop shooting = then I will also stop shooting.

And we are witnessing this right now with the whole sanction process between Russia and the US, it’s the whole cold war scenario and the sanctions are actually going to be upgraded toward Russia. So Russia had been quite ‘pacific’ within this all, it had taken certain measures to ban certain foods from the EU producers, but now it’s like ‘Ok so if you US/EU upgrade these sanctions = I will also upgrade my sanction which will be airplanes won’t be able to fly over Russian airspace.’ So what are we witnessing here? The actual development or starting point of wars in essence, it’s the war mentality and as I’ve explained in the beginning this exists within us even when we play a silly board game wherein we are constantly scheming how can we win, how can we cheat, how can we get the most and so in essence we end up abusing each other, destroying each other and getting the least success.

This is something that I’ve been very aware of in the society that I live in wherein I would see that corruption is the king of the world – or at least very, very common and socially acceptable. And I also saw this for myself when even playing this board games like monopoly and so forth, whenever I didn’t play ‘dirty’ or ‘greedy’ I would obviously lose because I was expecting everyone else to be equally ‘good’ or ‘compassionate’ and I was around 6-7 years old. And that’s when I got told by my older cousins that ‘You know, if you continue that way you won’t ever win. This world is about cheating, it’s about being greedy, it’s about making others suffer’ That was my enlightening revelation of how the world operated similar to a Monopoly game.

And that’s in essence the tragedy that we have created when we’ve come to believe that “Success = Winning over others” instead of realizing that REAL Success implies cooperating and establishing win-win solutions that benefit everyone.




So we actually have to create a common agreement, a pre-planned system to get cooperation going and so maximize the benefits for everyone – and I’m actually paraphrasing what Richard Dawkins said. Why haven’t we done this at an economic level? Why do we keep shooting ourselves in the leg?

It’s about time that we completely get this notion of ‘The Survival of the Fittest’ as our starting point in reality out of the equation and rather realize that it is cooperation and reciprocity and mutual benefit that creates the real success, that is and should have always been the law of how this physical world and ecosystems operate – that is what makes it prevail, function and be sustainable – not the constant wars fighting to get each other’s land, money, territory, wives, etc. because it really exists at all levels in our minds: constant competition, constant desire to retaliate, constantly ‘watching out’ what the others’ move are so that we can then decide how we act.

I do also agree that in order to make this work, we do require to unite because that’s what makes the strength. As I mentioned, if I was playing with my cousins and they were all playing the ‘cheater’ mode and I was playing in the ‘cooperative’ mode, obviously I was the one that lost every time – but what if it was four ‘cooperative’ ones vs. two ‘cheaters’ and the games was designed to support the cooperative ones?

We decide the rules of the game, we decide that it is about time that we make the cooperative ones the successful ones, the ones that are aligned to the new principles that we have to create to make our world function for the betterment of everyone. So this is absolutely what I want to create and what is also proposed as part of the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal, we aren’t fighting against ‘the powers that be’ – we don’t want to leave anyone ‘out of the equation.’ An Equation in Equality means: Everyone Benefits – yes. And that is a Win-Win Solution and that is what will ensure that we realize that No Wars will be required, that we don’t have to constantly ‘aim’ at winning over others through abusing them, but rather live the realization that if we enhance our living skills and personal development while supporting each other to create mutual benefit, we will all thrive as a civilization – and that’s the new Race that will redefine our humanity. This is the kind of change that we must create within ourselves to make of any provision of a living income an effective solution to our world crisis.

Providing a Living Income as a Living Right will prevent us from making our first decision based on survival and fear and so agree to have a clear starting point to support our common success.

Watch: BBC Horizon – Nice Guys Finish First (Richard Dawkins, 1987)

Win Win Negotiation


EU’s Basic Income Petition: What NOW?

285,041 people signed for the Universal Basic Income Petition in Europe but why didn’t it reach the million?

First of all, I agree that the petition in itself – no matter what the result is – has brought the idea of Basic Income to more people’s ears and eyes, making it known that there can be a way to fund each other’s right to have access to what we require to live as a fundamental human right. However, along the presentation of the petition, there is no explanation or proposition as to how the Basic Income can be financed… and this is from my perspective the ‘missing link’ to genuinely have people being interested about it and not merely see it as some kind of “indefinite unemployment benefits” or an unregulated form of welfare for everyone.

What might be a problem is that in the mind of the people that work, the idea of providing unconditional money to live sounds like ‘adding more taxes so that everyone can have unconditional income for the rest of their life’ – and as we know this also sounds like demotivation for people to take on a job and ‘be a productive member of society.’

So we have to first address the common fears that emerge when being presented with such a petition without presenting the plan, the scheme, the economic model that will enable the provision of a basic income in a sustainable manner. This is what is missing and I do say that it is a flaw since it is quite obvious that we are all living in such constant stress and worry about money, that the sheer idea of having to have more of your income cut by higher taxes to fund another form of ‘social security’ sounds like another burden to deal with, it would simply worsen things in a person’s mind when the whole picture is not considered, such as how paying lower wages and having to fund unemployment benefits and have ever growing poverty rates do not only affect those that ‘have no money’ but everyone gets equally affected since less money means less buyers, less economic vitality, more crimes, more health problems, more unemployment hence more stress, anxiety, survival tricks  that those with money also are affected with. However when this is not entirely presented and provided as immediate information and a reason to vote for a Basic Income, a person will simply act based on keeping the (limited but ‘known’) status quo and refrain from even getting to know more about Basic Income and its proven benefits to society. 

Another aspect is how there are no clear explanations as to how it will be funded.

Here is Enno Schmidt, an artist that took on once again the idea of Basic Income and placed it back on the table in Switzerland

Enno Schmidt of Switzerland’s Basic Income Initiative collected 100,000 signatures to provide every adult citizen with $2,800/month. See more videos: http://therealnews.com


We agree that Value Added Tax is a plausible way to fund a Basic Income/ Living Income, however the sheer idea of having to maybe inflate prices becomes yet another usual fear which we have addressed in the following post for your investigation: 

Will the Living Income Guaranteed cause Inflation?


Problem is that Switzerland is not a member of the EU, hence Enno’s perspectives didn’t make it into the petition itself either. This left the petition with a gap that was unresolved and eventually lead to people most likely not voting for this petition either out of not being aware of it, or fearing inflation, higher taxes, jobless people and so forth which in the mind of any person sound like a threat to everyone’s stability.


So, the suggestion we have for the European Citizens’ Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income is to structure the petition in such a way that the ‘How the Basic Income will be Funded’ usual question becomes part of the first points that one person reads into the petition. The Living Income Guaranteed encompasses a set of mechanisms created and developed by the Equal Life Foundation wherein we explain how the provision of a Basic Income can be made genuinely sustainable as a citizen’s share of the economy.

We all agree that providing an income to have a dignified living is a Human Right, however this world at the moment doesn’t operate by opting to fund people’s right to life, but how it will directly affect those that are already having the most money and that includes you and I as the people that have sufficient money to be educating ourselves and creating solutions for those that are already in such tight and harsh financial position, that it is impossible to even become aware that there are solutions, and that we all can support funding it for each other if we establish the best way to give and receive our right to life.


From the European Citizens’ Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income campaign’s website:

“Before January 14, 2014, we have to collect one million statements of support with minimum numbers reached for at least 7 member states.
If we collect one million statements of support for Basic Income from the 500 million inhabitants of the European Union, the European Commission will have to examine our initiative carefully and arrange for a public hearing in the European Parliament.”


We also suggest to expand the notion of basic income beyond the EU along with a scheme that will be also supportive for people to understand how a Living Income will benefit everyone financially in different ways according to how each one desires to live and wishes to make money to live.  And that’s why we say: no need to resort to fund the Living Income/ Basic Income by Personal Taxes – but instead investigate how we the people can be directly benefited by the use and sales of resources and public services through processes like nationalization.

Therefore, there are many ways in which the petition of a Basic Income can be transformed into a political proposal that new political parties take on as their main proposal, this way it will mean that countries won’t have to wait for an entire union to decide to look into the basic income proposal, and instead directly propose it at a national level since it is much easier to work country by country than attempting to have an entire set of 1 million scattered throughout the European Union saying yes to it without the specifics.


I also agree since it is our duty as citizens to understand, that if we are asking for a solution: we also have the responsibility to explain the various options and ways in which such basic income can be funded  – and by taking on this point, the reality of our current system and economy will have to invariably be considered when asking for a basic income.

We got the solutions proposed, it’s time to expand beyond the definition of ‘basic income’ as ‘providing an unconditional amount of money to every person’ as said by Barb Jacobson, coordinator of the European Citizens Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income in the UK, who gave very valid points but also diminished the Basic Income to being simply money that is unconditionally given – and that’s it. This sounds unrealistic without giving right away the ways in which is can be funded and provided as a human right. It’s part of our responsibility to inform ourselves on the ways we can contribute to perfecting this idea of a basic income and how to make it economically viable, otherwise it becomes just something we ‘ask for’ without considering all parts of involved, which would imply learning how to market it within the current state and condition of us running our lives in our current chronically-in-crisis system: we created it, so we must create and present the solutions as well.


Time to refine the petition to a political proposal that is backed by political parties in Europe and around the globe – let’s make of the notion of basic income a comprehensive economic and political model that can be implemented in any nation around the globe and present it as the genuine win-win solution it can be – and for this, research the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal..



Let’s continue educating ourselves and the world about the benefits of providing each other the ability to live in dignity.