Wednesday, 25 February 2015

Can Cryptography Solve the Basic Income Challenge?


Narigamba Mwinsuubo
narigamba@gmail.com

There has been much talk lately about Basic Income within the Pirate Party, which aims to empower individuals such as providing Basic Income which naturally fits the idea. However, it’s traditionally also been a movement which aims to stop government overreach into people’s personal lives, and as such, Basic Income could empower the government more than what may be desired. But what about if there’s another alternative to provide Basic Income, voluntary Basic Income, so that only people who wants to participate have to? With a little help from the Bitcoin blockchain ledger.

Arguments targeting tax increases and deficits of government are generally based on the assumption that projects such as hospitals, roads, schools etc. are more important to improve national economies.
On the contrary, these government funding projects are coercively inadequate with all sorts of unpleasant consequences including widespread poverty.

It appears the reasons why people are skeptical towards a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is centered on our financial mess from post economic crashes and also because interest on savings is so poor, but in the view of our economic endeavor, one of the reasons, interest on savings is so poor, especially in Africa is because people keep rates high to fuel credit bubbles better still, a rise to self justifying arguments against rate because of the inevitable foreclosures that follow.

If I was being cynical, I'd say the elemental minds of the government haven’t changed since civilization and it will stop at nothing to its attempted voyage, but while the quarry has fallacies and media deceptions as its ally to control the circulation of money, we have cryptocurrencies.
    “Imagine we were in a system where crypto was the network for UBI - equal distribution of bitcoins to everyone suitable for their basic needs to build homes and empower the unemployed tied down by a large computer system to do the jobs they are qualified to do, allowing people to have freedom in all aspects of living that are financed. A system where all merchants, shops, markets, hospitals, institutions, etc. accepted bitcoin as the medium of exchange”
When we understand the need for a Universal Basic Income to be available and mobile for the poor and unemployed to go a lot smoother with no strings attached, cryptocurrency could be the best network to reduce the measure of third party involvement the fact that it cannot be controlled by central banks where people could easily receive a basic income via their cell phones inconsiderate of going through a whole bunch of processes or queues.   

Equal distribution of cryptocurrency can replace credit and if everyone has bitcoins to satisfy their living expenses, everyone would be better off, eliminating credit and the poor social class.
“Let us expose the fraud and have all our income distributed from the subtle counter -punches of our coerced outcomes and contributions in bitcoins from welfare taking precautionary measures to remedy the situation of poverty amongst the unemployed.”

Many sophisticated critics on the basic income place emphasis that people will stop working when they are entitled to a basic income, but Yes, a lot of people will just screw around, but they are largely the kind of person that would not do anything else anyway. Human creation will continue and probably increase.
People continue to do stuff even when they don't get paid for it; people will probably do more as they have free time to do it; I expect that a culture of competitive volunteerism and personal achievement will evolve out of a society in which basic requirements are met.

People spend ridiculous amounts of time making stuff of no monetary utility.
For example, most of the content on the internet including some of the best contents like Wikipedia is created entirely voluntarily.
People developed and coordinated Linux/Ubuntu on an entirely voluntary basis.
A great deal of classical science was done by the leisure class or in the spare time of the working class. Gallileos, Newton, Leibenitz, Di Vinci, Mendel, and on making many of their greatest works completely outside of any monetary incentive.
An Oxford study projects that 47% of all American jobs will be automated within a decade, meaning tens of millions of people will be out of work. A Universal Basic Income will allow these people to not only keep their homes and put food on the table, but enable them to actually put time and effort into increasing their education, therefore allowing them to find better jobs and continuing to contribute to the economy.

A Universal Basic Income is just a stepping stone to get people from the burden of economic slavery and empowering them to make the most of their lives within the current system and giving them the change to make the system better themselves. Impending it in a first world country might not have the same impact, but in a place like Africa to start would  in five years be one of the healthiest economies on earth continent wide. The quality of life will drastically improve as a dramatic example and once the rest of the world sees it working, they'll demand it.

Approximating one's basic need with bitcoins comes with the advantage of being able to automatically distribute one's stipend as a direct deposit with minimal administrative overhead and corruption and once poverty is eliminated, people will be freer, more educated people will have time to pursue their interests and gradually more people will become less materialistic and more spiritually in tune, cutting down classism immensely.

Tuesday, 4 November 2014

The Innovative payment network of the 21st Century

The common characteristic of both Fraudulent and Fiat money is that they violate the principle of free association.
They enable the producers of paper money to expand their production through the violation of other people’s property rights. The producer of fiat money sells a product that cannot withstand the competition of free-market moneys such as gold and silver coins, and which the market participants only use because the use of all other moneys is severely restricted or even outlawed.

The most eloquent illustration of this fact is that paper money in all countries has been protected through legal-tender laws. Paper money is inherently fiat money and it cannot thrive but when it is imposed by the state it encourages development of a national currency backed by bank holdings of the state.

Bitcoin was invented to foster this new, digital style of commerce. There is no central bank or authority.
Instead, Bitcoin is a self-monitoring network, spread out between the computers of everyone who uses it.
All transactions are encrypted, verified and logged by other members in an intensive process called mining.
For now, miners are rewarded for their work with new Bitcoins. This is how the currency is being issued into existence. The process will continue until 21 million Bitcoins have been mined, after which no new Bitcoins will be created. Like the fixed quantity of matchsticks soldiers used as money in the prison camps, the fixed supply of Bitcoin will guarantee its scarcity and, presumably, its value.

Initially, there where painfully few merchants willing to accept Bitcoin instead of, well, real money. The few regular companies who do accept it are in it more for the gimmick and publicity than genuine utility. In fact, the only people strongly motivated to use Bitcoin have been those trading illegal goods online (who want to maintain anonymity) and, increasingly, investors but today Bitcoin is widely accepted using web-based exchanges, speculators trade dollars for Bitcoins at one rate, and hopefully the value of Bitcoins goes up from time to time and mostly it does – wildly so, creating more room for investors.
The Bitcoin economy is still quite volatile, and the online exchanges are still small and vulnerable to hacking and manipulation. The irony here, however, is that if Bitcoin succeeds as an investment vehicle it will have failed in its original role as a currency biased toward transaction instead of speculation (velocity over growth). Because if the currency is hoarded by investors instead of traded between people, it won’t have lived up to the dream of offering an alternative to expensive bankers’ money. And if no one is using it for anything real, its value will go down, taking the portfolios of its investors down along with it.

Banking in Africa is fraudulent whenever bankers sell uncovered or only partially covered money substitutes that they present as fully covered titles for money. These bankers sell more money substitutes than they could have sold if they had taken care to keep a full percent reserve for each substitute they issued. Credit expansion financed through printing money is in practice the very opposite of a way to combat the economic establishment.
It is the preferred means of survival for an establishment that cannot, or can no longer; sustain the competition of its competitors.

However, it’s trivial for law enforcement to follow cash into the bitcoin maze and, presumably track the goods as they leave. This is both good and bad: bad because the bitcoin proponents see the eyes of government as tools of great evil and good because it ensures that business could (but may not) begin accepting bitcoin because it was always designed as a proof-of-concept rather than a real monetary exchange and that people can take cash from it is as happy accident.
The goal, then, is to make Bitcoin as easy as transferring funds from bank to bank and account to account as well as educating the consumer about its benefits.

Monday, 3 November 2014

The "most racist" President in history

President Obama is the “most racist president there has ever been in America,” according to American political and economic commentator Ben Stein.

The economist and actor appeared on Fox News’ America News Headquarters on Sunday to discuss Obama’s domestic economic policies, which Stein says are racially dividing America.

“This president is the most racist president there has ever been in America,” Stein said to Fox’s Shannon Bream.
“He is purposely trying to use race to divide Americans.”
He also pointed out that the number of Americans on welfare has vastly increased during Obama’s presidency and that the cuts to welfare programs have been miniscule despite claims by Democrats that the cuts, spearheaded by Republicans, are hurting minorities.

“More people are on food stamps than ever,” Stein said.
“More people are getting welfare than ever.”
“What cuts are they talking about?”

“More people are getting subsidized healthcare than ever,” he continued.
“What cuts are they talking about?”

“It’s all a way to racially divide voting in this country.” Stein also rejected the Obama administration’s claim that they are not using race to divide Americans.

“They’re handing out pamphlets about this – and it’s been described a lot in the Wall Street Journal – [that say] ‘look, the Republican candidates are targeting President Obama because he’s black and you’re black, so you gotta go out and support him,” he stated.

“That’s just nonsense.”

“The Republicans are the most pro-black party there’s ever been.” “The Republicans are the ones who passed all the civil rights laws back in the 60s, not the Democrats,” he added.

Saturday, 13 September 2014

ANARCHISM in one PAGE

The principle of self ownership draws a line for each individual, creating a mirage of privacy and freedom  of action that each and everyone must respect the rights  of others perusing the facts that, with a more effective and compassionate voluntary cooperation, every nation would improve if those in government accord each of us the respect we deserve as unique and competent individuals considerate on the promise it holds for a better tomorrow.
Recently the Ghana finance ministry announced a massive budget deficit causing a whole cipher of chaos in the economy and instead of government to reduce spending and taxes to encourage a greater economic growth and set off all necessary measures to pay down the national dept quick as possible, the contrary is labelled introducing an abnormal percentage increase in Taxation resulting in a dramatic increase in the prices of goods and services. Increasing taxation for people to pay for the welfare of the poor is immoral and indistinguishable from theft which  could be replaced with voluntary methods of funding legitimate government functions.
Besides, most government can be  provided by private sector businesses, charities and other organisations.
As a matter of fact, I think the Ghana government is sick  for imposing trade barriers to violate the rights of cocoa farmers and foreign people to who desire to do trade. The restriction on cocoa exportation against farmers is unfair and has drastically cut down productivity which violates the principle of self owner and right to property. Anarchism holds against government most critical feature that works through force, coersion and compulsion. Those who call themselves legislators to make rules of conduct whereby attaching penalties for violations of such rules impedes on the rights of the individual. The emergence of a fictitious entity  by which every one tries to live at the expense of others closely is not a necessity for societal control for the right of individuals make the best use of property. Founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves then even fewer are wise to rule others. Anarchism has greatly liberated men from the phantoms that have held them captive to the doctrines that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations and that the state should be abolished .But the myth that Anarchism is only a sub-culture that has been rooted in working-class struggles ever since the emergence of capitalism makes me want to put the question on board as to whether it is possible and desirable.
What man will be prepared, unless willing to declare himself in bondage would care to call any control agreeable???

Email Narigamba

 Facebook page

Tuesday, 9 September 2014

The Anatomy of Liberalism


The aim of liberalism is to create a complex civil society in which the conditions for liberty, safety, and wealth production are created. One can see civil society as being like a healthy body. The body is made up of a large number of different kinds of cells. We have muscle cells, nerve cells, skin cells, hair follicle cells, heart cells, liver cells etc. We have one body made up of a wide variety of cells. The body, as it develops, organizes itself without any sort of central planner. There is nobody outside the body telling the cells where they need to go. 
The cells, as they interact and communicate with teach other, figure out where to go and learn what they need to become in order for there to be a healthy body to support the survival of all of the cells. All of the cells interact in a variety of tissues and organs which all work together to create a healthy body. Each of those tissues and organs are necessary for the rest of the tissues and organs and the cells that make them up. You have to have a liver, or the body dies. You have to have a brain, or the body dies. You have to have a spleen, or the body dies. And before the advent of surgery, you had to have a healthy appendix, or the body died. So even things seemingly unimportant have to be kept healthy.
Nowhere is there a system in the body that is necessary to keep the others in line.
They keep themselves in line. Indeed, the closest thing there is to this is the immune system, which fights off foreign invaders and cancers. But even the immune system can become a problem if it starts attacking the body itself – as happens with autoimmune diseases like arthritis.


 Cancer is one kind of cell “deciding” the rest of the body ought to be only
that one kind of cell. Leukemia is a cancer of the immune system itself– it is the immune system trying to take over the body. Civil society is similarly made up of a variety of social orders. We have government, the economy, money and finance, technological innovation, science, philosophy, art and literature, religion, philanthropy etc. In a liberal civil society, each has its role, and it is important that each stick to that role. It is also equally important that they properly interact to create a healthy society. One could imagine the government as the immune system. It is there to protect civil society from external dangers and from internal dangers.

  However, there is always a danger that it will attack the body (police corruption, bribery of police and politicians, etc.) and that it will become cancerous, trying to take over the entire body (police states, socialist governments, Marxist governments, totalitarian governments, etc.). It is best that the immune system/government stick to its proper role and not try to do the job of, say, the circulatory system/economy. Each has its proper role, and each is necessary to have a healthy body.
You do not have a healthy body if one system is in complete and total control over the rest of the body, or even if one attacks different systems in more subtle ways.
For some reason, people seem to think that government should not regulate, say, the arts and
literature, as that would be censorship, but that it is necessary for the government to regulate the economy. But we are really talking about the government doing the same thing in each case.   

We have identical social systems when we are talking about free markets and freely-produced art and literature (and freely produced science, etc.)
The problems created by regulating or controlling one will be found in others when they are regulated or controlled. Central planning of the economy will cause the economy to crash; central planning of money/finance will cause the money supply to boom, and then crash; central planning of art and literature will destroy the culture; central planning of science will end discovery. Indeed, we do not see artists out trying to kill each other over art; we do not see scientists out trying to kill each other over discoveries; and we will not see people out trying to kill each other in a free society with a free market. 
Quite the contrary. Freedom of association and interaction and cooperation and competition strongly encourages people to get along. People only kill each other when they see an advantage in doing so. When dealing with a zero- sum game, such as government favors, you can expect hostilities to break out; when dealing with a positive sum game, such as one finds in the free market, you can expect cooperation to break out.
Governments foster division. Freedom fosters cooperation. Sometimes we need to be divided –
who doesn’t want to be separated from rapists, murderers, and thieves? But we should be allowed to cooperate with the cooperative – to the benefit of ourselves and to everyone else as well.

One can either have rule of law or rule of men. Rule of Law means equality under the law: all laws apply to all people equally, whether they are in government, rich, poor, etc. Rule of law also means the rules are general. They have to be able to apply to everyone equally. There cannot be different laws for different groups – whether those groups are based on race, sex, office, etc.
And those laws have to be clear and simple. 

There cannot be so many laws that nobody knows what they are, and everyone is always breaking some law at some point. When there are too many laws, they cannot all been forced, and that means you have de facto rule of men, since it then is up to the discretion of the police/government officials as to what laws to enforce, when.
When the laws are such that you end up with rule of men –either de facto or literal – you have the conditions for oppression and the destruction of wealth, culture, knowledge, wisdom, morals, etc.
A good example of this is in the area which has brought down the economy across the world:
central planning of money/finance. Money/finance is one of the most highly regulated orders
in the world, regardless of country. What country doesn’t have a central bank? A central
bank means central planning. And more, central planning means rule of men rather than rule of law. We have a small group deciding how much money there should be, interest rates etc., rather than having these things discovered by large numbers of people across the country and world.
The best laws are those discovered by people in their social interactions. And this includes the
laws of the economy and the laws of money/finance. 

Local bankers are much more likely to understand the local situation and respond accordingly. This stabilizes the local economies, which in turn stabilize the country’s economy and the global economy.
Thus would the rule of law – and the discovery of law (rather than the enforcement of legislation) create more stable, stronger economies. With their control over money and finance, our governments weaken our economies and create the conditions for class warfare and social disintegration.
The Alteration of natural order clearly explains that humans are naturally social – but that does not mean we are collectives. There are huge differences between the two. When we view people as social, we understand that their cultures and social environments – friends and families and coworkers, etc., institutions such as families and business structures and property protections (or not) – help individuate us, even as we in turn affect our social environments with our individual characteristics. When we view people as a collective, we demand that they suppress everything in themselves that does not conform to everyone else, to become literally like everyone else. When we do that, we suppress the very things that make people create art and literature, make scientific and medical discoveries, invent new things, find new ways of doing things, create wealth for themselves and others, etc. 

Collectivism dehumanizes us, makes us lash out and hate and destroy and kill those who are not like us. As social beings, we interact with many different kinds of people, learn to love and appreciate those differences, and thus expand our moral sphere. Collectives threaten social people everywhere. A free Ghana is and would be threatened by a collectivist of Africa just as America has-been and continues to be threatened by collectivists within who wish to divide us to conquer us

Email Narigamba

 Facebook page

Tuesday, 26 August 2014

The Alteration of Natural Order

The law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, binding upon legislatures as well as others.  The fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be valid or good against it. ...men would not quit the freedom of a state of nature, and tie themselves up under a government, were it not to preserve their lives, liberty, and fortunes, by stated rules of right and property.
God created a wonderful world. He created it with an amazing order. Things happen for a reason, and there is a cause and effect relationship for everything that occurs in the world and in our human lives. Though we may not know specific causes in every instance, we are able to discern certain laws of nature. They help us to understand how the physical world works, and to use those laws of nature to build a better life, to provide more food, higher-quality shelter, improved transportation, and so on. Human society is also subject to a certain amazing order. While human relations and events are not strictly predictable in the same sense that the trajectory of a flying object is predictable, they are subject to some simple laws which have not changed over the course of human history. If that was not so, chaos would continually reign, planning would be futile, and society would not exist. Rather than chaos, however, there is a fairly high level of predictability in our daily lives. The future is truly unknowable, but there is normally a certain regularity we can count on around which to build our lives.

 While we have been provided with a beautiful place for our existence here on Earth with abundant provisions for our needs and pleasures, this can all seem to be overshadowed if we fail to understand His desire for us to remain free with liberty.
 But who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.    James 1:25
Be not ye the servants of men.”  I Corinthians 7:23
Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.    Galatians 5:1
While such directives sound simple enough to do, remaining free with the liberty that our Creator has provided, and not being servants of, or in bondage to men or corporations, is not such an easy task these days.  If another can demand payment or anything of value from you, or claim to have the power to lock you behind bars thereby taking away your liberty, then you might wonder how did this occur?  Perhaps it is the result of the implementation of an unnatural order of things. If we do not understand the natural order of things, then how can we know when the natural order is altered to establish an unnatural order?

 From the Bible in Genesis we see that God created man, and man has dominion over the other creatures of Creation.  Earlier in the history of this planet, the family or blood relations was the normal situation where numerous people lived in the same general area.  As man moved out from the family domain, there remained the desire to live peacefully in the vicinity with other men and women, and this brought about villages, communities, towns, and states.  Since there would arise common functions that might prove beneficial to the people of the area, a committee or representatives of the area could come together for limited helpful purposes.  In time, the concept of a state developed with a corresponding government.  While it was known that such a government was limited in its scope of activity, it was soon understood there are some upon this planet who seek to control as much of it for themselves as possible.  This may be done overtly or covertly; therefore, a constitution for a government limiting its authority was deemed to be the expedient method of restraint.  The natural order of things follows the flow of God in creating man – man creates a state with a constitution, which establishes a limited government with only delegated authority.  Historically speaking, it is when a government begins acting as though it has inherent sovereign powers that we find the natural order converted to an unnatural order of things.

The natural order relies on the people remaining in control of their creatures, and not allowing a presumption of state or government supremacy over the people. Both the first president of the United States and Ghana have clearly advocated on the reason to run a free state. George Washington, in his Farewell Address warned the American people of situations that may arise by design to usurp the control of the government to the detriment of the people.  In one such instance, he describes "a small but artful and enterprising minority" that may organize "an artificial and extraordinary force”  Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, on the declaration of independence stated that "OUR INDEPENDENCE IS MEANINGLESS UNLESS IT IS LINKED UP WITH THE TOTAL LIBERATION OF AFRICA." to mean that these delegates of state conventions are considering the state inferior contrivances with the virtue that individual should consider the state a subordinate of the people.
In the science of politics, there has been a strong current against the natural order of things; and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means... Even in almost every nation, which has been denominated free, the state has assumed a supercilious per-eminence above the people who have formed it yet individuals are blind enough to see the canca in the disposition to run a free market system with reasons of an uncontrollable state which is likely to be maimed by crime and disorder
The concept of an unnatural order springs times of chaos or war when people might seek refuge and protection in walled cities.  In this situation, the visitors were foreign to the people of the city and the authority of the city from which they asked protection.  For this benefit of protection, the visitors might be required to compensate the City in the form of a tax, and to obey the man-made rules of conduct prescribed for them while in the City.  Here the visitors might have their freedom and liberty diminished.  Outside the City, they functioned according to the laws of nature. Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law