[FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI

[⛧ glen]

No. We already have N-ary obligations in our current markets. So it's anything but utopian. You asked how to get there from here. I'm taking you seriously and trying to answer your question. Maybe I'm being naive in doing so.

But, take a look at the research tabs on any modern trading app. What you see are the extra dimensions like recent contracts, mergers, acquisitions, what State governs the agreements, a standard arbitration method, etc. These ad hoc, band-aid, artifacts are there to assist with reciprocity and balance. And they all *inform* the market *price*. Further, our laws (at various scales) help ensure reciprocity in rules for disclosure, breach, etc. And this applies not only for publicly traded companies, but privately valued ones as well. 

A gradual, increasing encoding of such extra dimensions can approach what you snarkily dismiss, without immediately abandoning money as one of the tools in the kit.

On May 9, 2021 6:38:41 PM PDT, Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com> wrote:
>Sounds utopian: from everyone according to his abilities; from everyone
>according to his meds.
>
>On Sun, May 9, 2021, 2:47 PM ⛧ glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But reciprocity need not be merely dyadic, as I tried to point out
>with my
>> post about N-ary contracts in an anarcho-syndicalist system. Dave
>alludes
>> to such a legal system by using the term "balance". Defectors in a
>> multidimensional "market" are *easier* to coerce than in a
>unidimensional
>> "market". To boot, the coercion can be even more adaptive. So your
>> assertions of indoctrination or harsh punishment is an artifact of
>the
>> overly reductive system we currently have.
>>

-- 
glen ⛧