Dear Michael,<br><br>is there any literature or ideas of how the basic income is necessarily, or not, related to centralized systems for its organisation and disbursement?<br><br>See the remark by Sy below<br><br>Michel<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Sy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sytaffel@riseup.net">sytaffel@riseup.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
I think you're referring to the Speenhamland system - which wasn't a
universal system (it was mainly limited to southern counties in
England), was mandated by judges - part of a centralised and
hierarchical system of lawmaking - and was paid by local parishes -
ie it was managed and distributed local arm of another national,
centralised and hierarchical structure, the Church of England. <br>
<br>
I'm intrigued to hear of how you envisage a basic income system
without some for of centralised apparatus to ensure that the income
is universally available and equitably distributed. <br>
<br>
I'm less convinced that a substantive difference exists between P2P
theory and anarchism in that there needs to be reform (particularly
in the formation of voluntary networks of self-aggregation which can
fulfil roles currently undertaken by the state/market) before
revolution. While there are currents of anarchist thought which call
for the immediate destruction of the state, there are others which
contend that networks based on mutual aid need to be created
beforehand (Chomsky for example has regularly ridiculed anarchists
who argue that we could transition into a stateless society today).<br>
</div></blockquote></div>