I've implemented UBI in a unified monetary system which attempts to solve most of these issues - https://civil.money/about
The way it attempts to prevent people abusing its UBI is:
- Makes all transactions/data publically quantifiable, and uses a number of peers to corroborate all data in a consensus model.
- Has a simple credit rating system as well as attributes to infer a person's particular life circumstance "at a glance" for day-to-day essential purchases, however ultimately it is up to each individual on whether or not to accept a person's money. Transaction history can be closely scrutinised/sources traced for higher cost purchases to determine level of legitimacy (its implicit taxation system does this very thing as well behind the scenes.) This is conceptually not much different to what banks do today for any loan.
- Turns the concept of money on its head and removes the that artificial sense of scarcity (debt) that we're all so scared of today.
- Pegs its value at a constant of time/labour to prevent inflation.
- UBI along with inverse-taxation is actually the money creation source.
Figure the main problem in the world today is its monetary system, so have built this:
The trick will be convincing anybody to use it.
- A generous universal basic income. Basically the equivalent of USD $60k/yr.
- Seeding based on regional productivity (inverse taxation.) Tax is actually a money "creation" process and happens implicitly.
- A democratic voting process for any fundamental changes to the system.
- A low barrier to entry. Should work just as well for a village in Kenya sharing a single smartphone as anybody standing at a Point-of-Sale terminal.
- Transparent transactions and accountability.
- Implicit dispute resolution.
- A consensus-based scalable distributed P2P architecture.
- An efficient and easy to work with messaging format.
- End-to-end TLS between all peers and user clients.
Draft technical bits here: https://civil.money/api
Should be releasing it for general "server download" availability and source code on GitHub until around December. Currently held back waiting on critical bug fixes in
If kids can’t socialize, who should parents blame? Simple: They should blame themselves. This is the argument advanced in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, by Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd. Boyd
It’s true. As a teenager in the early ’80s I could roam pretty widely with my friends, as long as we were back by dark. Over the next three decades, the media began delivering a metronomic diet of horrifying but rare child-abduction stories, and parents shortened the leash on their kids. Politicians warned of incipient waves of youth wilding and superpredators (neither of which emerged). Municipalities crafted anti-loitering laws and curfews to keep young people from congregating alone. New neighborhoods had fewer public spaces. Crime rates plummeted, but moral panic soared. Meanwhile, increased competition to get into college meant well-off parents began heavily scheduling their kids’ after-school lives.
Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.