Human right

Who should pay for a basic income?

This question turns out to be wrong or irrelevant, as a basic income is a human right that everyone will receive.

It would be different if a new social benefit were to be distributed only to certain people, in which case the question could be asked where the money would come from. Since a basic income is primarily financed by existing transfer payments, the question of WHO or HOW is irrelevant.

The only question that would really be interesting is: “Why a basic income?”.

And the “why” has been included in the Declaration of Human Rights since 1948.

Article 1 of human rights states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Human dignity is the basis of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

That is why human dignity is inviolable or should be so in order to guarantee freedom, justice and peace in the world.

That is why it is so important to include a basic income as a birthright in the constitution.

Article 3 of human rights states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Life is only possible if there is a financial basis for it. Freedom only exists if people have complete freedom to decide where and how they want to live.

Everything else is still dominated by dependencies and constraints.

And the “why” has been included in the Declaration of Human Rights since 1948.

Article 4 of human rights states:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.

In a broader sense, slavery is also seen as the coercion of an act and the exploitation of people, which can still be found every day in all countries of the world without exception.

This is why the implementation of an unconditional basic income is so important, so that people can no longer be coerced into action or exploited.

Article 13 of the human rights states:

1. everyone has the right to move freely within a state and to choose his place of residence freely.

2. everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Having rights is nice, but you should also have the opportunity to exercise them.

And this is precisely why the basic income is so important here, as it helps to realise human rights as a whole to a large extent.

Article 22 of human rights states:

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to enjoy, through national measures and international co-operation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each State, the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Social security and the free development of his personality would be guaranteed with a basic income.

Article 25 of human rights states:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability or widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood through no fault of his own.

2. mothers and children are entitled to special care and support. All children, both legitimate and illegitimate, enjoy the same social protection.

A new intergenerational contract, which could become a reality through an unconditional basic income as a birthright, would fulfil Article 25 in full.

Article 27 of human rights states:

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its achievements.

Participation in society and in progress and its achievements would also be guaranteed by a sufficiently high basic income.


Taxing the rich is not the solution

In the course of discussions about the financing of an unconditional basic income, the taxation of rich and wealthy people is often mentioned; they should be taxed more heavily in order to achieve a necessary redistribution.



I think we are completely missing the point if we waste even a moment assuming that there is a need for better redistribution.

No, it doesn’t need redistribution.

We can’t just deal with treating symptoms and continue to ignore the causes that have led to this situation of the need for an unconditional basic income.

That would then be more or less the same mistake as when the first social achievements were introduced to alleviate people’s suffering a little. And yes, even if this may sound a bit harsh, one has to realise in retrospect that the developed welfare state was absolutely necessary until then – no question about it – and yet an unconditional basic income could have been created back then, even had to be, but this would have been clearly rejected by the political class then as well as today, because it is simply a question of power.

And who among the political parties would be prepared to stand up for an open democracy that could well replace the ruling party politics and thus end all political as well as economic dependencies from one day to the next?

Well, we will probably not be able to achieve that this way.

A dialogue with the existing system parties is therefore a wasted time, as they have fully understood the idea behind an unconditional basic income and therefore fear it.

Nobody wants the free and self-determined human being to exist, no, they want to continue to maintain the constraints and dependencies, at any price.

Because that is the easiest way to manipulate people, because it is very easy to play them off against each other.

You see this every day in political discourse, where some agitate against others, some campaign against others, some fight against others ideas and some vote against others.

There is no togetherness, no doing things together, no working on common solutions that will make everyone’s lives better.

Unfortunately, the common good does not come first here, but always only one’s own party interests and how one can best sell oneself to the outside world, because after the election is always before the next election.

And so we always go round in circles and only treat symptoms that sooner or later lead to even more problems.

To get back to the redistribution that was mentioned, one has to recognise the causes that lead to wealth.

Someone only gets rich by exploiting nature and people, there is no other way to get rich.

OK, gotcha.

Of course, you can also get rich by inheriting a fortune. True.

Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that poverty is also just a result of people exploiting other people.

And this is only possible because we live in a profit-oriented economic system.

This means that entrepreneurs are forced to make profits, and this is only possible by exploiting people and nature.

In practice, this means that many people earn as little money as possible so that others can make profits.

Put simply, this creates wealth on the one hand and poverty on the other.

The introduction of an unconditional basic income alone solves the problem of exploitation of human beings, but does not end the actual system behind it, which makes such a system necessary in the first place.

Now one only has to ask how long such a redistribution of the availability of existing higher incomes and capital will be in place to maintain the effect of redistribution.

I think that it will not last long, especially if one day it goes to the substance of the wealthy.

Therefore, a reorganisation of money creation should be seriously considered right from the start, because only a comprehensive monetary system reform would be able to solve the causes of all problems in this regard.

We should finally say goodbye to the profit-oriented economic system and concentrate on an economic system based on the common good of all, and this includes a money system that should not be born as credit debt, but in a positive sense as credit.

Prerequisite versus condition

Prerequisite versus condition

Within and also outside the basic income movement, it often seems unclear what the difference is between a prerequisite and a condition.

It is also often said that an unconditional basic income (UBI) would only really be unconditional if everyone worldwide received it.

Is this really the case or is the word “prerequisite” simply equated with the word “condition”?

If you look in the Duden and also other works of the German language, you will very quickly find that “Prerequisite” is also a synonym for “condition” and vice versa.

Within a sentence or a text, synonymous words can be interchanged without changing the core meaning of the statement.

A simple example of synonymous words is: the orange / the lemon. However, such cases of absolute synonymy are very rare. Within linguistics there is even a discussion whether it is possible that two words can be absolutely equivalent.

This is because synonymous does not yet mean that the sense of a synonym is perfectly the same as the sense of the related word. There are almost always deviations of varying degrees, which can affect the conceptual core, the level of language, or even the emotional content of a word. Most synonyms carry characteristics and convey content that can be assigned to a particular style level, a region, a group, or a specialized language.

One can put a condition on something/someone (man-made).

But one cannot put a condition to something/to someone (circumstance MUST BE THERE!).

In the case of the UBI this means:

Clearly someone must be born to get a UBI, but nobody can put a condition for it (“Child, you must be born now!”).

THAT a child is there / was born, is just a PREREQUISITE.

Some in the basic income movement say, a basic income is only THEN a basic income, if it is unconditional, then the unconditionality is a PREREQUISITE for it to be called basic income at all.

Since now once a country cannot pay out an unconditional basic income to all humans on the world, conditions must be created, who is entitled for an unconditional basic income. Here, ways must be found to make it not a condition. A citizenship, for example, would be such a condition, since one can acquire one or even lose one again.

Therefore, one cannot make a UBI conditional on citizenship.

A main residence is a condition, because you can have your main residence somewhere else at any time, which means that I could “fulfill” this myself at any time.

So you have to find something that is already given, such as life – a deceased person cannot simply live again in order to receive an unconditional basic income. Or the fact that one is human. An animal or a plant cannot simply become a human being in order to get an unconditional basic income.

Well, and so I came to the place of birth, because this is an accidental and immutable event, that is, a prerequisite, and cannot be changed afterwards.

And thus the model basic income as a human right was born, according to my birthplace principle, everyone receives it unconditionally. And thus an unconditional basic income can also be implemented on a national level, which until then did not seem possible.

I myself run a learning portal about synonyms, verbs, translations and a word game for learning synonymous words and new languages since 2012. This portal already exists in five languages (German, English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian).

written by Alexander Zirkelbach

A look into the future

A look into the future

Imagine a world in which the following possibilities are given:

  • An unconditional basic income for everyone, regardless of age or background.
  • An economic system that is not based on profits, but on the common good of all.
  • And in addition the basis, a monetary system, which would be born as a credit instead of a credit debt.

I think that then the own potential of each of the currently about 8 billion people on this planet could be used to live a life in peace and dignity. And without exploiting and competing with each other.

Because if something like the common good instead of profit would come first, we could probably create a paradise on our planet, which would mean an absolute end of conflicts and wars.

But for this to happen, we need to use the knowledge we already have and use it for the good of all. And this is possible again, because we basically come into the world as social, peaceful and intelligent living beings.

We only have to become aware of where (from unconditionality) we come from and what kind of living being (social, peaceful and intelligent) man is.


For the better understanding, I would like to start by digging out a bit to share questions and the corresponding answers with the reader of this article.

These questions may not seem really important at the beginning, but these are the foundation to get a better sense of who we are, where we come from, and most importantly, what makes us human.

Many opponents of the unconditional basic income often argue that the money for the payment of a basic income must first be earned before it can be distributed.

Here already the first thinking error arises!

It is nevertheless here around a fallacy, since money, above all new money, cannot be worked out in itself, but always comes only by the granting of credit to the world, and namely as so-called credit debt.

So, and now it comes: Many think that only those people who also pursue a gainful employment – thus a paid wage work – would pay taxes, thus also finance the basic income.

This is not true, of course, because every purchase also has to pay taxes, interest on loans (because of the debt money system) and rents.

This means that already today all people, whether they are gainfully employed or not, have to pay taxes, interest, rents and loans, and this through their own consumption.

The only difference to today (unemployment benefits, unemployment assistance, social assistance/minimum security, …) without basic income and then later with basic income is that then all people get basic income.

Because today a few receive social benefits, which are financed by taxes, about which one can be quite envious, because people receive them “without” doing anything for it, or better said, without doing gainful employment.

So currently only a certain part of a society receives various transfer payments, while another part dutifully pays “taxes” for it.

Afterwards, however, all receive a basic income, thus no one can be envious of the other anymore, since then all receive the basic income and thus the alleged “injustice”, which has prevailed before, would finally be ended.

So purely theoretically all, which the today’s system, in which unemployed persons are often called so-called “lazy ones”, would have to use themselves for the unconditional basic income, so that it this alleged “advantage” or better said, these from the “industrious” gainfully working humans “exclusively” financed social benefits, which evenly only few receive, finally no more does not give.

Because thereby one would terminate this nevertheless rather unsocial system, where humans must prove first their neediness, with this enormous inhumane administrative expenditure finally and all would get a basic income equal in the height and well would be it.

Hey, exactly that would be it nevertheless!

What many are not conscious however, is that money has no value in itself and it has to serve actually us humans and not vice versa.

Today it is so that we all work for a rather small money elite, consciously or unconsciously.

What does this mean now in the plain text?

As already mentioned, we all pay with every single purchase of a commodity or service always also interest, credits, rents and taxes.

A brief example of this:

In the product itself, both the company’s current loans, the associated interest payments, taxes and duties, and the company’s local rent are priced into the final price of the goods sold. The same is true for services.

The bases of the economic system, in which we still live today, lie in the current money system, which is just known as a so-called debt money system, therefore, because fresh money always and exclusively comes to the world over the granting of credit, thus as debt money.

That’s why even newborns are already born with debt, something that actually sounds completely absurd, but which corresponds to reality in the current system.

And exactly therefore we work all for a rather small money elite or in other words, for those few among us, who possess the money (enormous quantities of it). Since money rules the world, by existing possibilities, which are system-dependent.

This short description was necessary to show and make us aware of how stupid and limited this system is, since it brings an advantage to only very few.

In addition, the currently prevailing economic system exists only about 200 years, in comparison, the money exists about 3,000 years and the trade of goods and services is about 50,000 years. However, modern man (Homo sapiens) has existed for about 350,000 years and before there was any trade between people, people have always shared everything among themselves.

Thus, it is clear that the original principle of man is not in the trade of goods and services, but actually in the sharing of goods and services. And this primordial principle has been preserved to this day, in the smallest social unit, namely the family.

With this, from my point of view, extremely important state of knowledge, we come to the next article, to take a look at how things stand with today’s humans.

written by Alexander Zirkelbach

Upper Management

Upper management

A long-time friend of mine who works in upper management was a very sceptical person at the beginning about the idea of an unconditional basic income.

We met every month in our local pub with two other friends for a beer or two and, as is usual with men, we talked a lot about football and politics.

Because of my intensive work for the implementation of basic income, it was clear that we often had a discussion on this topic. The other two friends saw positive effects that would come from this idea and were therefore basically in favour of it.

But our buddy, who was the highest earner of the four of us, was fundamentally against the idea at the beginning and thought it was absurd. The classic arguments that one often hears against a BGE were brought up, such as, among others:

  • That then no one would go to work anymore.
  • The system and thus the economy could collapse.
  • All the achievements of the last decades would be lost.
  • And this would mean the end of prosperity, etc.

At first glance, many of the arguments of the opponents and sceptics seem to sound quite logical. But if you take each and every criticism and concern and think about it for a moment, you would quite quickly come to the conclusion that many of these arguments would be quite easy to refute, as they do not correspond to the nature of human beings.

And that’s what happened over time, because my friend, whom I call a very intelligent person, has three children of his own. Yes, and one day at a meeting there suddenly came an unexpected statement from him when he brought up the subject of basic income of his own accord and simply said into the round:

“Actually, Alexander’s idea of basic income is not so bad”.

Wow, you can imagine how the rest of us listened at that moment to what else he was going to tell us.

Because all the time before, from the first day when I brought up this topic and all the other days when it was brought up, he was the only one of the four of us who spoke against it, and today was supposed to be the day when he changed his mind?

I can remember this particular day clearly, it was a hot August day, and it was the 11th of August. This day is also my brother’s birthday and there are already parallels to this, because my brother was also against it in the beginning, but now it seems he is also for it.

My good friend primarily mentioned the possibility of having more time for his three daughters, which he unfortunately doesn’t have now due to his work and the many overtime hours he would have to work. Of course, a basic income would be a great thing, because then both parents would have more leeway and thus more time for the family, which is currently not the case for either of them, to the detriment of their own children.

For the first time, I recognise the insight of a very successful manager, how he now agrees with this idea, which he initially saw very negatively, because he probably thought about it more often than he might have wanted to due to my influence and enthusiasm for this idea and probably also talked about it with his wife and perhaps others.

In retrospect, this experience shows me that it is simply enormously important to stay on the ball and to bring this wonderful idea of an unconditional basic income closer to people every day with the most diverse forms and arguments.

We are all human beings, no matter what our profession, we are social, peaceful and intelligent creatures and therefore the realisation of an unconditional basic income is also only a logical consequence that corresponds to our nature.

written by Alexander Zirkelbach

The waitress

The waitress

Another conversation was with a waitress, 34 years old, who lives with her 11-year-old son in a small 42 sqm flat.

When she first heard about basic income, specifically unconditional basic income, she was immediately enthusiastic about it without thinking about it for long.

Now the following question arises for me:

“Could this initial enthusiasm be due to the fact that she herself has only a very small salary, or are there other reasons for this?”

During the conversation I learned that it had taken her a long time to get away from her boyfriend and the father of her son, as her financial dependence on the child’s father was very high.

I also learned that she had heard about basic income several times and that she quickly realised that everyone would then be financially independent, which would be very desirable based on her own experience.

In this context, I think that for many people who find themselves in a similar situation, an unconditional basic income would be enormously important here. They would be able to make the right decisions at the right time and would therefore not get into certain situations at all if a basic income had already been available.

I also learned how difficult it is for the single waitress to meet her fixed costs and to have enough time for her son. In order to cover her living costs, she also cleans the houses of two elderly people and runs small errands for them in order to make ends meet.

This state of affairs is also due to the fact that the father of the child has not paid any alimony since the separation and thus the existential pressure on the waitress has increased enormously.

People who are exposed to constant existential anxiety hardly find time for themselves and are therefore exposed to a variety of health risks, both psychological and physical.

She regrets very much that every little thing, such as new clothes for her son, pocket money, excursions from school and her own wishes are often no longer financially feasible. So she laments that her only hobby, painting, is no longer possible because she has neither the necessary peace and time nor the financial means to do so.

Despite all the adversities, she is still a fun-loving person and tries to make the best of her life. She sees her son as an important task in life, so that he does not go astray, and devotes all her scarce free time to him.

I was touched by this story and was glad to come across such an interesting person- who, despite his situation, opened up so much and gave me an insight into his current life.

I say thank you for that. But then I wanted to know from her what her life would be like if she received an unconditional basic income according to the international model UBI+.

Her first reaction was a small visible smile and a lot of joy spread across her face. She took a deep breath and started just talking as if she had already thought about it.

She would like to have a slightly larger flat where her son would have his own room. She would still work as a waitress, albeit fewer hours, so that she would still have time for herself.

And yes, she would immediately start painting again with the freedom she had gained, and she would also want to continue her education, since she had dropped out of her architecture studies at the time because of the birth of her son.

Here again we see very well from this statement how much people lack a basic income to actually be able to develop freely.

At this point I am thinking about how many people have had to abandon their studies or other training simply because they were directly or indirectly forced to pursue gainful employment (paid work) because – for whatever reason – this became necessary.

Hardly anyone can imagine how much suffering and unnecessary stress is caused by this who has not gone through the same or similar.

written by Alexander Zirkelbach

two older ladies and the unconditional basic income

Two older ladies

Hardly anyone knows that there is a UBI party in Austria. It is a small association in Carinthia that is trying very hard to run in an election in order to bring the unconditional basic income into parliament and to directly campaign for its implementation there. In the course of my commitment to this party, I was invited one day in Vienna by two elderly ladies for cake and tea.

Both ladies are die-hard fans of the unconditional basic income and would love it if it were possible to introduce it while they themselves are still on “earth” – as one of the ladies literally told me.

Both are so enthusiastic about this wonderful idea that they financially support several associations and organisations that deal with the topic, as they consider this work of educating and spreading the idea to be very important.

During our conversation I learned about many experiences that both ladies had – already in the 1980s – when they took part in discussions about basic income in various pubs.

They were often looked at askance and smiled at.

However, they never let it get them down and have remained true to the idea of an unconditional basic income to this day.

Yes, at that time people were particularly sceptical and mostly found the idea absurd and couldn’t really do anything with it. In the course of time and the major political and economic crises, attitudes towards basic income changed noticeably. Today, both are firmly convinced that it will not take too much longer to implement it, as people are increasingly reaching their limits and can no longer participate in many things.

Many people already need a basic income like a morsel of bread, I was told so clearly over homemade cake and tea. One of the ladies had found me via Twitter, where she then found my website and came across my person. And so I got this invitation just at the time of the start of the “UBI! Now” movement. This conversation gave me a lot of strength and momentum in what I was doing, because I was pretty quickly sure that there are people out there in all age groups who are just waiting for the unconditional basic income to finally start.

They talked to me for a while about various small political parties in Austria and Germany that were already in favour of a basic income at the time and often brought it into the discussion. But unfortunately this fizzled out again very quickly and was forgotten far too quickly. Perhaps it was simply the wrong time to implement such an important idea.

At the end of the cake and tea, I was given a wonderful gift, a turtle, as a symbol of down-to-earthness, wisdom, basic trust and longevity. In the spiritual meaning, it is about constancy and thoughtful action.

I was very touched by how well these two ladies recognised my nature and how well we understood each other during the whole meeting, as if we had known each other forever.

I also say many heartfelt thanks via this article for this wonderful afternoon.

written by Alexander Zirkelbach

BASIC INCOME AS A HUMAN RIGHT - IF, then do it right!

The book

For me, basic income should be implemented as a human right. Human rights must be an integral part of a holistic system that also includes the environment we depend on to survive. There are no shades or opinions in the definition of human rights. All people, regardless of location, origin or appearance, deserve basic human rights – food, water, shelter, adequate education, health care and access to resources and services – to realise their highest potential. These rights must be enshrined in the social system.

An Unconditional Basic Income would guarantee these human rights for the first time.

In my book, I describe for the first time a sustainable path that could lead from a national basic income financed through taxes to a continental introduction paid out through money creation. Furthermore, I take this wonderful idea of an unconditional basic income to its logical conclusion and for the first time bring a comprehensive monetary system reform into the discussion. In order to one day also make possible the basis for a worldwide implementation. From my point of view, money has to serve people and not the other way round. Moreover, it is time to overcome the primitive and inherently limited tax system and to enable a real democracy of the monetary system and society.

Softcover ISBN = 978-3-347-73777-8
Hardcover ISBN = 978-3-347-73778-5
E-Book ISBN = 978-3-347-73779-2
Can again be ordered directly from TREDITION or any bookshop.

written by Alexander Zirkelbach

Difference between basic income and basic security

Basically, it can mean the same thing, but it is sometimes a kind of play on words, because you can interpret a lot into both. The most important thing about both words, however, is always what comes before them.

So we know the solidary, conditional, guaranteed, circular or also the unconditional basic income or just a basic security.

Many people seem to have a problem with the latter, either because they believe that there is nothing unconditional, or they are afraid of it because unconditionality could guarantee people’s freedom.

Another reason why unconditionality often falls by the wayside is that people still see people as objects who have to spend the money they receive from a basic income in the country where it is paid out. This creates an expectation towards the people who receive a basic income, which corresponds to the consideration that the basic income has to be spent again in the respective country.

Georg Vobruba (professor of sociology) aptly said in 2017 that we are not dealing enough with questions of strategy and have thus fallen into a utopia trap.
According to Vobruba, the place of residence at least already constitutes a condition (cf. Vobruba, 2017).

The basic idea of the unconditional basic income is “the freedom of the individual” and this can only be achieved through unconditionality, especially if it is implemented as a human right.

For only through this would it be guaranteed that one could never again lose an “unconditional basic income” once received, or only through the occurrence of one’s own death.
In many UBI models, the main residence is considered a fixed component and a clear condition for receiving a supposedly “unconditional” basic income.
A contradiction in terms?
Or perhaps just another form of unconditionality, if one sees basic income merely as a fiscal measure within a country.

Yes, there are often small and subtle differences.
Whether an unconditional basic income is only implemented as a fiscal measure or as a human right remains to be seen.
I think we should implement it as a human right, as this could save us enormous administrative and control effort and at the same time send a clear signal to finally comply with human rights in their true essence and to bring them from paper into reality.

Especially if one sees a UBI (unconditional basic income) as a human right that has to apply universally (regardless of a border), setting a residence requirement would be contradictory, since a human right once acquired should not be lost at a border.
With the introduction of the unconditional basic income, human rights would be implemented for the first time. Unfortunately, at first only for the respective citizens of a country – whereby the birthplace principle would have to be applied here – which would take this first step.

This would be the first step, but it could create a domino effect that would make other countries follow suit.

The model “UBI+” meets exactly these requirements to bring it into the world as a human right.

The wonderful thing that always excited me about the UBI was that it could help to implement human rights for the first time.
You too can help and become part of the movement.

written by Alexander Zirkelbach

Today’s humans

When I observe people, I see sad, anxious and above all stressed creatures. I see a permanent struggle for more sales, more turnover and more profits.
It seems that people have no or far too little time for themselves, their loved ones and also for nature.

This is reflected in their attitude towards nature, the way they treat other people and the often destructive behavior towards themselves.
It gives the impression that they are exclusively busy chasing money so they can meet all their obligations.

I am curious and therefore constantly looking to understand things or improve what already exists.
This characteristic is a purely human one and is in all of us. People can only develop through their own natural curiosity, and we see this particularly pronounced in babies and young children.

So there is no need for any kind of coercion for people to get into action, because people are constantly doing something, from birth to the end of their lives.
And since every activity is also work, people have been working since birth.

Now this may sound a bit strange for one or the other reader, but if you think about it a bit, you will very quickly come to the realization that birth can often be a real hard work not only for the mother herself, but also for the respective child.

And then right after birth, the newborn begins its work of exploring the world around it, learning more about itself and its own abilities. It begins to perceive its environment through its eyes, continues with its first movements, and then leads so far as to learn at least a first language.

The work that is done here is priceless, both the work of the parents themselves, as well as the various activities that already a baby, toddler, child and then adolescent performs until he then matures into an adult.

In the sum a true achievement, which is accomplished here. But unfortunately this is performed to date unpaid.

And all these unpaid activities, both on the part of the parents, as well as from the point of view of the children, which are altogether enormously important, often lead to a certain lack of financial means, as well as to missing, temporal resources.

These deficiencies then often lead to problems that are detrimental both to the individual, to their own family, and often to the common good of a society.

And this is exactly what unconditional basic income is all about: On the one hand, to have sufficient financial means to have the necessary time for oneself and one’s loved ones with it. Because only in this way can we become free beings to set our own priorities and thus live as meaningful a life as possible in dignity.

And on the other hand, thanks to the unconditional basic income, a multitude of new opportunities arise. Especially that of being able to say NO to precarious and for oneself meaningless activities at any time, as well as to seize new opportunities that were previously unthinkable for oneself.

And by the way, everyone could discover and develop his or her own personal potential.
An unconditional basic income would be the lever that could lead people into a new age of humanity and the potentialization of their own abilities.

written by Alexander Zirkelbach