UBO vs UBI

The Path to Universal Basic Ownership (UBO)

 “And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton

Under UBI, power is centralized in a small governing body, inviting corruption. Political parties can promise “raises” to win elections regardless of whether the real economy can support them, leading to inflation. Worse, a UBI can be weaponized—income can be cut off for those who do not comply with state mandates. Already, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has explored UBI models that suggest restrictions based on “status,” effectively redefining “Universal” into a recipe for tyranny. 

The corrupted thinking that follows the concentration of power has since been validated by neuroscience. To counter this, we must decentralize economic power. Through Binary Economics (BE), once a capital loan is repaid, productive property provides a dividend income stream to every individual—mirroring the wealth-building mechanics currently reserved for the elite. These tax-sheltered, full-payout dividends grow alongside the economy, ensuring every citizen benefits from an increasingly automated production process.

When you own the wealth the robot creates, there is no need to fear the robot taking your job. Because robots excel at repetitive, mind-numbing tasks, this shift encourages citizens to pursue meaningful volunteer work and creative endeavors that truly matter to them.

UBO vs. UBI: Empowerment vs. Dependency

The citizen dividends obtained through binary economics can be termed Universal Basic Ownership (UBO). UBO is fundamentally different from the Universal Basic Income (UBI) currently championed by those who, perhaps inadvertently, favor a disempowered population.

UBO goes beyond empowering individuals, it provides a critical link to community in an age where coerced, rather than self directed, work is coming to an end for many. From trust-fund recipients to welfare cases, many suffer a “crisis of meaning” born from the passivity inherent in economic detachment. A UBI risks making this social debilitation endemic. Conversely, with UBO, citizens are active participants in the larger economy, fostering a sense of belonging and a vested interest in governance.

UBO places power back in the hands of the individual. Rather than faceless bureaucrats determining income levels in a UBI, UBO shareholders have significant input in choosing investments, voting on company direction, or even serving on boards. In the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP)—a successful binary economics prototype—there is also a sense of belonging. This “learned helplessness” of the welfare state is reversed, healthy adults become passive recipients of subsistence. 

In a UBO system, power is decentralized. A truly free market handles fund distribution in tandem with the actual production of marketable goods and services. 

The Safety Net: A Bridge to Ownership

In the unlikely event that a citizen’s vetted investments fail, or they remain unemployed due to automation, the UBI concept can serve as a last resort—but only in a way that minimizes political interference.

The Negative Income Tax (NIT) proposed by Milton Friedman is the ideal mechanism for this small sector of the economy. This process respects privacy and is harder to manipulate because it is tied directly to income tax. A citizen simply files their return, and the “refund” is disbursed in monthly installments to cover food, shelter, and clothing.

This method is highly efficient, requiring no new bureaucracy. Existing tax agencies can administer it through normal procedures. While Friedman was at times strategic in his communications with binary economist Norm Kurland to protect his status, he was correct that the tax burden for such a system would be lower than that of today’s myriad social programs. Crucially, this guaranteed income is temporary; each year, new interest-free loans for investment become available, literally pushing people out of the welfare cycle and back into active ownership. 

Growth, Sustainability, and a Moral Future

Those concerned about “limits to growth” often have a stunted view of progress. Economic growth can—and should—comprise increases in quality rather than just quantity. This looks like more green space, low-impact digital education, or even extraterrestrial ventures.

Doing more with less is the hallmark of progress. UBO loans can be tilted toward sustainability, utilizing vehicles like the Cooperative Land Development Corporation. (Detailed plans for this design can be found at cesj.org).

Furthermore, eliminating compounding interest from productive property loans removes the “churn and burn” of resources required to pay off ever-increasing debt. As the late Bernard Lietaer analyzed in Beyond Greed and Scarcity, our current system creates a scarcity mentality that drives greed and hoarding. In the “musical chairs” of the current business cycle, losing doesn’t just mean losing a game—it means families losing their homes.

It is time for what futurist Alvin Toffler termed the first truly human civilization. The tools are here. The only missing element is you.