Even though I'm a proponent of universal basic income (see "How much poverty should exist in the world" by Philip Silva), I prefer to focus on universal dividends. What's the difference? A universal dividend can be more or less than the value of a basic income. Multiple dividends can coexist, whereas UBI typically connotes a payment from a single source.

I think the value of a single dividend could be much less than what would meet someone's basic needs and still be useful. This is especially true when combining dividends from multiple sources and offering choices.

Eventually, the total value of universal dividends collected by each individual will be much more than what's needed to merely sustain life. They will empower lives of meaning and self-actualization, not just subsistence. Dividends will flow from the many commons we discover and create.

In this article I'll mention four virtues--or reasons--why we should use universal dividends.

When a person or entity collects wealth or resources with the intention of distributing them later (perhaps after more research), they become a temporary bottleneck. There is usually good to be done now.

The beneficiaries of a wealth or resource distribution are always ultimately people. People know best how to spend money or resources to help themselves, so we should get resources into their hands sooner¹.

Sometimes buffers are needed to cope with uncertainties and await more information, but this should be minimized. A universal dividend can help streamline distributions.

An example of a bottleneck is a non-profit or philanthropist that holds vast wealth in stocks or other investments.

More companies could be set up as non-profits if they knew that excess revenue could be distributed as a universal dividend.

Producers are free to decide what part of their product is best held as a commons. Being able to distribute the value of a commons (or access to it) as a universal dividend opens the door to recognizing more common goods.

When we create something valuable we can try to hoard it (or sell it and hoard the resulting wealth). We can hoard the governance of it, or we can arrange to set up our creation as a commons or a pseudo-commons. In other words, we can choose to become a bottleneck or we can choose to become a creator of common goods and a distributor of universal dividends.

I've written another article on how to recognize and create more commons.

Vast wealth is held in the value of universal commons such as land, oceans, living organisms, the electromagnetic spectrum, art, architecture, literature, software, and the accumulated technology of past generations.

Commons are waiting to be governed by those claiming the right to do so as a universal stewardship, and paying for their use to humanity as a universal dividend.

Imagine ten storehouses each filled with a different kind of food. Certificates to claim part of the contents are distributed as a universal dividend via Unitap, which is set up to allow each person to claim a limited number of kinds of dividends a day. This means--in the case of food certificates--people will choose the kind of food they prefer (or the most valuable certificates to trade with others). Storekeepers will see the relative demand for their goods. Different kinds of currencies, utilities, network access, company shares, and many other types of tangible and intangible items can be distributed this way.

A limited choice makes it more likely that specific resources will end up with those that will use them.

When we consider the mechanism of choice mentioned above, we realize that a universal dividend can distribute not just wealth, but governance rights.

Who should govern a commons? Those who care enough to choose to claim its governance tokens over other options. After universal dividends have elevated everyone above the subsistence level, we are free to choose to govern the commons we care about most.

[1]: Or the governance of important resources into the hands of people who care enough to preserve them. See Distributing governance.

Even though I'm a proponent of universal basic income (see "How much poverty should exist in the world" by Philip Silva), I prefer to focus on universal dividends. What's the difference? A universal dividend can be more or less than the value of a basic income. Multiple dividends can coexist, whereas UBI typically connotes a payment from a single source.

I think the value of a single dividend could be much less than what would meet someone's basic needs and still be useful. This is especially true when combining dividends from multiple sources and offering choices.

Eventually, the total value of universal dividends collected by each individual will be much more than what's needed to merely sustain life. They will empower lives of meaning and self-actualization, not just subsistence. Dividends will flow from the many commons we discover and create.

In this article I'll mention four virtues--or reasons--why we should use universal dividends.

When a person or entity collects wealth or resources with the intention of distributing them later (perhaps after more research), they become a temporary bottleneck. There is usually good to be done now.

The beneficiaries of a wealth or resource distribution are always ultimately people. People know best how to spend money or resources to help themselves, so we should get resources into their hands sooner¹.

Sometimes buffers are needed to cope with uncertainties and await more information, but this should be minimized. A universal dividend can help streamline distributions.

An example of a bottleneck is a non-profit or philanthropist that holds vast wealth in stocks or other investments.

More companies could be set up as non-profits if they knew that excess revenue could be distributed as a universal dividend.

Producers are free to decide what part of their product is best held as a commons. Being able to distribute the value of a commons (or access to it) as a universal dividend opens the door to recognizing more common goods.

When we create something valuable we can try to hoard it (or sell it and hoard the resulting wealth). We can hoard the governance of it, or we can arrange to set up our creation as a commons or a pseudo-commons. In other words, we can choose to become a bottleneck or we can choose to become a creator of common goods and a distributor of universal dividends.

I've written another article on how to recognize and create more commons.

Vast wealth is held in the value of universal commons such as land, oceans, living organisms, the electromagnetic spectrum, art, architecture, literature, software, and the accumulated technology of past generations.

Commons are waiting to be governed by those claiming the right to do so as a universal stewardship, and paying for their use to humanity as a universal dividend.

Imagine ten storehouses each filled with a different kind of food. Certificates to claim part of the contents are distributed as a universal dividend via Unitap, which is set up to allow each person to claim a limited number of kinds of dividends a day. This means--in the case of food certificates--people will choose the kind of food they prefer (or the most valuable certificates to trade with others). Storekeepers will see the relative demand for their goods. Different kinds of currencies, utilities, network access, company shares, and many other types of tangible and intangible items can be distributed this way.

A limited choice makes it more likely that specific resources will end up with those that will use them.

When we consider the mechanism of choice mentioned above, we realize that a universal dividend can distribute not just wealth, but governance rights.

Who should govern a commons? Those who care enough to choose to claim its governance tokens over other options. After universal dividends have elevated everyone above the subsistence level, we are free to choose to govern the commons we care about most.

[1]: Or the governance of important resources into the hands of people who care enough to preserve them. See Distributing governance.