Patrick Danahey
   32B Torlesse Street
   Wakatu /Nelson
   Aotearoa (NZ)
   Ph.545-7273
   E-mail:c/o ceres7@netaccess.co.nz

UUI / UBI: A Revolution of Human Consciousness
              A Means to Create a Healthy Sustainable Future

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
         John Maynard Keynes

"Welfare is a pittance compared to our robbery from the poor of their birthright."
         Robert Schutz The $30,000.00 Solution

The debate rages on. Which universal income system is the best? Can we find a fault in their figures? Can we disprove and therefore invalidate the entire Universal Income movement because of that fault? If we can't find a fault does that proposal become the new income system that we are all going to support for the future?

Most, if not all, of the economic proposals that we as Aotearoan's have been subjected to as representing the Universal Income movement's philosophies (specifically the U.B.I. aspect of the movement) are based on "income distribution" models. These have been supported as well as criticised by a variety of economists. Many people seem to think that if we can either prove or disprove these proposals that this will validate or invalidate the movement.

As of yet we as a society have not even begun to look at "income redistribution" models. There are no economists running around arguing that there isn't enough income to redistribute. Anyone with even a marginal sense of intelligence doesn't need an economist to help him or her see that. There are vast arrays of proposals dealing with this process. They involve such things as taxing unearned income such as inheritance, interest, and so forth. As well as capping high-income salaries and thereby bringing the excesses back to the public pool. Economists such as Schutz have derived the lowest salaries to be about $30,000.00 per year and the uppermost salaries to be no more than about $300,000.00-$500,000.00 per year (1). When we look at Universal Income schemes from this perspective the issues of "is there enough money" is not even relevant. Admittedly, a small group of people might be disturbed at such schemes. On the whole, however, it is up to the people to decide.

People also argue that we should allocate this money for unpaid work, for mothers, and for a variety of other valid special interest concerns; rather than looking at the philosophy of the universality of the income and how these special interest concerns are linked to the same fundamental problems.

This leads us to the main thrust of this paper and the concerns of many that are involved with the Universal Income movement.

Do we really want a universal income?

What is it actually being allocated for?

If it is our right, on what is that based. Also, what responsibilities, if any, do we have that accompany this right?

What is the nature of sovereignty, and its' responsibilities?

How do I trust living in a society where sovereignty is shared equally?

Who are the true sovereigns for any society, democratic or otherwise?

How do we as a society really function?

What are the precedents?

How do we bring this Universal Income about?

This paper provides a relatively complex explanation for an extremely simple solution to a widely misunderstood problem.

"Is it not a fact that we are now so wrapped up in our own occupations [including the seeking of economic gain and independence] and the special interests of our own occupational [or phylogenic] groupings that we are almost at that pretyrranical stage described by Vico, the stage where everybody is so concerned with her/his own special interests that nobody looks after the common good?"
      Robert Hutchins (2)

If one understands the following:

1. that democracy means a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people collectively (Gk. Demokratea demos=people; krateo=to rule) not in its representatives;
2. that each individual is therefore the ruler or sovereign over that society's institutions, which is the meaning of citizenship within a democratic societal framework;
3. that the traditional responsibilities of a sovereign can be summarised as follows: caring for the natural environment so that it will be sustainable for future generations, protecting and securing human rights for everyone, facilitating a healthy commercial environment, and supporting the expense, education, and well-being of the sovereignty (the people); (3)
4. that economic independence for each individual is, therefore, an absolute requisite in order to have the freedom to adequately perform those responsibilities and for that society to even consider itself as a functioning democracy at all;

then you already are a part of the cyclical consciousness revolution that this paper is addressing. For you, an intellectual debate about whether we can or cannot afford to pay people their due allocations of income is borderline criminal. At best, it is discrimination. If low-income people cannot afford to make payments on their rent, there is no intellectual debate about whether they can afford it. Either they obtain the payments or leave. In the same way, the people as sovereigns who are the proprietors of the public domain have the right to receive their rent payments without squabbling by their governmental subjects or employees. To engage in a debate like that is to undermine what little remains of the people's sovereignty in our country, which formulates the basis of any true democratic system. The economic basis of the discussion, then, isn't can we afford a universal income, but rather, what is the best way of funding it? The socio-political aspects of the issue involve educating the people about their true status as sovereigns with their concomitant rights and responsibilities. These can be summarily found in the International Bill Of Human Rights to which New Zealand/Aotearoa is a signatory (4). The subsequent information will, I hope, offer further resources, techniques, and ideas to help assist your communication to others about this awareness that forms the core of any civilised society. For those whom these concepts are new it is hoped that this paper will inspire the curiosity required to learn more about them and suspend judgement until such time as you have grasped the underlying meaning and importance therein.

"If all people are to be rulers, which is what democracy means, then all people must be educated as rulers; nine tenths of them cannot continue to be trained as slaves. The alternative to educating all people as rulers is to return to a government in which a small elite will rule the great uneducated, slavish masses. This will represent a tacit, if not an explicit, agreement, with an ancient Greek conviction that some men are by nature fit only to be slaves. In the judgement of perrenialists, we are operating our schools as if most people were fit only for servile occupations, not for the obligations of free citizenship."
      Hutchins, The Conflict in Education, p.66

As mentioned in the abstract there have been a variety of reasons proposed as justifications for having a UBI. Each one of those proposals will have a different social impact on a society adopting it with the inevitability of some rather severe negative repercussions if not well thought out. For example, if the primary justification for having a UBI is to pay people for unpaid work, a series of mounting problems occur. Many people who do a variety of volunteer works do so out of a sincere inner calling to help and may be quite skilled as well. To give money to someone of this nature is to offer an insult to their sincerity and to say their work is only worth the dole is to add salt to the wounds. It displays a vast ignorance towards the level of humanity to which these people in Aotearoa (NZ) and elsewhere have been and are working. Further, the concept of paying a UBI for unpaid work reinforces a variety of negative social divisions in society. First it opens the useless enquiry of what is valid unpaid work. This question is the calling card of all neo-fascists that are going to put the world to rights with their "work for the dole" and "good works" type schemes (all compulsory "good works" and "work for the dole" type schemes are in violation of I.L.O. agreement sec.2-1 and the International Bill of Human Rights see I.C.E.S.C.R. article8.sec.3"No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour." They are recognised around the world as forms of slavery.). This process gathers the most pious of the pious to a self-righteous critical analysis orgy of the general worth of other people's lives. The final outcome can only be that those works that are closest to the pious analyst's are glittering in the evangelical froth that are stars while those that are farthest from their esteemed values are wallowing down gurgles at the bottom of the local sewer. Further, since a great many people are already entrapped within a wage slave system they do not have the free time (and in many cases do not have the skills) to proficiently engage in these insane enquiries that are going to radically "screw up" their lives. Many people who see themselves currently in undervalued servile type jobs such as housewives and househusbands try to see their work on an equal basis as their spouses, which currently the legal system does likewise. This opens the potential can of legal worms to suggest that housework is somehow less than other work and is deserving only of the dole (or the minimum income of a UBI). If it is deemed by the supreme "paragon's of virtue", that there is enough valid unpaid work out there to justify a UBI for every one. Then there is the problem of people, whose contributions to society are generally not valued by the majority, who have to suffer the abuse of being treated as if there income is simply some charity handout earned via the "good works" of others. Take note that the traditional areas of structural violence and psychological abuse/poverty are still alive and well under this system. Then there are the long-term political educational issues that occur. As special interest groups are quite frequently at odds with some other groups, there comes a point to where a given group's support for a universal income translates into negative support from these other group(s). This can be extremely counter-productive politically. The list goes on, but there should be enough here to illustrate the difficulty in defining the universal aspects of the income on the basis of special interest concerns.

Some of the better arguments used to justify a UBI at the time of writing involve everyone getting a cash payment from the social wage based on equal ownership of the public domain. Here the concept of equal sovereignty is implied. However, the true test of this understanding will occur if there is not enough money in the social wage within a given year to pay a full UBI to everyone. Who will decide who does and doesn't get paid as well as how much? Without the concept of democratic sovereignty the answer will be pretty easy to figure out. And if that is the case then a UBI is nothing more than a glorified handout. The aristocratic rich in many cases are some of the finest exemplars we have of a handout-based counter-culture. The vast bulk of their wealth has been derived from what is called "unearned income" e.g. inheritances (both legal and illegal, which have become avenues for much contention) and rent. More recently they have received income from tax cuts, corporate subsides, user-pays schemes on public resources and so forth. What have they done with their money to improve our society? They introduced underpaid work schemes, forced the break down of families by making both couples have to work for a single person's wage, publicly humiliating and attacking the poor for their inability to care for their families' because all their money was usurped from them by their persecutors. In other words giving money as a handout has had no significant effect on the quality of people's behaviours. In fact it has dramatically exacerbated the problems. As a handout the money has become a "reinforcer"(to use the jargon terminology of learning theorists) for the prevailing attitudes of prejudice, self-righteousness, greed, and ignorance amongst the recipients, thereby leading to an even stronger resultant backlash against the lower income earners.

Another good argument is the economic position that as a result of the expansion of technology there will be fewer and fewer jobs for the future and therefore an increasing expansion of unemployed people. This view also implies some form of shared ownership in society's means of production and an equality of status that hearkens back to the nature of the people's sovereignty. Clearly for the average person to share in this understanding and participate in the defence of this position they must be well versed in the precepts of their sovereignty.

Other options include the economic efficiency models. Most of these are actually quite exciting and show how the bare bones of the economic system can be altered to create a UBI that will alleviate the burdens of financial or physical poverty. Most of the UBI and basic income models fall into this category. The works of these economists deserve some of the highest praise we can offer. But why are we as a people only concerned with financial poverty, what about the responsible governance of our country? According to Ramsey Clark (5), the U.S. Secretary General, there were over 1/2 million children killed directly through UN sanctions, which were supported by Aotearoa NZ. Imagine all the people living in Wellington and Christchurch being transformed into children. This is still much less than the actual amount of children we have murdered. We as a country have a government that sent officials to speak on our behalf to say that the people of New Zealand support a sanction that will literally starve a half million children to death. Our representatives, by the way, aren't the ones responsible for this action, rather, we the people living in NZ, who are the rightful employers of these people are the ones responsible. Remember that in a democratic society it is the people who are the sovereigns. It is the people who are the bosses. One must say that it was most courteous of our governmental employees to keep the scenes of this horror, clearly sheltered from our eyes, ears, and minds. They made sure that we, their bosses, wouldn't get distracted from those thousands of new underpaid jobs we all have that have split our families up, kept us from being idle, and have given some real purpose to our meaningless little lives. And wasn't it considerate, of our "public servants" to send us, their bosses, a "code of social responsibility" concerning the further persecution of ourselves and especially of those lower income sovereigns, who had the most money and resources stolen from them by their employees, the governmental representatives?

The question may be asked since everyone in a democracy are the sovereigns of that society aren't our governmental representatives also? Yes, but not when they are at work.

When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.
      Helder Camara

Exchange the word "money" for the word "food" in the above quote from Helder Camara and you will find similar attitudes lurking amongst proponents from even such relatively enlightened fields as the Universal Income movement. These include UUI, UBI, Citizens Income, Guaranteed Income, Guaranteed Annual Income, Basic Income, and so forth. Mention giving the people or the poor, charity, a handout or its equivalent in the form of a UBI and you are an enlightened heroine/hero. Suggest that these people are all equals and you are an interesting but slightly naïve idealist. Go one step further and prove that they are the boss within a democratic society, and as such must have at least a basic living income as a prerequisite to competently being able to carry out their jobs, and the air gets down right thick. Examples, to this effect include:

1. Almost throughout the entire corpus of western literature that forms the backbone to university liberal arts programmes one can find this constant cyclical struggle between humanity alternating as the sovereign governing body to its' institutions versus it being enslaved to its' institutions via some despotic ruling power (9). "For from Plato and philosophy I had learned this lesson, that certain revolutions are natural to all republics, which alternately come under the power of monarch's, democracies, and aristocracies." On Divination Bk.2 50BC Cicero. "When the sovereignty of the people themselves is thus realised the republic is established; and it is no longer necessary to give up the reins of government to those by whom they...might again destroy all the new institutions by their arbitrary and absolute will." The Science of Right chp.52 Kant.
2. It is not so much the physical structure or the labels used to describe it that determines where the power lies within a society (i.e. just because the majority of people label their government a democracy doesn't mean that it is. Or if a government was a democracy two years ago it doesn't mean that it still is today even though everyone is still performing the same rituals.); but rather, it is revealed in the daily operations, perceptions, priorities, and values of intrinsic worth of the people within that society. James Frazer in his monumental work of the 12 volume series the Golden Bough documents at length, from around the world, various stages of the sacred kingship. In them we find that designated or representative kings comprised, in many cases, the lowest status attainable within those societies to the point where no one wanted to be king. Quite frequently kings had to be imported from other tribes (10). To take two examples. "...in Cambodia it is often necessary to force the kingships of Fire and Water upon the reluctant successors, and in the Savage Island the monarchy actually came to an end because at last no one could be induced to accept the dangerous distinction." [The Burden of Royalty ,The golden Bough p.233 Frazer.]
3. The concept of sovereignty has played a central role to all of our major religions. Whether it be the feminine Shekhinah of the Jewish faith, the flaith na Erinne of the early Irish or Celtic religions, the Den of the Magi, the sacred Queen/king of the early matriarchal cultures, and the enlightenment of Buddhism, Hinduism, and early Christianity. The Maori are also rediscovering this meaning in their Tino rangatiratanga. Traditionally, all cultures can trace a common religious link to their inherited sovereignty via the tree cult. People would at their various sacred festivals all wear crowns of leaves demonstrating their shared sovereignty and their oneness with the "Cosmic Tree". Many people still put up Christmas trees as their ancestors did long ago. A key principle to this system which can still be found in the early sacred texts was the idea that we are all connected to the great Cosmic Tree which is the central hub of the universe. All the changing forms and names that we experience in our world are the changing leaves of the Tree or the institutions. All that animates the changing aspects of our world is the eternal aspect of the Tree: the sovereignty. The task then, as it is now, albeit in a slightly different form, is to maintain our true identity with our sovereignty learning how to maintain our relationship with our institutions as it relates to our environment and ourselves. We must understand that our institutions are simply tools that we as sovereigns create to perform certain tasks that serve the needs of our planet and ourselves. In a democracy the people as sovereigns are the regulators (or employers) of these institutions. Responsibility for the actions of structures rests entirely with the people experiencing the effects of those actions: the sovereignty. People who are acting as employees, regardless of their perceived status or intelligence, are not free to regulate any institutions effectively. As long as they are employees, they are limited by the rules defined in their job descriptions. These include increasing profits and providing for the ongoing nature of those organisations' activities, even if those organisations have become destructive to the environment or the well being of others. So long as people remain entrapped by their institutions, the corruption in the form of damage to the people and the environment will escalate. Therefore a high premium in traditional cultures was placed on people "knowing themselves". This was critical for a society's health and survival. To elaborate further, the discriminatory aspect of our brain can be divided into three parts, traditionally they could be called the God of Commerce, the God of War, and the God of Ignorance. The God of War is that aspect of our mind that divides the unity of the world into little categorical boxes, the God of Commerce is that aspect of our mind that labels and places a value of importance on them, the God of Ignorance is that aspect of our mind that we must invoke to believe in the separateness of the divisions that we created were real. It is our minds then that create the divisions that we perceive as the world around us. In other words the whole world is one indescribable entity completely connected with no actual real divisions. The separateness and divisions that we perceive in our world are created by our own minds. Further, whatever values are held by the dominating influences in a society will by and large determine what divisions all people will create as determining their collective reality. By and large the world of the average person then is completely socially conditioned. Therefore from both traditional and contemporary human learning perspectives the principles would dictate that to allocate a UBI (a reinforcer) to a conditioned environment, will simply reinforce the values held at that time. As demonstrated earlier in this paper relative to Tax cuts given to the wealthy. Traditional education then was an incredibly complex process of deprogramming an individual from all of their socially conditioned perspectives until the individual remembered or encountered his/her true self. Sovereignty from this traditional perspective is the direct experience or understanding of the unity that animates all life so that we may transcend the traps of our illusory divisions, and perceptions. From this, which is our natural state of being we can therefore live confidently in a state of balance with our natural environment. A universal income then provides a means for all of us to find this relationship with our universe if we wish. Here is a technique that may help some people to gain a more direct experience of the feeling of sovereignty. Image a picture of someone that you have seen (man, woman, or child) whose life has been ravaged, by poverty, war, or violence. See that person as someone who loves and desires love just as you do. Identify this person with a close friend or relative that shares your hopes, dreams, and aspirations. Now, see, feel, and hear your friend taking joy in the expression and sharing of his or her life, love, and aspirations with you. Feel the deep wisdom shared by you two, foreseeing the horror that your friend must endure, and your inevitable link with it. Feel the dignity of your friend's spirit, the miracle and wonder that you can share this moment with each other. The feeling isn't one of pity; but rather of equality and communion in the face of the ineffable: the experience of human dignity and self worth.
4. The International Bill of Human Rights enshrines the spirit of sovereignty in its guidelines for honouring and respecting the dignity of all human beings. It also provides the basis for defining, evaluating, and instituting Universal Income schemes (11). In fact it was designed under a structure that was originally founded upon the principle of "shared sovereignty" (see Charter of the UN article 2 for principle of shared sovereignty.). Aotearoa NZ is a signatory to this document and as such is under obligation to honour it. It defines a " job" based on a minimum wage standard that says, roughly, that one persons wage should be adequate enough to support a family (or in modern terms a household) (12). Therefore the thousands of jobs that the government claims it created, can be seen for what they are, government creations: not jobs. It acknowledges as a right some form of an unconditional benefit, free health and education. Having this document legislated in law would in many cases be better than many of the earlier UBI type proposals. It would definitely put pressure on the government to seriously consider UBI proposals much more closely, since it would have to be the employers who pay the bill. The document also opens the way for revamping our educational system to meet the requirements necessary for educating people about responsible citizenship, and for living in a universal income environment as an empowered sovereign. The general public must know how to use their new-found powers to effect the changes they would like to make, and in general, develop the type of a world in which they would most like to live. Everyone should have some workable knowledge and skills about how to live in dynamic balance with their environment. No one wants to support a scheme in which they may come out worse off than they are now. The Universal Income Trust as well as the UUI proponents do not advocate a specific Income proposal; rather, to educate the public about the necessity of having one. From there the process might unfold as follows: the public may use its singularity of consciousness to compel, if it wishes, the government to fully adopt into law The International Bill of Human Rights. Then to encourage it to use its' powers to open up for "universal income" submissions including universities here and abroad. From those analysis allowing the public to choose the system of their choice. People must see that the Universal Income movement is comprehensive, integrated and workable. It is not just a simplistic quick fix money scheme.

1. Ascertain the socially conditioned habitude that the person you are communicating with seems to be locked into.
2. Through discussion determine what words best describe to that individual the meaning of sovereignty e.g. boss, ruler, governor, crown etc. (note, words do not have any absolute inherent meaning. They are simply vehicles or carriers of meaning. As a result we are all speaking slightly different languages. We must, therefore, constantly change our languaging to accommodate the individual differences of the people that we are speaking too.).
3. Help them to understand that they are that sovereignty. Use demonstrations such as the sovereign's responsibilities and show how the worlds most threatening problems such as violence, poverty, and environmental degradation (7) are problems that fall on the duties of the sovereignty. Use demonstrations from the economic efficiency models such as those offered in this conference. It is also especially useful to show that many Nobel Laureate economists such as Jan Tinbergen, James Meade and others have also advocated Universal Income schemes. It is important for the people collectively to realise the necessity of having one so that they will want it first. Then the government will have to follow the people's will if they want to stay in power. At this point a demand can be placed on all economists to come up with their best proposals subject for the peoples approval. Specialists are not there to tell us how things can't be done, rather, their role is to show us how things can be done. Otherwise they are not specialists.
4. People must understand that their sovereignty and survival are dependent on everyone else being empowered through the realisation of their own sovereignty. This necessitates the awareness of equality, mutual respect for the dignity of all humans, appreciation for all life forms, and the resultant need for a universal income for all. So that people can freely act on their responsibilities as they see fit. (Note: no one can tell the sovereign what to do; rather, it is through a revamped educational system that acts in accordance with the International Bill of Human Rights, whereby people learn through the full development of their personality, how society works, their inherited place, and responsibilities within that structure. True responsibility always rests with the person(s) who experience the direct consequence of an action. A doctor can not assume responsibility for ones life since they cannot give back a life that has been lost during an operation, for example. This principle can be applied as a teaching technique to violence, poverty, the environment and any other issue of concern.
5. The basic modus operandi of a sovereign is to offer labour and support for those things in society that we see as leading to a healthy sustainable future and the withdrawing of labour and support for those things that do not.
6. Everyone must be regularly reminded of his or her sovereignty. Just as lovers and couples need to reaffirm their love, so too people need to have their true status and equality affirmed. The reason that the concept of ones sovereignty is foreign to many people is because we were all socially conditioned to be slaves. As such we spend our lives asking people regularly "What do you do?" Thus, we are basing the terms of our acceptance of others on their qualities as a slave.
7. In each case people are drawn out of his/her socially conditioned habitude. They receive demonstrations, in response to their issues of concern, as to how the universality of the income and the equality of their status as sovereigns work as practical tools to solve global as well as their own interpersonal problems. It is useful for many to see how the values of a universal income are enshrined within the International Bill of Human Rights (8) and those of sovereignty within the historical and legal structures of democratic societies. With insight people are able to see this is not a panacea for ending all problems; but rather, a tool for working through them.

The most difficult people to deprogram are those that have become learned helpless. This refers to one of those early rat experiments. A rat is in a cage with an electric floor between him and his food. Each time he tries to get his food a higher and higher shock is given until it reaches the point where the rat will no longer cross the floor. At this point the rat will die of starvation even though the electricity is permanently turned off. The same thing can and does happen to people. It is one of the major reasons that most people feel helpless about changing their government. They have tried a few times to follow what they perceive is the correct channels of operation and they have had their "fingers burnt" i.e. nothing happened or they might have been humiliated and hurt.

The best way of helping these people is to find a small action that is designed to have an effect, invite them along for the fun of it, and if the action is a success they will feel more empowered. If it isn't they will just have had fun

Here is a way to reach people with a message that they keep rubbishing because they think you don't know what you are talking about. The first step is to forget about them and focus on people who will listen. All people look up to different people that they respect. By convincing a person that is respected by the one you want to deprogram you are well on your way to get through to the person you are actually trying to deprogram. In other words it is not your message that is the problem, rather, it is whom you are in the status game that is the basis of that persons conditioning.

"Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shown, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, that they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."
      T.Jefferson: A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge

As proved on page 7, paragraph 3 that we are all inseparably linked as "one", it is therefore not possible to claim true ownership in any real or absolute manner. Indeed the New Zealand government doesn't believe in ownership either since over seventy percent of the people said not to sell our assets, and they did anyway. Further, they are now at a stage where they no longer believe in basic human rights. They are acting as if the beneficiaries' income, which is recognised by all people of sound mind and in the International Bill of Human Rights as a fundamental right, is somehow under the ownership of a different group of people euphemistically labelled "the tax payer".

We have reached a stage in our history where our government officials no longer know their actual relationship to themselves, institutions, and the environment. Our way of life has become a threat to our environment and ourselves, and as such, is no longer sustainable. Therefore, the Universal Income Movement cannot be anything less than an education that allows people to re-ascend to their rightful heritage: their shared sovereignty and the re-establishment of basic human rights for everyone.

1. Schutz, Robert, Phd The $30,000.00 Solution; Fithian Press, Santa Barbara, 1996. [back]
2. Hutchins, Robert, Phd The Great Conversation 1932 p19.
   Robert Hutchins was instrumental in the development of the liberal arts curriculum for the American universities. [back]
3. See the International Bill of Human Rights.
   Smith, Adam An Inquiry Into the Natural Causes of the Wealth of Nations
       Bk.5 Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth.
   Shammastry,prof. Kautilya's Artha Shastra 1950.
   Frazer, James The Golden Bough 12 vol. 1918. [back]
4. See Human rights 2000 produced by UUI/UBI Action NZ. [back]
5. See charges issued by Mr. Clark at the International Court on Crimes Against Humanity; held in Spain on the 16th and 17th of November 1996. [back]
6. See Rudolph Dreikurs on Aggression and Klaus Mizek, Studies on Violence and Poverty Tufts University. [back]
7. See the UN's Peace and World Order Studies: A Curriculum Guide Transnational. Academic Institute for World Order. 777 United Nations Plaza NY. NY 1981. Three of Society's most threatening problems were identified as Poverty, Violence, and the degradation of our natural environment. See also The UUI/UBI position paper; available at the table. [back]
8. See Human Rights Paper 2000 pub by UUI/UBI action NZ. [back]
9. See Cicero on Plato in Divination Bk2.
   Jefferson, Thomas A Bill For the General Diffusion of Knowledge. [back]
10. Frazer, James The Golden Bough vast examples throughout all of the texts. [back]
11. See Human Rights 2000 and The UIT Brochure. [back]
12. See I.B.I.D. [back]

Links | | UBINZ | | GeoCities