Nothing, Autogov is all free always. This is necessary for its complete transparency and thus credibility.

No one is, we all are. That’s the whole point. 

Of course, there might be some organizers on a community made with Autogov as it is free to use.

Autogov was created by Barcelona Philosopher/Political Scientist Zury Asse (Mexico City 1967).

The idea was than anyone could easily install, customize, and modify the code easily. WordPress is the most popular easy to use open-source platform out there.

Non and both. We say it is not Left or Right but Meta. 

It might be very attractive to both a certain left: as a means of economic equality and freedom and a transparent horizontal governance, and to certain right; as liberal, minimal government, decentralized, un-bureaucratic, free market society.

It is probably not attractive for the “let’s keep fighting so next year we get 5% augment on wages and 2 days more vacation days” left. Nor to the “We are superior, lets just bribe the government and increase the military” right.

Sure, you could for instance use more and extend the lapse of the Positions Vontests, lower the Basic Income, and increase the difficulty to change Metalaws.

Yes, hopefully soon. Before it’s too late.

A Political Party anywhere in the world could adopt Autogov in their party platform. It would be an autogovist party.

Sure, a lot, this is no simple task, but whatever the problem, with Autogov it’s much easier and faster to find and implement the right answer to fix them than with traditional systems.

Autogov can change its own basic functioning and constitutive laws; so a question could be asked: Is there a minimum without which it ceases to be Autogov?

The answer is the “MetaPragmatic minimum”, which means you have to provide neutral, transparent, rich, debate, which can only be achieved from a Meta perspective with free individuals; and you have to allow and foment evolution and improvement in everything, which aligns with philosophical pragmatism and the Pragmatic theory of truth.

The same as any other currency, believing in it and using it in an exchange market and a public fund.

“So what, you expect me to be fine with people staying at home watching TV while I do all the work?” This is a deeply rooted attitude and critisism to Basic Income and so we though we should try to address it.


First of all, we don’t really know at any given time if an act is a contribution to society or not.

What is a contribution to society? Can we really tell? A man working in an arms factory is contributing to society? An artist making strange paintings few people like is contributing? An executive in a transnational corporation?

First, we don’t have a consensual goal for society against which we could measure our advances.

Second, even if we had such a consensual goal, it is not easy at all to assess whether an act leads us to it or not, specially in a complex society like ours.

Third, an act in this context, cannot be judged disregarding the Time dimension: John Doe is indeed doing nothing all day, but his mind is working, maybe it is restructuring itself, maybe it is planting the seeds for a great contribution to society in a few years. We really don’t know what consequences a moment has over time. Notably, from an ecological point of view, there is actually an excess of production in our society, so someone not producing could be contributing more to society than someone producing.

2. When left free, people eventually begin to do something with their lives.

This assertion should be confirmed by scientific studies, but in my experience and observations, inactivity comes mostly from a reaction to previous ‘bad’ activity. It is a rest and purification from it. After a few years, we naturally begin to want to do something with our lives.

If a persons’ motivations for doing something were usually ‘external’, to the person and to the act, it takes a few years to develop, or find again, internal motivations for doing something. 3. Contributing to society should be seen as a good in itself for the contributor, the reward is in the act itself.

The exploitation objection’ is based on the premise that contributing to society is a sacrifice, but that needs not be the case, specially in a BI society. You might want to contribute because you feel good doing it, not because you have to, or because you’ll get a reward from it.

People usually want to feel they are ‘good’, so if they do a ‘good’ act, they will feel good doing it. Thus if a person is not contributing to society right now, well, too bad for him.

4. Work under BI should be justified by measuring satisfaction plus payment, minus effort plus sacrifice.

Should the satisfaction of doing something good not be enough motivation, let us not forget that under BI, acts are still payed for. So the exploitation objection is mitigated by the fact that the active get paid more than the inactive.

If satisfaction from action plus payment is not enough to compensate an effort, then let it not be done.

What if too many people end up not doing anything all day for too long and BI cannot be maintained? Well that would be a different problem. Perhaps society could address it through all kinds of work incentives and education. But it is my personal belief, that few people enjoy inactivity for a long time, even if they are free to do it. We seem to have a deep need to justify our own existence, at least to ourselves, and that is hard to achieve not doing anything.

Add to all the above the social pressure of having a good answer to the question “so what do you do in life?” and we shan’t worry anymore.


“People are stupid”, and so Direct Democracy won’t work.

One of the hardest temptations to let go is to think “sure, we all have opinions, but in the end, mine (my group, my guru) is the right one”. We need to remind ourselves that the others think so too. We need to go meta and realize that the whole, if properly wired internally, knows more about its will and its path, than any one part alone. If your part is right, it should eventually be able to persuade, through Autogov structured debates, the rest of people.


“But only experts, with special studies know what is right”

Well, the thing is there are usually experts supporting all positions, which ones are right? Furthermore, in the case of people governance, what studies exactly enable you to decide what is best for all? Some could argue that the more you study and specialize with your mind, the further detached you become from some other more natural or more spiritual wisdom.


“But we have seen how a charismatic leader can manipulate the masses”

First of all, we are all always manipulated, thats just part of culture, but we tend to see only the other parties manipulation and not ours. Second, such manipulation is much harder when the issues are small and concrete, like in Autogov, than when you only get two or three packages of ideas every four years. Thirdly, if a ‘bad’ decision wins, since its debate and voting remains open in Autogov, it can be corrected quite quickly and smoothly.

Forthly, reputation scores can act dynamically to bring attention to de facto experts or groups on each field, but without giving them any authority. In Autogov ideas compete, not persons. And last, if you create a governance based on the idea that people are stupid, that system is bound to create and perpetrate stupid people. “We shape our buildings and then our buildings shape us”
 – Winston Churchill