A society where money can't quietly decide who eats, who's heard, and who escapes consequences.
+Most systems pile three jobs onto one thing — money: it buys what you need, it keeps you alive, and it decides who holds power. This design pulls those jobs apart and builds walls between them. Then it proposes the smallest honest test of whether the walls hold.
+ +Where the money goes
+Roughly — full budgets need site-specific legal and clinical review. Notice that a real share pays for outside scrutiny: independent review is funded, not invited later.
+ +The idea, in one move
+Markets stay. Profit stays. What changes is that none of them can be turned into power over another person's survival or vote.
+Each wall protects one thing from being bought. The walls between them aren't a feature of the system — they are the system.
+Ordinary money
Everyday spending, saving, wages, and business. Yours to use freely — no one can secretly shrink it.
FlowAn unbuyable floor
Food, shelter, medicine, and water as a right, not a reward — no matter what's in your account.
Essential AccessShared value returned
Value no one created — land windfalls, resource rents, monopolies — returned to everyone as a stake. Ordinary earnings, homes, and tools are left alone.
Commons Return + StakeA voice that fades
An equal, expiring claim to put an issue on the table. It can't be bought, stockpiled, or turned into a status score.
VoiceEarned public roles
You qualify for public roles by contributing, then rotate through — not by wealth or connections.
Service RecordA scarcity backstop
When there genuinely isn't enough of something essential, it is rationed by need and a fixed rule set ahead of time. Never by who can pay the most.
Shared Storehouse+ + +
The pilot — start with the foundation
+The question a skeptic actually cares about: can a person quietly turn their survival floor back into spendable cash — and can a shortage be faked to cut people off? Most of the pilot points its instruments at those two failure modes, because that's where the design either earns trust or loses it.
+The hard test (months 9–11): a shortage is simulated — no real supply is cut — and the whole rationing machinery runs against it. The declaration must survive an outside reviewer trying to fake it, and the rationing must follow the rule, not price. (Deliberately starving real people to study them is the one thing a pilot must never do.)
+What would change for the people in it
+There's no data yet — that's the whole point of running it. But the pilot measures more than whether the machinery works: against a cash comparison group and validated scales, it asks whether life is actually different for the people in it. What we look for, and what it looks like up close:
+And we report what doesn't change. Some lives won't move much; some people will dread the pilot ending. Both get published — including the honest limit that an 18-month floor with a known end date may understate what a permanent one would do.
++ + +
What 18 months looks like
+Exit is rehearsed, not assumed
The pilot first proves a participant can walk away with no penalty and no loss of their existing support. You don't ask people to lean on a floor until you've shown they can step off it safely.
The floor runs — two cohorts at once
A monthly allocation of food staples and basic medicines. One group gets physical goods; the other a closed-loop credit that's technically blocked from cash-out. The comparison is the experiment.
The controlled scarcity test
A planned 30% shortfall in one good. Can the shortage be declared honestly? Does fair rationing beat price? Does the floor stay intact even when the measurement system is made to fail?
Results published — pass or fail
An independent reviewer holds the data and signs off. A failed pilot is published as failed, with a public post-mortem written into the grant. No rebranding.
+ + +
What backing this actually buys
+A genuinely new answer
UBI trials test cash. None test whether a survival floor can stay unbuyable — that money can't quietly convert it back. That's the open question this pilot is built to answer.
Evidence you can trust
An independent reviewer holds the data and can publish. Every finding is replicable from open data. You fund proof, not a press release.
A small bet on a big question
$350K–$860K against a question about how a society protects its most vulnerable. Finland spent €20M to test a narrower one.
Honesty as the deliverable
It's designed to fail informatively. If a wall doesn't hold, you'll know exactly which one — published — before anyone builds on it.
+ + +
What would kill it
+A failed pilot is information, not embarrassment. It tells us which wall doesn't hold — before anyone depends on it.
+More than 5% of the floor's value leaks back into cash. The wall between survival and money is broken.
A shortage can be faked to cut people off and survives the reviewer's audit anyway. A design-level failure, not a tuning problem.
A black market covers more than 20% of the shortage gap. Rationing lost to price.
Any breach of the survival floor. Not a metric to trade off — a hard stop.
+ + +
The two-minute version
+ Get the full proposal +Who's behind it
Cameron Lames
+"A safety net caught me when I had nothing left to stand on. I couldn't stop thinking about everyone who doesn't have one. That could have been me."
+I grew up inside systems that were supposed to help and didn't. I served in the U.S. Army, and I came home carrying service-connected PTSD. Things fell apart. After I survived an attempt on my life, what was left of my world came apart completely. What slowly put me back together was simple. I had a floor under me when I had nothing left, and the compensation I receive for my service is a safety net I am grateful for every single day.
+That gratitude turned into a question I couldn't put down. What about the people who have no floor at all? No benefit, no catch, nothing. That could have been me. And right now, it is a lot of people.
+I am not a politician or an economist, and I won't pretend to be. But something deep in me is certain there is a better way. I believe we can build systems that actually do what they say they do. The Humane Constitution is my attempt at that, and this pilot is how I find out, honestly, whether it holds.
+If this is worth testing, let's talk.
+Whether you could fund a pilot, host one in your community, or tear the design apart as a skeptic — that's exactly the contact worth making.
+ +