Stablecoins are digital currencies designed to hold a steady value, usually pegged one-to-one to traditional money like the U.S. dollar or the Canadian dollar. They move on blockchain networks, allowing money to be sent quickly, globally, and often at lower cost than traditional banking systems.

In this episode of Me, Myself, and AI, Casey B steps back from the headlines and asks a quieter but more dangerous question: what happens when the rules that govern nations start to feel optional?

Drawing on her undergraduate studies in criminology and Caribbean studies, and approaching the moment not as an expert, but as a citizen of the world, Casey reflects on recent global events that echo the very case studies many of us learned about in school: violations of sovereignty, the use of force without clear international authorization, and the erosion of norms designed to prevent escalation.

Joined by her AI co-host, Jazz, the episode explores:

• What sovereignty actually means under international law

• Why the prohibition on the use of force exists in the first place

• How international legal frameworks are supposed to function — and where they often fail

• Why major powers are rarely held accountable in the same way smaller states are

• And why so many people feel a deep unease before they can fully explain it

This is not an episode about taking sides or predicting catastrophe. It’s about pattern recognition, the slow normalization of actions that international law was built to restrain, and the risks that emerge when legitimacy gives way to raw power.

At a time when global institutions are under strain, this conversation reminds us that international law doesn’t survive on treaties alone. It survives when people understand why the rules exist, and notice when they begin to fray.

⸻

Key Sources & Legal Frameworks Referenced

Foundational International Law

• United Nations Charter (1945)

• Article 2(4): Prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state

• Article 51: Limited right to self-defense

• International Court of Justice

• Nicaragua v. United States (1986): Landmark ruling on unlawful use of force and non-intervention

• International Criminal Court

• Rome Statute provisions on crimes of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity

International Humanitarian & Human Rights Law

• Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols

• Civilian protection, proportionality, and distinction in armed conflict

• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (1973)

• Protections for heads of state and senior officials

Regional & Multilateral Norms

• Organization of American States Charter

• Principles of non-intervention and sovereign equality

• Customary International Law

• State sovereignty, diplomatic immunity, and non-interference

Trade & Political Context

• North American Free Trade Agreement / USMCA

• Economic integration alongside divergent foreign-policy responses

• Illustrates how trade alliances can shape — and sometimes mute — political accountability

Supplementary Analysis

• United Nations General Assembly resolutions on use of force and sovereignty

• Academic commentary on enforcement gaps in international law

• Human rights reporting on civilian harm and extraterritorial use of force

In this episode of Me, Myself, and AI, Casey B takes a clear-eyed look at Universal Basic Income (UBI), not as a theory, but as a real policy idea tested in real places with real people.

Drawing on evidence from Ireland, Finland, Manitoba, Alaska, Ontario, and Canada’s COVID response, the episode breaks down what actually happens when people are guaranteed a basic income floor. The data consistently shows improvements in mental health, stability, and well-being, without large-scale withdrawal from work.

Rather than arguing for a one-size-fits-all cheque, the episode explores a more realistic model: updating ineffective and punitive income assistance programs into a guaranteed minimum income or top-up system, while keeping critical supports like disability in place. The focus is on reducing bureaucracy, removing fear and instability, and allowing people to work and earn on top of a stable income floor.

The episode also tackles common fears head-on government control, fairness, cost, and and reframes the conversation around system design, incentives, and how people actually behave in real life.

The central question isn’t whether people deserve support, but whether we’re willing to redesign systems that repeatedly fail to produce stability, health, or opportunity.