Hi everybody, what a debate! The topic is getting so big, we decided to open part 2. It is allowed to ask for a more technical response in a topic, but in this case it was a bit confusing because the topic was started a bit different. But all is good, enjoy the debate. Both technical and political are okay in this one ;-).
Nice one…I can see it working in certain locations within a larger coherent political/social system. I think it’s great, it’s just there are limits to how self-sufficient we can be and this needs to be factored in. I mean just for starters you have to accept that there are certain restrictions due to the social/political/geographical environment you/we are currently living in - we have to acknowledge it actually exists
You would need to operate/fit within the existing system and recognise you will still need to adhere to the Laws of the larger group and consider things such as defense/welfare etc. Do you see why I see it more as a club/community with rules, within a larger group with more fundamental protections, such as Human Rights?
oi, we don’t believe in leaders on this thread, it’s about how to polycentrify polpolrene
Okay, that is really cool. However what do you mean "except for the function of buying resources from the network itself? Do you mean that it cannot be exchange with safecoin? Or do you mean buying hhd aka resources?
Ah good point. So it is wise to use asset, and have that asset value based on people speculations. Much like what real estate provides the data to the people on the land value.
I been thinking similar to this idea since March of this year, before I found maidsafe. This is exactly what I have in mind. So each safecoin could use as contract?
Ohh thanks for the clarification.
When the coin is divided up into parts, does that mean the data is also broken up, and one person cannot access to that coin unless all party members agreed to access to data?
What if both party set up a rule between themselves, they use a link to safe data. Inside of that safe data contains an agreement between two parties. Both coins broken up, and each holds that contract as a mean as a agreement.
Apparently the man has never heard of civil disobedience or a rebellion against the state. No people don’t HAVE to agree or adhere to laws of the “larger group” at all.
But none of these things are WATER. Paying for piping to someone’s house does me little good if I’m living on a houseboat in middle of the ocean or in a mobile home traveling the world. In addition what if I have a house that has self contained water and I don’t WANT to be hooked up to the water grid? Can I refuse to be hooked up to the grid? I remember a case of a woman who had an off grid house and was charged fines for having her water disconnected. Same works for land. None of the things you mention are LAND. So I own land and you charge me tax and it goes back into the community? Um what? But I don’t own anything that my money is paying for and the money is paying for things I’m not nessesarily using. And if land belongs to everyone equally how can you insist you have a right to tax me for using it since the taxes have absolutely nothing to do with the land?
You have the power plant. You possibly have money from selling off assets (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here.) But what happens if no one is WILLING to choose to work in the plant? If you did not have money you’d have to rely on volunteer labor. But again you would face the problem of what if people did not choose to give you or exchange you their labor. Which is precisely my point. Taxation is theft because the money you are taking is a result of human labor. So even if you can argue that all the resources and all the land is collectively owned. Even if you could get everyone to get together and create an asset collectively you still could not just insist people give you their money anymore than you could insist that they serve you. Insisting that someone give you a portion of their money is forced labor. That’s what I’m getting at. And obviously there is some disagreement about the whole collective ownership issue.
Any type of StructuredData can be transferred to a new owner or group of owners, so you can trade them freely for anything.
You can create your own network tokens that can’t be counterfeited, have one or more owners, can be transferred freely, and can contain/point to any data on SAFE. The use cases of this feature are unlimited. I’m sure it’s possible to use them in a (smart) contract system. What the SAFE network won’t do for some time, is excute smart contract code a la Ethereum. But these tokens can be used from the start as proof of ownership in whatever system you build on top of SAFE. If you can create consensus among your public that a particular token is representative of a physical asset, that token can then be used as a reliable proof of ownership that can be verified by anyone and traded freely.
Gentleman, very heady thread.
My roommates ask me to pitch in on the utility bills. If I refuse then what? Do I have an inalienable right to stay wherever I want because I have the right to not participate? Extrapolate outward.
One of my roommates is disabled and cannot provide for himself. Throw him out? Or, rely on the goodness of others to volunteerly pick up the slack? For our personal freedom do we require that he live with such uncertainty?
To spread the risk, as “they” say, requires everyone’s participation. (Socialism) The downside is forced participation which clearly infringes on personal freedom and there will be freeloaders.
Anarchy - the risk is the vulnerable will be left to fend for themselves. IMO history has proven that we, human beings as individuals, are too self centered to properly take care of each other. We can’t seem to not overlook the plights of others as we are, understandably, too focused on our own. Too many will be neglected without a system.
Here’s a thought. How about we start with the assumption that resources and objects are ownerless. That no one owns land, water, air etc. Then if you stake a claim and measure to it it then can be owned. THEN add the crypocoin asspect with creating StructuredData assets for claimed owned property assets. This would solve the issue of the preverbial log cabin example because it would make tagging one’s property with cryptocoin an option not a requirement. However one could not trade one’s property electronically until one did so and so most people would. It’s kind of like how most people, but not all, have cell phones these days. It’s an option not a requirement it’s still very popular.
This would also allow for the creation of public assets by cooperatives, communes and governments that wished to enter into agreement with one another as co-ownership entities. There’s no reason an asset would need to only be owned by a single owner. It would be interesting to see however a public record however of who actually owned a piece of public land for instance. If a piece of land actually was co-owned by the entire country shouldn’t every citizen’s name be on there? That would be a very long list.
Bitlaw goal is to eliminate monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. The goal is to eliminate political party system, and nonsense politics. “My threats of violence is better than yours. vote for me!”
People have the right to defend themselves from aggressors. If their life, and property being violated, they have the right to defend themselves.
I forgot to mention that the only contract you need to agree to order to use bitlaw, is the NAP. Non-Aggression Principle. The goal is to put NAP in the center of the society, not monopoly of law, and order.
Welfare is replaced with charity. In bitlaw terms, community crowd sourcing. No votes needed. If you want to help homeless people, set up it yourself, and start ask people to pool in resources.
I don’t believe in human rights. It interfere with natural rights. This will bring up more discussion. I will not partake this topic of rights, fyi.
Again I thought this was a polycentric system? Not that I disagree with your motives or with NAP but that you are basing your system on YOUR philosophy and not making it flexible for all philosophies. What about a society that believes in honor dueling or believes it’s fitting to punch someone in response to an insult? I’m just saying custom and law are infinitely flexible and not everyone will agree with you.
Fair enough. Maybe this could give socialism better option as well. Every property owner gives their consent that their property is public, and will be decided the usage by the majority. (uck). But if what the user decides to withdraw consent, the property should be return to rightful owner? So in this sense, this user is technically leasing his property to the socialist, and they can do what they want until the lease is up, or can be extended for more time. However, what if the socialist does not want to give it up regardless of the proof of property? The line draws that capitalism cannot sustain under socialist society. However the socialist can sustain within capitalism society.
Edited: Anyways. The point being here is how to identify, and give proof of property. 3rd party agencies would provide token, as a choice. The holding the property asset means that it also hold the accountability of the 3rd party agency.
Who currently holds this monopoly in your view, how do you propose to go about eliminating it and how do you decentralise say a national army or police force, or codify what an individual’s rights are in regard to using physical force?
I see…so your idea is not for all society then, as I said, it’s more like a club with rules? This doesn’t seem to impact any perceived “monopoly” of law and order in any way, shape or form
OK, so that would be a minority political viewpoint for all the reasons that I have given throughout (both) threads - so you’ve definitely got no chance of this becoming any kind of widely adopted system until such a time as the prevalent moral philosophical thinking is of an Absolutist variety or the prominent political ideologies are based loosely around Libertarianism and individualism.
I do, along with what I think would be a majority believe in Human Rights…
I feel you dude. Of course one could also call this charity.
That’s one model however one could also actually create a cooperative and share equal ownership with the socialist(s). Think of a pie. You have a whole pie, then you cut it into slices. You each get one and own an individual slice. Each co-owner would be free to use the land, sell it back to the collective or sell his share to someone else. But the original owner could not demand that the property control simply return to him unless he had a controlling percentage of the shares. And even then he’d still need to buy out the remaining socialists in order to fully get them out. Think North West Trading Company or Westjet not Hudson’s Bay Company or Canada Airlines.
Then they’d be tresspassing and subject to aggressive negotiations I’d wager.
Like I keep saying we need to make this thing flexible… I might not agree with the statists but we do need to accomodate them along with other viewpoints. The system does need to be truly polycentric.
Actually it did. As if one is defending themselves against tresspassing one is NOT the aggressor. If someone comes onto your land, you tell them to get off and they refuse you forcibly evicting them is a defensive action. Now if they’re already on your land and you go after them that’s a different story.
“Defending yourself against trespassing” ? eh?
You own a house, lease it to somebody who stays after the lease is up, so this gives you the right to batter him? And he was the aggressor?
unbelievable…where is the legal process?
He was in the example we were talking about, and yet again, that is why you are wrong to correct me.
If your lease is out and I tell you to leave and you refuse I’m well within my rights to kick you out the door yes. If you fight to stay and try to lock yourself in your room or something yes I’m well within my rights to forcibly remove you from the property. At my old appartment complex I had a neighbour who had to once forcibly evict a tenent who the landlady had given an eviction notice to but was refusing to leave. So he went up, knocked on the door, when the guy refused to leave they fought and he threw him, literally, off the second floor balony and onto the street, he bounded. So yes if a socialist’s lease is up and they refuse to leave the owner is well within their rights to evict them, with force if nessesary. Why is a legal process nessesary? There’s a proof of ownership and someone refusing to respect it. It’s pretty clear what the course of action is: Get out or we’ll get you out. What seems to be in question for you and needs to be taken to court?