Thanks for the link. Say good by to my free time. There is a lot of good stuff here.
Being responsible for your actions is naive and delusional? Please elaborate instead of name calling.
Being forced to move is unfair, but life is unfair. To think otherwise is naive. Why should the jurisdiction you live in bend to your political will just because you can’t afford to move. If you really need to move then I suggest relying on your friends and family. If you have neither then you might want to rethink your life choices.
I find it hard to believe that someone could not save up enough money to buy a bus ticket. I have meet homeless people that have saved up enough money to afford plane tickets to Hawaii.
I am not asking the jurisdiction to bend to my will. I’m asking the jurisdiction to leave me alone and not include me in their game just because I happen to have been born in that given space. I would say it is unfair to assume that one consents to a law based on what cubic they occupy or where they happened to be born. Consent should have to be a subscription of some kind that can be opted in and out of not a territorial jurisdiction that you have to spend lucre, sometimes excessive amounts of lucre, to get in and out of. According to your philosophy “voluntary” = “rich.” You are also suggesting one should give up everything they own in order to move. So to you “voluntary” is “give up everything” or “live in political hell.” And when the person lands in the new area of their political dreams they have nothing: no money, no resources, no friends, no home, no food, no nothing. Genius! You are an utter genius! You label such a plan to be realistic and voluntary. I don’t know where these homeless people are that can afford plane tickets but if they can then obviously they’re doing pretty damn well for themselves and aren’t starving on the streets like most homeless people do. You must live in the lap of luxury man to be surrounded by so much abundance and prosperity.
Let me break something down for you. If my survival is at risk when choosing my political views that’s not voluntary choice. Why should I have to move in order to opt out of a political regime? Why not simply go to city hall or something and sign a piece of paper or go online and fill out a form? Why is governance based on cubic? In fact I think the political regimes based on cubic idea is actually the reason behind a lot of wars.
In short the jurisdiction should allow me to opt out without insisting I move. Territories should not be decided based on cubic but rather on who agrees to what policy.
Think of it like a private security force. If you subscribe you get protection, if you don’t then you don’t but that doesn’t change the territory they operate in. Nor does it change your ability to live in the same area and/or opt-in and out of their system. Why the hell should I have to move because some blowhard wants to force everyone in a given area to bend knee to his will? How the hell do you call that voluntary?
And before you say “That’s democracy.” A vote for force is still force. Did I consent to these rules? No. Do I agree with these rules. No. Am I given any option to opt out of the system other than leave my home? No. Which begs the question: To whom does that home belong. You are assuming that land belongs to the state. But if you assume land, that home, belongs to the individual then no way in hell do you have the right to say that the STATE has any right to tell me to move in order to exercise my political rights, jurisdiction or not. Thus saying that it should be subscription based not based on cubic. If the individual owns x plot of land then the state does not have the right to insist that the individual give up that land or conform to y political regime just because they live there. There must be an opt out clause. Otherwise the state is also saying that they own the land and the individual does not.
This is a good point. Maybe jurisdiction should not be location based, but instead be subscription based. Private property should belong to the individual not the state.
This makes a lot of sense.
No it’s not. But there is the ideal world (utopia) and there is reality. While we’d all like to have the freedom to do whatever we like, there are always boundaries. Sometimes those boundaries are the hard and inflexible physical world, sometimes they are people with guns. This will always be the case no matter where you live (I suspect).
Working towards something better likely revolves around finding like minded individuals and working with them to shape the type of society you would like. But not everyone is ever going to 100% agree with your vision. So, unless you are interested in coercing them, there’s nothing for it - we have to live in a world that has differing ways and paths, even when we don’t like them.
Again, you can work to better your territory or move to one that more closely models your vision - but you can’t change all territories now and forevermore. You are finite, change is infinite.
Yeah location based jurisdiction has never made sense to me. At least from a voluntary decentralized political standpoint. From an authoritarian empire standpoint it makes perfect sense. If you want to rule a country you divvy up a land and set up outposts. When a territory gives you issues you go in and squash the uprising. But THAT is not voluntary, that’s coercion.
I really don’t care if they agree with me so long as they don’t try to force their “vision” on me or not. If they try to stick a gun in my face to coerce their “vision” I have no problem doing likewise to maintain my freedom. I have no problem willing to compel and force those into submission who insist on using force upon me. If you want to talk and do things voluntarily that’s cool. But if you want to try and use force then I have no problem returning the favor and defending myself and my freedom. Freedom is worth fighting for and if it comes to it it’s worth dying for.
That’s fine, you pay for the consequences of your actions. It just seems, from your earlier posts that you didn’t like the idea of people living differently from yourself in differing places.
Personally I see technologies like the Safe network and other projects that give anonymity - especially in regard to moving and defending capital, as the way forward - once we have such technology, those who would steal from people to build and maintain their armies and police, will no longer be able to do so.
I have no problem whatsoever with different people living differently and in different places. I just don’t feel I should be compelled to move in order to be “free.” In short my issue is not with other people living their lives but with other people trying to enforce their values upon me and steal my money (taxation) to do it.
I get that it’s a hassle to move and that you may have to leave family and friends behind, but we are not static beings from birth to death. We grow intellectually and philosophically. To expect everyone around us to keep up with our changes seems impractical; hence moving to where individuals of like mind are, seems the only reasonable way forward to me.
Then it seems only reasonable to me that high speed transportation should be bumped up on the priority list for civilization.
I say we get some maglevs going around the world. Enough of these slow as **** “greyhound” buses that cost a fortune.
I wonder if we could crowdfund a few of these with safecoin? Get a series of smart contracts set up then have people send safecoin to the smart contracts. Then when they are “full” the purchases are made, hiring is done and off the workers go to build the railway.
I’d go for the auto-driving flying cars. People would hire them out as taxi’s and the price for a taxi ride would drop by three quarters.
Fusion powered auto-driving flying cars.
I see this happing with regular auto-driving cars soon.
Edit: It will be cheaper than paying $20,000 plus maintenance, tax, title, and registration for a car every 5 years.
5 Years = 60 Months
$20,000/60 = $333.33 per month
Let’s say with maintenance, tax, title, and registration it is $400 per month plus fuel $200 per month. Let’s not forget insurance $100.
Grand total $700 per month.
The average person only needs a car 5 days a week, 20 days a month. At cost $700 dollars per month that breaks down to $35 per day.
All that is needed to beat the competition would be to charge less than…
$700 per month
$35 per day
Most people only need a car for a small portion of the day. 100 auto driving cars could easily services thousands of potential customers. This has the potential to be a very lucrative market.
With Global Decentralized Democracy, and the technology allowing individuals to vote remotely and securely, I’d to get rid of these useless asses sitting in HP. They’re a waste, and don’t have our interest at heart. But we all know this is not gonna happen.
A lot of people that need transportation couldn’t afford $35 a day. That being said if taxies came with subscription packages that got cheaper if you bought in bulk… I might be persuaded.
Then again if you mean $35 a day as in that day is divided up over how many hours or minutes one is actually using the car then yes that makes it a lot more affordable. So one is charged $35/24hrs one ends up spending riding in the taxi. That would work out to roughly $1.46 per hour and $0.02 per minute, if my math is right. Now yes that would be much more affordable. Automated decentralized taxis would also put human driven taxi drivers out of business lol.
Look who the founders are at the bottom of the site: http://protonboron.com