I’m not convinced you can legislate privacy, though it would help limit the appetites of those who will exploit it. Privacy is something we need to value and defend for ourselves… SAFE obviously will help with that.
The best way to stop this madness is to defund the government.
Right now they’re not only building the surveillance state with other people’s money, and at the same time passing “laws” that makes it impossible to defend one’s rights.
It’s clear what needs to be done. Stop paying taxes.
UN privacy chief - WTH? Various incompetent government “watchdogs” can’t do their job, so we need to add a global privacy chief (powerless, expensive and useless).
“extreme” surveillance state: it is unfortunate to imply that “surveillance state” is okay, but “extreme” surveillance state isn’t.
There’s a balance to be struck. Society exists and policing is useful; it’s just badly out of balance atm. We need to allow individuals their privacy and anything that is public domain can be exploited as common knowledge.
Education and tools are the best route to enabling people widely to claim what is rightfully theirs. The inclination of Government to make use of what information is available, is inevitable given their mandate to protect and serve. Without any tools or education, they will abuse that capability… which is what we see atm.
The UN privacy chief is a curiousity but anything that promotes the notion that privacy matters and acknowledges the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - article 12 in this case, will help… even if that is just a voice of those values. Worse if privacy was not acknowledged formally by them.
I can’t be found because state is owned by professional politicians.
Would you promote privacy for $300K/year? I’d do it for $80K/year and maybe you’d too. But you won’t get the job although the UN could hire 3 chiefs who’d do a better job and still save the taxpayer a lot of money.
If they were pro politicians that might not be optimal but it might still be workable. They are however money puppets and that’s not workable or sustainable. The only thing worse is the puppet media that enables them.
this is the sole reason somebody wants to be a politician. what i really don’t understand is how we (the citizens) accept to be govern by the ruling class WITHOUT having them follow a set of rules that prevent them to obtain material wealth. if we read plato: the republic, we can see this in paragraphs from [416d] to [417b] link: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D416d
the rulers should be stripped of any material wealth. they have to rule just with the strictly necessary things for a good living. ruling class should have extremely restrictive laws against them
from the small amount of history that i know, only the ancient japanese leaders lived in such ways (auto control and little to no need for wealth), until they followed the chinese style of the ruler, where the ruler went after personal wealth
Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
People tolerate plunder because they think that through rentierism and redistribution they manage to steal from others more than others steal from them (for a miniority that is true, but the incompetent majority can’t figure out it doesn’t work for them). And thankfully for the political class, the system is complex enough.
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on.
there are 2 quotes from f bastiat on that page, which state:
“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
does that mean the state is the goverment? because if not, and the government is part of a state, the statements imply that also the citizenship(the other part of the state besides government) is a great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of other. that would make sense in the manner of a circle, in which i live at your expense and you live at my expense. i don’t think a working citizen live on the expense of anyone else
in my opinion democracy alone can’t work, just as anarchy alone can’t work. for a society to work i am absolutely sure it has to have rules and guidelines from all form of organization. it has to have a little of democracy, communism, anarchy etc in a manner in which it’s best for the great majority of people
I don’t know, maybe it was translated from French and it could be the same source translated two ways, etc.
The state is based upon force, and choice (of a different government from the one the majority elected, or perhaps disobedience) is unacceptable. That’s why it’s not possible to have a little bit of this or that in a territory controlled by one government. And the same is valid for currency (and/or money). The moment you’re not forced to use the official currency, they can’t steal from you through inflation which makes it necessary to have certain “rules” that apply to everyone. Then whatever unessential choices remain, they leave those to the people.
Is automation force? Is it ultimately arbitrary relative to desireable ends. Most of what we want freedom from is repetition and drudgery and other taxes on our time, energy and voulition. Are we able to grow and mature without repetition? Automation can free us from repetition inspired by necessity, but we still have to exercise to mature and develop and be happy.
Tax in a state of widespread abundance provided by our automated inheritance is less of an issue. The material goods are largely fungible, recycling through tax hardly matters if we face no personal risk of scarsity. Tax is more of a problem if we want direct power over our neighbors.
Inflation is away of making sure people don’t hold on to stuff they don’t need and can’t use. That stuff or claim on societies assets instead gets recycled for the greater good, their own included. It also a kind of lesser check on the accumulation of destabilizing stores of private wealth. Its not enough though and needs to be supplemented with direct taxation against extractive non productive wealth.
In theory, perhaps. In practice, all one can see is growing budget deficits (as in: they’re “not collecting enough”).
I don’t know of a single country that plans to significantly lower taxes or balance its budget.
Because people are too stupid to decide for themselves.
Being long unnecessary assets (crypto currencies and precious metals), I hope this inflationary efforts continue. I should do well.
And as far as crypto assets are concerned, I wonder how will governments extract that wealth from people without waterboarding them?
I personally hope that the cryptocurrencies manage to supplant the fiat currencies before the inflation gets too bad because you know, people getting hurt because of things they don’t have a prayer of understanding sucks. Other than that, right on.
As for how the government can tax the cryptocurrencies, the government could just increase property taxes, with them having to not care who pays them lest they fall into crypto-property ownership mixer hell. Of course the government can also choose to only accept their respective fiat currency for tax payment, and then tax the exchanges more, and that would get most of the common-folk’s dough due to companies mostly being averse to disobeying the government. The informed however could more than likely find loophole/darknet markets that would be willing to exchange without the tax though.
Finally the governments could try to get taxes from the crypto-millionaires when they try to buy a home or some other big purchase, as the government could just require people to have x amount of extra money in a bank account to buy a house (the marketing for this would almost write itself), make the banks go… even more 1984 on customers, and then tax those earnings.
I think you’re right about that - they’ll ultimately go medieval on property. That’s why I’m not buying any more than I had prior to 2009.
(It’s going to be funny - and get nasty - when the sheeple realize that their hacker (and crypto-millionaire) neighbor doesn’t pay any tax because he lives in a single bedroom shack, but at the same time regularly takes luxury foreign vacations).
Crypto is a huge problem (for the government), and they won’t be able to get meaningful tax revenues from it because it will be possible to hold onto it and sell it in exchange for anything anywhere in the world (not necessarily in local jurisdiction).