If it is realised at some point in the future, that the Safenet model is, (with the best intentions of remaining apolitical), actually inadvertently and inherently following the Right wing political philosophy of “free (unfettered by tax) markets”.
And, if it is further realised that it is possible to follow a more equitable model that includes a “safety net” for society ( currently relies on charity) whilst de-centralising decision making in a consensus driven way and retaining all other aspects of the free market.
And, if it is further realised that the current model is analogous to society, in that it rewards those who contribute, however does not provide an autonomous system that decides where “taxes” are spent to good causes. (The Network is OK with taxing to provide infra-structure, then why not good causes?)
And…If it is at some future point realised that a political decision has already been taken.
And, if the solution had the Net result of the Network actually being a-political by addressing all coercion, theft, slavery complaints
My questions would be:
a) Was it technically impossible to implement the more socially conscious model?
b) If not, where did the consensus come from for the current model?
c) Can the Network be “re-booted” to accomodate changes in architecture in the future and all services/safecoin migrated, or would this have to be implemented before Launch?
d)Could a fork of Safenet provide this alternative model?
If you want to create a taxing maidSAFE, you certainly would be able to do so – But it would have to compete with libertarian apolitical versions.
In other words, Good luck…
As far as B goes - I don’t think it needed consensus. It isn’t political, it is a technology that creates freedom. Those who are in the business of repressing freedom aren’t going to like it, but it is what it is, and it is unstoppable…
I like the combination of free market capitalism and a strong social safety net. For MaidSafe the safecoins may be excellent for the free market, and the exponential improvement of price/performance for information technology will ensure that everybody has massive access to the SAFEnet in the future, regardless of financial means. So, let’s start with the current model for MaidSafe. Besides, any major changes to the core functionality would send the Beta launch date much further into the future.
Yes, I recognise this has to be done at Netwotk level, rather than as an app, hence the questions that arise.
My thinking is that essentially one small aspect has to be changed and de-centralised and I’m not sure how much time this would take.
To go back to the “telephone exchange box stuffed full of wires” analogy I used to convey DIrvine’s changes to routing. - I admire the re- wiring, it looks a lot neater and is more efficient, however there appears to still be a dodgy wire hanging out of the back, sellotaped to a box marked “Foundation” - this needs tucking back into the exchange box.
The 1% originally intended to go to the Foundation, no longer does in my plan, the Foundation becomes “just another charity” that fights for funding from the community 1% "pot. " All decisions concerning this pot are de-centralised to the community . So nobody can complain they were coerced, stolen from etc.
The idea of a Charity is basically that it has certain goals, these need not be “welfare based”. There are many different types of charities representing many different areas/views, such as education, politics, economics, humanitarian, religious, whatever. If the choice of where it goes is given back to the individual, then a lot of the “Right’s” concerns drop away.
Registered charities would “apply” for funding and each have a wallet - this would be tied to a voting system.
Ironically, donating the 1% to the Foundation limits the community’s "free market choices.
So, can anybody answer my original questions?
You say the system rewards those who contribute. Why do you need taxes, then, when contributors are properly rewarded and can use unspent outputs to run their own charity efforts?
If I’m not mistaken, MaidSafe Foundation does exactly that: so far they’ve managed to create wealth - new value for employees and users - without taxation or any other form of coercion. How is that possible? Warren? Anyone?
No. And your question is wrong - you assume you know what is “the more socially conscious model” which is something I disagree with.
From the participants. You don’t have to partake if you don’t like it.
Fork the code and collect VAT on SafeCoin payments.
Okay, let’s see - what kind of “business model” would that be? You wait until MaidSafe v1.0 is out, fork software created by others, do a search-and-replace (MaidSafe => TaxCoin), introduce VAT and create several jobs for you and couple of collaborators to redistribute other people’s money.
Forcing others for pay for your little pet projects is not a new idea. Look around you and name altcoins that successfully implemented taxation without coercion. Or taxation without representation (and coercion).
Lol…it isn’t…I should have said “free (unfettered by tax) markets.”- I will change it.
I’m thinking of the Network as reflecting society, not just the economic aspects of it. If it is currently accepted that it is OK to tax for infra-structure purposes, rewarding devs, taxing farmers or whatever, then it is a small step to reason that it should also support charity.
If you have a choice of creating either a free market that taxes but is dependent on charity to pay for good causes , or a free market that puts the power in the hands of the users as to how tax is spent - which would you choose?
The point is that there appears to be a choice to be made here,
We already have “taxes” - the reward/farming system, and yes, contributors are rewarded/taxed.
It could be more rightly stated I think, that users are"coerced" into funding the Foundation - if you want me to use what has become a “buzz word” This alternative model (should) allay all primary concerns of the “Right” leaning.
The Foundations goals are to promote Freedom, security, education…whatever, they may not be the goals of every individual user.
You are advocating the Charity/free market model, whereas I am advocating a tax/free market model.
The advantage of the second model, is that the Net effect is an apolitical Network.
We are currently following the first “free unfettered market” model which is Right leaning as it depends on charity.
A political decision has already been taken, if it is accepted that we have a choice of 2 possible systems.
I honestly think you are missing what I’m saying somewhere. I am not dissing the Foundation, or accusing it of coercion, or planning to fork or steal anything…. (lol…how did I end up here?) I’m stating that fundamentally, if it is a case of whether we follow option A) The path we’re on, or B) A different model.
I am saying that A) is right leaning
I am saying that B) is more Left leaning (liberal/Libertarian/Egalitarian)
I am saying that if this is indeed a choice, then a choice has already been made
I am saying this is a political choice
I am arguing for B) along with delays
You are arguing for A) without delays
I am arguing that by adopting B) the Net effect would be a more balanced and apolitical Network, which was the original intended, stated goal.
I would also argue that this is a decision that has to be made before Launch, because responsibility can not be passed to app developers, you would preclude option B) ever becoming a reality - it has to part of the core doesn’t it?
I also see it as a community decision, or rather that it would be wise to make it so. I understand this could have financial implications for Maidsafe, which maybe we could look at returning somehow? I definitely would contribute in any case.
I cannot argue for anything though, nor am I, unless I am first fore armed with the answers to my original questions – because I am not technical.
Edit: I would further argue that the likelihood of any forks would be diminished once the more equitable model B) was up and running. This is because logically, by assuming there is roughly a 50 -50 split in political opinion then by addressing a lot of the more Conservative concerns by way of option B) this moves the percentage of likely satisfied users upwards, rather than if we implement option A) which does not allay any of the more Liberal concerns. Therefore the likelihood of a fork is lessened.
Please can someone answer my original questions so I don’t have to continue to argue from a position of ignorance?
You continually conflate an exchange for voluntary services with a tax.
A tax is, by definition, something which is required whether one wishes to give or not. It is backed by force. It is, by definition, not voluntary, whether one pays up without resistance or not.
Charging for the costs necessary to deliver a product is not a tax.
Giving charity is a voluntary activity. Handing out money, etc., taken from others under the shadow of force, is is something different.
So please, don’t let your logic be foiled by sloppy use of terms.
What if I don’t want to support devs?
What if I don’t want to pay the tax?
Apply your arguments to both simultaneously.
Then the question is, what is the product going to be?
I’m saying option B)
I also do not see tax as coercive generally, but a sign of a civilised society but again, this is the same arguments about tax as I said in my original post - that asked 4 simple questions, that apparently nobody arguing with me can answer.
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon income, property, sales, etc.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
There could be a bit of an argument for what you’re saying, per definition #2, but why confuse issues by insisting 1 and 2 are the same. (The meaning of 2 is even coloured by the duress implied by the first definition). Generally when talking about taxes it’s referring to demands for payment on one activity, which proceeds are used for any number of other things, not as a direct exchange for what is being received. It is also demanded.
I might demand that you pay me for the bread I bake, before you take it. That’s different from taking a portion of your money because you’re a citizen, or because you own property, or whatever, (and because you’ll regret it if you don’t pay) and spending it on whatever else.
a) and b) == The ideal behind SAFE network (and decentralized systems generally) is an attempt to implement the ultimate in a socially conscious model, because it empowers the individual to freely act or not. Other than promoting privacy, security and freedom, it is morally neutral, as it should be.
c) == I doubt it, but don’t know.
d) == If you can figure a way to code a fork to do what you want, cheers, go for it.
OK, thanks for the info - in regard to the tax thing, I totally fully and in depth explained why tax is not theft or coercive etc in the “Is Safe a free Market” thread - which I don’t know how to link. You will find all my answers there, it is a complex issue. Please don’t make me repeat it all here…lol.
I will answer any further questions you have though, no probs.
I agree it should be, but claim that in trying to be, it is inadvertently and inherently making a political decision, by using Charity as a model, rather than “Tax”.
This precludes a more socially conscious Network EVER evolving - a political decision has been made.
I see my solution as again inadvertently having the knock-on effect of creating a more equitable and apolitical Network.
Paradoxically, I see the inclusion of a tax type system as the most efficacious method of achieving the most apolitical Network - because it addresses most concerns in a lesser of two evils way.
I only need to convince you that there is a choice to be made – not of the relative merits of a tax system. You would be A) and I would be B). If it is recognised there is a split of opinion along political lines, then that is enough for my argument (for now).
It is interesting that you characterize the empowering of the individual as a political decision. I consider it an apolitical decision. It reflects the fact that social action is an amalgamation of individual choices. That’s pretty uncontroversial, as far as I can see.
Empowering individuals then allows them to participate, or not, in political action, by their choice. Without that level of choice, even democracy is a sham (which is mostly IS in practice).
So the design of SAFE is politically neutral, and to try to add anything else IS political.
The fact that it favors individual freedom from totalitarian influences, and tends to shield individuals from the unwanted effects of political structure could be viewed as political only if you consider that individuals aren’t capable of making choices, but that groups are, which I think you’ll agree is not the case.
Liberty is the default position of the universe… If you want to limit it, you have to build systems and enforcement etc. That isn’t easy to do with a DAO, because who decides? and if they get to decide, it really isn’t too decentralized is it?
All in all, I think the worries are overblown. SAFE will not be a world currency anytime soon. Bitcoin is a bigger threat, but still fairly insignificant. The crypto-technologies will make tax evasion and avoidance easier – but this will mean that government s need to run their economic affairs more responsibly. I don’t think anyone could claim that governments have been fiscally responsible – anywhere.
Lol…it’s an interesting argument to have isn’t it?
Just nipping off for a bit, but promise I can and will respond to everything in an hour or so - got dog to take out. Thanks for having the conversation, I appreciate the points you raise being aired so they can be addressed.
Cheers
I think the dispute arises here because in the anglo-saxon world “liberal” has a left-wing connotation, while in continental europe and south america it has a right-wing connotation. This is because in the anglo-saxon world you have right-wing governments controlling every aspect of your life, and here we have left-wing governments controlling every aspect of our lives (just kidding, I actually do support social safety and free education and not letting people die of a desease because they can not afford the treatment, or treating them as slaves for the rest of their lives because you paid for them).
Part of the problem is that in continental europe the liberal parties consider everybody “middle class” who doesn’t own a significant part of a multinational corporation.
I for my part imagine the future as follows: the freelance graphics designer who is selling his work anonymously over some decentralized network can avoid to pay taxes, but has to be careful to safe some money for his pension (with freedom comes responsibility, and people in general are not that responsible), and the car manufacturer who is pumping out several thousand cars per day from his factory, well, he can not avoid paying taxes, because you can put a policeman in front of the factory to count the cars coming out. From these taxes you can finance what has to be financed. This is a very simplistic picture, but it is how I imagine the future…
I don’t and again you are just proposing option A) and arguing against B).
The political decision is to “leave out” a crucial component (tax) and replace it with a Charity model., precluding any future more socially conscious Networks ever arising. It is a political decision, if it is recognised 2 separate Right/Left choices exist.
I’m sorry but I can only really explain why nothing is really being added in highly technical language, which may only be understood by a very select group of highly specialised devs, but I’ll try my best -
The loose dangly wire, hanging out of the back of the thingy and sellotaped to the box marked “Foundation” needs re-wiring into the inside of the thingy.
I am not proposing we add anything extra really, just tidy up the dangly wire. I’m making the corollary argument, that something is being left out.
My model does not appear to interfere with that. I’m not arguing the things you appear to think I am in your last paragraph, or again it is just arguing for A).
Well, I think that if its a pool of Safecoins that depletes over time you cannot really compare it to a tax. It’s more like a kickstart budget to get things rolling. Though 1% might mean hell of a huge budget if they sit on it for a while…
But if it’s 1% of all revenue generated by farmers then it’s more like a tax. It’s also worrying. Imagine the value of 1% of a world wide economy in the hand of a single group of people, forever.
You’re wrong. Those are voluntary contributions. You’re not coerced to do business with MaidSafe. I know it can be hard to understand, but …
Users were most definitively not coerced (as a greedy bastard, I hope all 2-3 billion employed Earthlings were forced to buy MAID… but only after I had secured mine, of course).
Okay, although many would probably feel that that tax and free are placed way too close together
Now I’ll try
b) If not, where did the consensus come from for the current model?
I think it doesn’t come from the code. The code comes from requirements and requirements were announced prior to the crowdsale. I think it would be very unfair to significantly change it now.
c) Can the Network be “re-booted” to accommodate changes in architecture in the future and all services/safecoin migrated, or would this have to be implemented before Launch?
If you’re asking how could holders vote to change things, they could prove their ownership of MAID and vote.
But we already know that in shareholder democracy (incidentally, I remember you were one of its strong proponents here!) the same shareholders who created the current system would easily defeat any attempt to make drastic changes.
Wonders of democracy!
If you’re asking what could be done from a technical perspective, I think a fork would be necessary because almost noone would agree with that idea here. Then you’d have to find a bunch of people who haven’t had enough taxation in their real life.
