Quick question

No, because it’s part of the meaning of the word. If you continue to use the term, I’ll have to doubt your wish to actually communicate, rather than be needlessly provocative. How about, as @jreighley suggests, “toll”?

I don’t exactly disbelieve you on this, but I can say that it would be easier to believe except for all the lol’s and the like, which often have the flavor of being derisive and belittling.

I don’t know how to do smiley faces, I forgot how to, otherwise I would have.
Ok, I can’t really understand why you would infer from that that I’m not trying to actually communicate or be needlessly provocative, but you are entitled to your opinion.
TBH I was becoming conscious I was doing it too much and it might sound a bit daft, but I didn’t consider the derisive element. So how do you do smiley faces then and I will endeavour to not say lol anymore. I will also endeavour to avoid sounding derisive or be-littling. I take on board the things you say.


Cool. As I said, I really do think you’re sincere, just style has been received as a bit abrasive. So I appreciate your response.

If you just put a space and a colon, the forum software will give you some emoticon options from which to chose. There are a whole slew of them which @chrisfostertv accesses which I’m sure you’d have fun with, but I’m not sure how to access them myself. Perhaps he’ll educate us. :smile:

1 Like

I’ll be honest with you Fergish, I’m beginning to recognise this. I’m really still learning social skills (ridiculous as it sounds). I’ve spent a large portion of my life as an Alcoholic (with the generally associated MH issues and social skills… :smile: yeay) . I therefore didn’t really start learning until about 10 years or so ago.
I’m not making excuses, just explaining this is a weak area for me and a steep learning curve…I’m also naturally an arrogant bastard though I think with massive issues with authority figures.
Thanks for the help.


Same here. This is why we probably butt heads so well. What else are two (or more) authoritative anti-authoritarians gonna do? :wink:


H, so… this is a political question, and to my mind one for a future day. However, it doesn’t mean it’s not an interesting question to already ask today. I have three short disclaimers before I reply

  1. this reflects my personal opinions, not any official MaidSafe company/Foundation point of view.
  2. such a societal discussion should, in my mind, be debated and decided upon by the whole SAFE users-community
  3. before the SAFE network has a real reflection on social issues, the SAFE network both needs to expand to a massive user base - cross countries and it would not recognize nation boundaries - and importantly SAFE network works with MAID accounts, not with Proof-of-unique-humans as such yet. See long running thread here

That being said, in my wild social fantasy I would imagine that the SAFE network provides a basic income for human beings. Whether that is feasible? No comment, for now. I do strongly believe on the very short term the proposal for a basic income is an important societal discussion - for reasons I’m not expanding on here. To avoid discussions on definitions, let’s use Wikipedia’s definition for arguments sake. However, when thinking about this, I cannot see how a nation state is able to make the transition to such a societal organization. Hence my wild fantasy whether something like a SAFE network, or future evolutions of it, can. Do not ask me whether they can, because I don’t know (yet); but at least it seems it would require this proof-of-unique-human to be resolved as that is a concept used in the definition of the basic income.

So I would reply to your questions:
a) Was it technically impossible? at this point, yes, because there is no relation between humans (which make up society) and MAIDs (which make up the SAFE network). Maybe even more important, I don’t think it is up to MaidSafe the company, or MaidSafe the foundation to answer such questions.
b) the current model is not only restrained by the limitation mentioned above in a), it is also the most natural. Society, I feel, can and should impose measures on economic systems, but I would argue that they are not an inherent part of the system.
c) no, I don’t believe the network can be re-booted, but changes can be made to the network gradually.
d) you can try


Your welcome @DavidMtl, we’ll obviously keep everyone in the loop as we progress and make decisions based on logic and community debate.

1 Like

Thinking about it, at this point (before launch) the Ball’s in Maidsafe’s Court to decide and from Nick’s comments regarding forking, I’m understanding the original model is to be followed. I’m not complaining or anything about this, as it’s not our decision. The relationship between Maidsafe and its investors currently forms a small society, however until Launch, the larger community cannot be formed or Network decisions made - Maidsafe has met its responsibilities/duty as far as the community is concerned just by creating the Network as advertised.

This is where we differ and where my argument comes into play; Is a totally free market economy the most Natural system, or a free market economy that cares for the vulnerable? Are you saying it’s more Natural for society not to care?
You will probably answer something like “of course not, we have free choice to donate to charity”. I’m saying that this is a Right/Left thing.The point is, that it is arguable and will be split down political lines.

I really wish I had defined “tax” as I meant it to mean, which would be “Tax” without any coercion, penalties etc and that the individual is empowered to choose where it goes - I was proposing a more “free market” non-coercive tax system that never gets spent on things you don’t want it to.
Anyway, I’ll leave it there, rather than repeat myself and maybe if people read back through my arguments with the new clearer definition of tax, it might all make more sense.
My larger concern is that a political decision is (inadvertently) being made with the intention to create a fairer society. I’m saying that the idea that a totally free market is a desirable thing is mis-guided, in that it creates a Right leaning system, not an apolitical one. By assuaging some of the concerns of the Right leaning, option B) seems to be the correct choice to make.
I’m further worried that the current plan will preclude any true B) society ever evolving in a fundamental way, which would not be the same the other way round.
Your C and D only confirm this fear.
I will also continue to make all my decisions based on logic and believe my argument is a logical one.

I can paint it, roller it or hang paper on it, but not fork it, nor would I want to. However due to my politics/beliefs, unfortunately I would use whoever provided option B - if possible, I

1 Like

No, it’s you confusing coercion with goodness.
Voluntarism doesn’t call for carelessness, it just denies your claim that care for the vulnerable justifies coercion of the whole society.
Voluntarists do not argue that the vulnerable should be ignored. They argue that the State should not be one to care for them, because it can’t accomplish that without coercion.


Where is the coercion - I mean literally, where is it?
There may be some general confusion I think, due to the fact that I recently argued why the “real” tax system is not coercion, theft etc. I have taken on board the arguments against and changed how it works in order to make it equitable and de-centralise consensus to each individual member of society.
To argue for or against tax is just an argument between A) and B) models - we would just go round in circles.

Ah, this is delicious! :slight_smile:

Al-kafir, this is where the rubber hits the tarmac.

What you are discovering is that taxation can’t exist without coercion. This is the reality is you denied at length in the other thread. You are trying to bash a square peg through a round hole and are wondering why it doesn’t fit.

If you are free to choose whether to use safe net or instead something else, ANY network charge is a charitable donation. It is voluntary, right from the core.

Ofc, you can fork the code and launch another which charges a larger fee. You could say that your organization would spend the money wisely on helping the poor, building infrastructure, etc. However, you would have to PEACEFULLY convince people to use it. In short, it would just be safe net with a bigger charitable element to it, which is paid in to automatically.

I am not sure what extra this would provide. Charities can already exist on safe net. I doubt it people would prefer to use something with less choice, over something else with more choice.

Free markets and free association are the antithesis of state coercion. It isn’t left or right wing - just daft concepts themselves to present a false dichotomy - it is just what remains when theft and coercion is not present.


Lol…oops…I mean :smile: .I wondered where you was. Unfortunately, I have to go to work but I’ll be happy to demonstrate why this is where you skid off the runway later… :smile:

1 Like

Thanks for sharing that - it isn’t easy to.

It has been shown statistically that those subject to abuse tend to desire more maternal support. It is appealing to give the state this role, but it really isn’t the answer - it is just another abusive relationship.

Just saying and I don’t mean to be offensive - I have no idea about your background other that what you just said.

1 Like

You just use a letter after the colon :a :b :c :d :e :f = :alien: :boom: :cop: :droplet: :elephant: :fire:


Definitions are hugely important. It is why I spent much of the last thread regarding tax trying to get people to accept or reject (with evidence) the definitions before proceeding with arguments. I never got past that phase with Al last time, but I am ever hopeful!

We are so used to politicians twisting words to suit, so used to being within the current system system, that we are naturally blind to this. It takes a concerted effort to see the reality.


I’ll be more explicit, ‘free capital’ obeys laws that are remarkably similar to natural laws, physics. Hence, I argue that ‘free capital’ is not concerned with humans or society. It is a duty of humans/humanity to impose its -call it- natural desires upon free capital.

OMG…what did I just say… :smile:

1 Like

I agree, but would say that this is an argument for A) - Ie an argument for a totally free market. As you correctly say, it is un-concerned with Humans or society.
That is why I am advocating B) which is.
One only has to recognise there is an A) against B) argument going on for my argument to work.

I agree, my objection would be that model A) precludes model B) ever evolving,
Seriously gotta go work now.

I’m not so sure that is an implication. Atoms follow strict natural laws, yet humans are learning with ever more precision to wield matter in to buildings, tools, even organisms now. I don’t see why that would not be possible with safecoin.

In the above analogy, I see taxation by nation state simply as a very primitive form of metallurgy. We can learn to wield money/safecoin much more elegantly to achieve what humanity would want; and sticking to the same analogy there is still a use-case for simple metallurgy/state-tax.

1 Like