Quick question

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

Yeah. But you forgot the :alien:

1 Like

:smile: Now that is just showing off…I DEMAND to know how to do all that. I feel my emotional expression palette is a bit restrictive. People may get more annoyed with me constantly smiling and winking at them. :wink:

It’s a poison apple…don’t bite it…nooooo… :sunny:

No, you are sat with a round peg and a round hole and can’t figure out what to do :wink:

We both agree you are, whether it is option A) or option B)
So, we are both agreed there is no coercion right?
Apply the same principle to the real world tax syatem and you will understand why it is not coercive. To the extent that you disagree it is analogous is where the nub of the argument lies. Do you agree?

It would provide a function for option B) to evolve into existence. Option A) precludes natural evolution inherently. Option A) is a totally free market based on Charity, option B) provides for free market with social responsibility - they are political opposites. This is the argument I’m making in this thread. :sunny:

See chrisfostertv’s post above.

Nice one Chris, sorry missed your post, my apologies.Is there a list available?

Do you mean you do not see why adoption of A) precludes B) coming into existence?
If so, the answer is because there will be no mechanism for which society/users can come together and establish an autonomous tax system - it can only be done by way of charity. An autonomous tax system that addresses all concerns about coercion etc and de-centralises consensus/free choice back to the user in regard to what goes where IS a more balanced system between the two opposing camps/political views…
The benefits of such a system could be huge in my opinion. It is a new more balanced political model for society as well as the Network I think, but I’d just be continuing to sell option B) if I continued, so I’ll leave it there…maybe not

There is no Nation state in option B) it is de-centralised to the community. In option A) the only way to do it is via a nation state (central authority) as I see it. Ir has to be a function within the core I think connected to a voting system…

I have a choice not to use safe net and to not pay its toll.

Where is the choice to not to use state services and not pay tax?

Safe net does not take money for anything other than funding development.

Are you suggesting that the toll should be increased and the funds raised should be redistributed in some way?

Edit: rewritten

Seriously, call it a toll, a subscription cost , a fee or something. Tax is something quite specific, which doesn’t seem to be related to your proposal.

So can I safely cross off coercion from the list of objections to option B?

Where isn’t it? This argument boils down to rights on property I think. You have a choice of whether you want to live in the society/country you were born in and accept the agreed laws that have consensus via Democratic processes or you do not and you are free to try your luck elsewhere. Just because the choice is not a nice one to make, does not mean it isn’t a choice.
Your argument would be based on some idea of an inherent right to live where you want and not contribute to society. If this were the case, we’d be back to fighting for mini-fiefdoms, then Kings…we have moved on and collectively decided that the best way to get along is to establish a system of govermnent and a taxation scheme. Ownership of land is not a birth right, it is established by the users of that land, we have collectively come together to protect our land/society - you have no natural claim on it over and above anyone else. You have as much choice as you are going to get.
Actually thinking about it, the Govt has no natural claim on the land either, the individual members do equally and their wishes should be enacted via govt. Whatever, it is an ant colony thing.
Tell you what, let’s cut to the chase what objections of yours to the real world tax system still remain with option B)?


However, it doesn’t stop someone forking safe net and remind the toll. I suspect that is exactly what would happen if the scope of safe net was to redistribute income in addition to proving a network.

I enter into contract with safe net by buying or selling storage. I am free to break this contract whenever I wish.

Me being born somewhere does not imply that I have entered contract with someone. It just means I have popped into existence in a location.

As to what would happen if people were given the choice to associate is a different question. Land ownership, property rights, birth rights etc are all interesting topics, but they have no affect on whether someone is beholden to the commands of others, simply by being born near them.

As for option B, I think it is beyond the scope of providing a secure network. I also think a B style network would lose out to competition from the proposed safe net.

1 Like