Absolutely - no one has a natural claim on land. Only violent monopolists would think otherwise.
1 Like
OK, the argument you are making here is that if we implement B), someone might fork it to implement A). I would argue this is less likely for reasons I have previously given, but recognise this is a possibility. We want to travel the road least likely to be forked, can we agree on that?
I’m saying that for arguments sake, let’s say each scenario is equally likely. My overall point is that the 50-50 split would be along political lines. A political decision has already (inadvertently( been made when adopting option A). It is not the most equitable and balanced and apolitical system - option B) is - because it addresses all/most of the objections of the political right, whereas option A) greatly hinders those of the political Left.
All in all, I think this debate assumes that SafeCoin is politically relevant. Bitcoin probably isn’t even politically relevant yet. In short the whole debate seems darn silly.
I don’t think there is any way that you can prevent digital assets from being hidden in the crytposphere, if one puts one’s mind to such thing. Adding extraneous ‘feel good’ tolls on a platform that hasn’t even launched yet, let alone been adopted is a good way to reduce adoption.
All in all I think SafeCoin should be used to pay for the safe network. “Social safety net” is way outside the scope, and way outside of what would be a reasonable scope for the technology being built.
It would be like putting a tax on Cisco Routers to pay for medicine. It just doesn’t make much reasonable sense.
1 Like
Argument for A)…
No. A. says it is technically impossible to adopt a more socially conscious model.
I just think it is silly. Safe is given away to everyone for next to free That is socially conscious… “EVERYBODY” is the target audience. That is socially conscious. What else must it do? It is a electronic platform, not a agricultural platform – so it cannot directly feed the poor. It isn’t a medical platform, so it cannot directly cure the sick… Where it can be generous it is. Where it cannot you cannot change the fact that it cannot.
Safe is not a taxation platform. If you ask people to sign up to be taxed, Good luck with that.
2 Likes
Argument for option A), not question A) from the very beginning of the thread…as is this, as were your others.
Hold on - inaction is quite different from action.
If you blame people for inaction, you could claim every technology is right wing, if it doesn’t attempt to redistribute wealth, in addition to its core functionality.
If there was a high toll which was used to redistribute wealth, it is possible that it would gain support. However, if it went too far, it would start to be rejected. If there was an alternative with a lower toll, I suspect net contributors would rather use that instead.
The question should probably just be - should safe be used for:
A. Delivering a secure, distributed, communications network.
B. Delivering a secure, distributed, communications network and a mechanism to redistribute wealth and fund external infrastructure projects.
MaidSAFE is giving away a great service for free… Hardly a greedy capitalist venture…
I’m not really following you, nor blaming anyone for anything - this is an argument for A) though. The difference is that option B) the redistribution of wealth is inherent in the system, autonomous, non-coercive, non- theft and society gets to decide where the pot of money goes - there are Republican charities, Liberal charities, Science charities, Religious charities - money gets spent where society wants it - it is a true reflection of society’s wants.
Seriously how many people are going to object to a bit of “dust” going towards something of their own choosing on idealogical grounds? I think it is ahuge selling point if marketed correctly.
You would create a totally de-centralised society as well as economy.
I think this misses just about every pertinent point and makes a straw man argument.
The point is, you can’t assert that a technology is right wing, just because it doesn’t enable wealth to be redistributed.
Would it be a success if it wasn’t open source? Considering the nature of the network, I suspect not - too much trust in the developers would be required.
That’s why I would never make that argument.
The implementation of the technology inadvertently has political consequences.
The “stage is set” for a free market model
A free market “no tax” charity based society is one side of a political divide.
The other side of the divide is option B) which also addresses the concerns of the “Right”
Option A) precludes option B) becoming a reality - which I see as a problem
1 Like
That is one way of putting it, but it would also be one way of putting “Free market economy” and “modern liberal democracy” - it’s not the way I’d describe it or pitch it, though it is a valid description - except for you’d have to replace “External infra-structure” with Charity/Good causes. I think you will agree this is a closer description and a selling point.
You are arguing to take product A) to market and I am arguing to take product B) because I think it is the optimal model to meet the underlying Maidsafe goals/ethics/vision for society. I’m just saying there seems to be a bit of a Law of unintended consequences going on.
I guess I don’t get the pertinent point.
What would your proposal be? And how exactly are you claiming maidSAFE is right-wing?
I sketched the concept out in post 1, you replied to it in post 2 and I elaborated in post 4. If you are following the thread, I think it should be clear what I am saying.
I think the Gist of it is that you want to include a taxation system to provide a social safety net ----
But that is way too vague to be a proposal. Who is going to administer the safety net? Who determines what is included and what is not? How is the money distributed and to who? It isn’t as simple as “Build a DAO to solve the world’s social problems” The whole concept is so vague it isn’t really debatable. Because any specific questions will be answered with “You are arguing for A”
The same exact arguments can be made for installing NSA backdoors into MaidSAFE… It is inherently not “Security conscious” etc. etc. The whole idea of such thing undemines the whole point…
1 Like
I think that you are confusing many things. Something that helped me was reading the work available at c4ss.org. they promote a philosophy of left market anarchism-- an anarchism that focuses on inclusiveness. While I could be wrong, I’d have to guess that the folks here at maidsafe are left market anarcists. To me, that means that we first put an emphasis on ensuring that others needs are met, that society functions well, and when we are problems, we tweak our society to address them. You can have a society without a government, and it can be a perfectly good society, too.
As left market anarchists, we assume decency in others. That tax does not do that. If people were not coerced, we feel they’d be more decent.
Could you identify where you think I may be confused? I’m not sure what left market anarchism is, though it sounds roughly similar to my option B) so I would expect those identifying as such would be generally in allignment with it. I am not saying we should follow a particular traditional Left or Right identifiable philosophy - I am suggesting that B) results in the most balanced Network/Society because it addresses concerns of both Left/Right more equitably.
Yes, I believe B) de-centralises the government function to collect/decide about funds to provide for infra-structure and good causes.back to the individual. By funding various charities/projects/goals/ideologies etc, society is moved in the direction the society itself wants to move. The society that society wants evolves naturally, because the things people want funded, get funded.