Not wise to use the word ‘central’ in the Crytpo universe.
Centralized systems get corrupted. That is the problem, and that is the primary reason that there is so much poverty in the world.
By and large, I do thing a lot of the complainers are half-empty glass lookers. This world may not be perfect, but in the first world, the poor aren’t very poor at all compared to history or to the third world.
The Open Source movement aims to make everyone richer by substantially reducing the need for capital to get work done effectively. I believe it is proven to work.
The key word here is voluntary! I believe that it is the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. I agree with @Warren and @Al_Kafir up until the point where people are forced to help the weak. I also believe the strong should not force the less strong/weak to help the weak.
In the model I proposed, there would be none of this, no coercion, force etc, it would be exactly as it is currently intended to be really. People currently have the choice of whether to join the Network in the knowledge that 5% is put aside for devs. I’m thinking that at some future point, when core dev does not need this amount, then where it goes is decided by the community.
Monetarily sovereign governments like the US, UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc. don’t need to tax. Non-monetarily sovereign governments (currency users like US states, EU countries like Greece and Germany, etc.) do need to tax. Just a quick note to clarify this important distinction.
@chrisfostertv I know how highly respected Mr. Armstrong is but it raises a red flag for me when people seem to be complaining about unions or suggesting they priced themselves out if a market. If the great labor leaders would not have been knocked off I am guessing that port might have remained open. Id rather see any port or business close than see the bulk of revenue handed over to capital as profit. All profit should ever provide is the innovation cost in the hope of more innovation and the smallest return on reasonable risk- the rest belongs to society and should be returned to society at death.
At the genesis of social security in the states it was recognized that the people gave their working lives, sometimes their own lives and their children’s lives. The least return on their total and ultimate giving would be that they be cared for in old age and have some freedom from toil and that their descendants have the same. Further as tech allowed, that liberty be extended and expanded.
The deal never was to hand over to entitled non contributing parasite fake (non constructive) capitalists in the name of greed or accept that greed is not able to afford quality of life and standard of living for people who earned it by any measure or inherited a fair and permanent share or even have it denied to immigrants in this nation of genocide.
Added later: I also don’t get his quip about the old woman wouldn’t adapt. Isn’t he some sort of mathematician, seems like she might have been another mathematician and commenting on how it looked like hired hookers but instead what he comes up with is old people don’t make good machines for him.
My sense is empathy like humor takes heavy substance even in compute/non-computable terms than the number skull stuff.
Decentralization is Permanent Redistribution.
We have a highly centralized society with wealth and power in the hands of the few. Decentralization does not simply build up independent people and life styles around cores of centralization. Rather it gets rid of centralization by transferring centralization’s assets and power back to the people where it belongs. Centralization is built on the average person working for big water to pay big finance and all the other big players with none left over for themselves to get free with. Decentralization redistributes the unnecessary power and wealth of centralization and makes it unavailable to future centralization schemes, all of which naturally involve hierarchy.
Decentralization starts with the opposite premise, the beginning premise that people are free. This is unsurprisingly is recognized in current redistribution processes. Old objectionable redistribution was the king taking from the poor. The new stuff recognizes the Jeffersonian ideal of the free person as the starting state. This is part of the reason in the States there was initially the insistence that the voter be landed so they would be free and independent so as to exercise the conscience they developed in that state and also to guard against their being bribed or coerced. For instance, there is no coercing truly free people into some war they disagree with. They have the means to resist, both psychologically and materially.
In this vein redistribution today mainly but not always and at least on paper seeks to take back from those who did not earn it in the first place and should not have it and return it back to those who did or by virtue of their share in the power and wealth as free citizens have a higher claim on the portion rendered. In essence it does not redistribute so much as it fixes distribution in light of the free state that people are born into and entitled to in a free society. It fixes what markets, marketing and corrupt manager types can’t. It also attempts to override gateways and artificially induced scarcity and no value added games.
What might decentralized society look like? Tomorrow’s free citizen many live someplace beside the city. If they don’t show up to work they also don’t collect welfare because they don’t need to. That means wages are much higher and treatment is better to the point of being democratic in any centralized work place, especially given the preference for decentralized compatible open collaboratists work arrangements. They own their house and the land it sits on and their kids inherit that land. They probably have a small garden. They probably have a faber. They have access to a community garden and faber. They have access to a free global mesh net where privacy and security are the default. They have solar with a deep back up, and a powered aqua foil system and a couple of electric cars they charge from their roof top. In short they don’t pay big water or big energy or big sponsored media or big telecom/cable or big pharma or big finance. But they aren’t isolated, they can talk to anyone, anywhere in the the world at any time and with permission even manipulate the local environs. They also aren’t sick and don’t experience much crime. Immigration isn’t an issue because states have been made transparent and decentralization means people aren’t hungry or chasing food. Giving the finger to centralization means globalist bullshit doesn’t work either. People are clear that it’s quality of life in terms of environs, leisure, and real security and not the DJIA or GDP that matter. They aren’t worried about retirement because they were born retired living off their technological inheritance in a society based on abundance. They have a right to be idle to keep centralization dead. They have deep life-long face to face relationships with at least 100 local people and they are mature and wise in a way that would seem impossible by today’s standards.
In short, big dies and its power is redistributed to people who don’t do anything they don’t agree with. And these are also people who grow up free from indoctrination with perspectives formed from their own from experience. They recognize sponsorship as censorship and are done with the nightmare of sponsored media and sponsored politicians. Their media systems don’t run on ads because they know this centralizing conflict of interest destroys decentralization and democracy. And once again these people don’t have debt or bills, there stuff is paid for. Each is their own boss. This is the power and promise of decentralization.
I posted this in the “off topic” because I think its an even deeper issue than “SAFE and Taxes” but not sure how to title it in the main forum.
Excuse me but how do you track that or enforce that? It’s not like anyone with a brain is going to voluntarily submit to the state their anonymous financial statements in order to be taxed. Nor would they voluntarily pay taxes. So how do you KNOW who owns what and who has or has not paid what in taxes? Oh please Mr. Taxman, please extort me! Here I’ll help you!
Freedom is freedom. And that does not include FORCE which tax is. Tax is coercion, as you have pointed out several times in your rant. To get rid of the state you must use taxation? Madness. Statism by definition is the belief in an authority. If you believe you, or any one else, has the right to forcibly extort wealth from another person then you are a statist and are in support of having a state. You can’t have taxation and NOT have a state because to have taxation requires the existance of an authority, and the belief in authority, to send the taxes to and support the enforcement thereof and that by definition IS statism and the state.
Not true actually, the tax could theoretically be paid to a DAO with a voting system attached and none of the above would apply - the State, consensus and tax function would be de-centralised back to the populace. A hypothetical example of this in action, would be Safe Network with a de-centralised Foundation in place.
We’re agreed states are not the the optimal solution but along the way to a solution that can’t practically be instant, social democratic states are about as good as states can get. Zero coercion is the goal as its the ideal of freedom. However, in the context of democratic freedom and the state we do recognize that money is power and we do tax money to limit that power and we do tax the rich to limit their power and preserve other people’s voices. Democracy is powersharing and it is meant to prevent arbitrary rule by wealth as that is always true tyrrany.
As for the practicality of taxes in a crypto world - I think they become more effective because money is hypothetical until we go to spend it and this shifts the tax base from the speculative to the tangible. It means the rich get taxed on their raw standing material assets as they accrue value. Its part of the reason local governments with less tax enforcement ability feed closer to the point of sale with unfortunately regressive sales taxes- it tracks the cash (current crypto analog) better. As for anonymous standing property- they’d confiscate that. And when the choice is giving up 5% of raw or developed land per year or paying up, people pay up with their more speculative asset- which they would have to prove thev value of. The tax man will simply move the fortunes of the rich into levels of risk and hassel they can’t afford, with credits for cooperation and deep penalty worst case assumptions for non cooperation, and jail when past evasion comes to light.
Right now supplier unions that work to sponsor law have themselves convince that trade can prevail over tax. But when states feel threatened those trade accords will get scrapped and the tarifs and increased taxes on the rich will come back out. This will especially be the case in the US when its ability to stealth tax and tax laundered money is reduced by it not printing the reserve currency- thay being taken by crypto.
How would it not apply? It would simply be enforced by code and not at the point of a gun. It’s still force. Rule of the majority is still a belief in an authority. Granted you could fork said system and create a voluntary one much easier than you could overthrow a government but the fact remains a tax is still a statist concept.
You will have to come up with a mechanism to stop private parties from applying coercion or force. They will always base such action on their having more wealth or special relatives or bs title or destiny or physical strength or a command from God, or their need to inflict pain because it gives pleasure. Aside from consensus on non aggression how do you do it? And once you have such a mechanism how do you support it?
Who cares? What matters is that wealth inequality is as much a form of coercian as democracy and its use of taxes, only the former has a tad more legitimacy IMO.
Where is the force? Are you currently forced to join the Safe-Network?
Nobody said anything about majority rule and de-centralising the authority back to the populace can only possibly mean belief in one’s own authority to decide where a portion of funds are directed.
No need, we’ve already got one.
The OP raised the question of how we could address any possible negative impacts of Govt Tax revenues falling because of Safe Network etc. These could be things like cutting services that would affect society’s weak and vulnerable.
I don’t really see the issues being remedied by “overthrowing governments”, - rather just peacefully and gradually replacing and offering alternative models for some of it’s functions and changing the centralised nature of Governance to a more de-centralised consensus driven socio-economic model.
I also think that by demonstrating such a working socio-economic Network in action, ie -affecting charitable causes in the real world (though not dependent on charity), the “Society/Community” can evolve to be global with Safecoin as the common currency. I think this will happen because it will create a fair Society with the most equitable form of currency and means of trade.
Lol…I guess I’m this ant:
Well this may or not be true, but that doesn’t mean it has to be implemented in a “Statist” way. De-centralising decision making removes the State anyway…eventually
Yes but there is still the underlying belief that some authority, be it a DAO, or a collective group, or a singular entity, has the right to forcibly take your money from you and set rules for you.
So you subscribe to the “This is my house and I can be as much of a tyrant as I want,” philosophy? Corporations use this all the time. Try reading some of their draconian terms of service sometime. Or “If you don’t like this country them move,” philosophy. Okay so like I said the SAFE network can be forked and when a voluntary version was created I’d probably opt for that instead. But at the present time it’s better than internet 1.0. How is it force? Because I the end user do not have the CHOICE of whether or not to give my safecoins to the devs. I probably would but it’s not my choice to do so, it’s hardcoded into the system. It’s forced upon me using code. If I want to live in this house I MUST abide by these rules. Same idea as if you’re living in a statist country. If you live in that country you MUST pay taxes and your only option is to move. By your arguement taxes aren’t coercion because you could always move to a country without taxes. Oh yeah and how practical is that? Just like oh yeah how practical is it to set up a whole new safenetwork fork, or use internet 1.0?
True but those funds are gathered coercively not voluntarily.
Mostly.
Replace them using the SAFE network of course. Government is obsolete to begin with. So if the services are cut, or even if they are not, replace them with something voluntary and more efficient using the safe network. Honestly dude isn’t that obvious?
@Al_Kafir You keep saying you don’t want to be dependent on charity (voluntary donations) but there are simply 3 ways to aquire wealth. You can a) produce it yourself. b) Forcibly take it from another. c) Have it voluntarily given to you. That’s it! And if you CAN’T produce it yourself and you don’t want to rely on charity (having it voluntarily given to you) then the only option you’re left with is to coercively take it from another. You keep saying that peope CONSENTED to being taxed/stolen from. Okay let’s run down this train of logic.
If I vote I am “consenting” to the party I voted for. So by your logic if I vote for a party that has a trait I like I’m also consenting to traits I don’t like. Oooookay. But if I don’t vote I’m somehow STILL consenting to the system because I haven’t voted for some other party that is just as bad and that I don’t agree with and don’t want. If voting is giving consent then is not withholding one’s vote in turn withholding one’s consent, ie saying no? And if one cannot withhold one’s consent then is not the whole notion that one is giving it a farce? In order to freely give consent one must also be able to say no. You’re argument is that by one consents to the system by existing within it but how does not opt out? Move? Are you not just saying one has to join a different party and a different system and STILL cannot opt out? That’s like saying in order to opt out of the Democrats you MUST join the Republicans. In order to oopt out of being American you MUST go to Canada or Mexico or some other country. That is not consent. Insisting upon participation in the game is not allowing for free consentual agreement TO participate in the game or not.
Lol…why have you revived this thread from almost 2 months ago, I’m pretty sure I answered all the (same) questions multiple times in this thread alone, nevermind others. As your quote above states that you think force is used when you have a free choice of whether to join the Safe Network or not - then I would be completely wasting my time explaining anything further…if this is what you consider “force” then I think we have established what the problem is.
By your reasoning, you are also “forced” to store other people’s data, forced to create a vault and farm etc.
