Topic: Economic Devastation - page 48. (Read 504811 times)

If someone limits your freedom to build a nuke (with the assumption that it is the only worrying thing you are doing), then he is overstepping. The problem is that if only the ones have nukes who have successfully denied having them to others, these guys can use this power to demand tribute, mass murder, and crush all the freedoms everywhere (yes: US Military).

I don't really wish a the world where the most unstable individuals have access to nukes (like they have to guns in the US and the result is more violence and crime, and still government is not adequately contained). But the current situation that only the bullies have access to nukes and for everyone else it is a crime as defined by the banksters and their puppet governments, this is laughable (if it wasn't sad) as well.

Of course you don't have "your freedom" to litter others' property, who made you think you had? Your mother? School?

Theory update: Positive freedoms ("rights") are almost universally bad. It is difficult to give anyone a right without imposing the costs of this right to diminished freedom of others. I list rights in order of intrusiveness to (negative) freedoms (power to do what you want with what you have rightfully obtained):

Right to live a normal life if eg. disabled
Right to be kept alive in same situation
-----------------------------------------------
Right to live in the forest in someone's property with no clear damage
-----------------------------------------------
Right to walk on the street
Right to breath the air.

Without further explanation now (I don't even know if going back to highschool basics interests anyone), the rightful extent of rights (which does not infringe the negative (good) freedoms, goes to one of the dotted lines.

Thank you I am humbled.

I like to think of this thread and the forum in general as a modern version of the 17th century English coffehouse. A place where we all learn from each other and discuss the news of the day.

Power Vacuum: a situation where the benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups, while the costs, in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects are diffused through the entire population.
Cooperation: Voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange.
Defection: An exchange that advances the individual to the detriment of his fellows typically involving coercion, violence, or ignorance.

There is no such thing as complete freedom except for the state of nature as described by Hobbs. In every other scenario the best we can achieve is a partial freedom. We agree to some limitations of our freedoms to maximize our ability to prosper and cooperate while minimizing individual freedom to coerce, and defect.

The ideal government is no government at all. In this utopia nearly all individuals act only cooperatively. A stable utopia would require its participations to identify, correct, and in extreme cases neutralize those choosing defection over cooperation. Such a society is simply is not possible at our current juncture in history. We lack the required education, moral fiber, technology, and transparency and have simply not advanced enough to make it work. This leaves us no choice but to settle for an inferior semi-centralized alternative subject to an exploitable power vacuum.

There are two types of “freedom fighters” that rise up in opposition to the social contract. The first is the angry defector. Many individuals are optimized for violence, force, and coercion. Historically violence was a viable evolutionary strategy. The modern social contract has increasingly limited opportunities to profit from violence and those optimized for it are genuinely worse off as a result. The angry defector thus hates the social contract and longs for a return to the more primitive state for which he is optimized.

The second type of “freedom fighter” is the disillusioned cooperator. The social contract is a blunt and crude instrument. It is easily abused and manipulated. This weakness creates openings for today’s defector aka the intelligent narcissist. By exploiting the power vacuum the narcissist and his junior partner the parasite are able to succeed at the expense of others.  Disillusioned cooperators grow angry at a system that permits this abuse. Sometimes this leads to a conversion to anarchism which is either a desire for the utopia described above, a desire for a return to primitive tribalism, or some muddled mix of the two.

The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism evolved into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. Perhaps in the future republics will be consumed by world government, world government will advance into decentralized government, and decentralized government will finally mature into the optimum of no government at all.

Well, it seems like the perfect testbed towards a virtual "perfect world". I believe it's done once more but with the economic part of Valve's community and as a chief economist Yanis Varoufakis. Steam engine has about 200M active users IIRC. In any case,  I must find myself some more time to play CK! (yeah, that 25th hour on the day would've come handy right now)

Utopia:
A utopia is a community or society possessing highly desirable or near perfect qualities. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempt to create an ideal society, and imagined societies portrayed in fiction.

The word comes from the Greek: oὐ ("not") and τόπoς ("place") and means "no-place", and strictly describes any non-existent society 'described in considerable detail'. However, in standard usage, the word's meaning has narrowed and now usually describes a non-existent society that is intended to be viewed as considerably better than contemporary society.


Well, you don't understand then that entire tribes (eg. jewry) are founded on the notion that others are subhuman. You plan to make all jews believe that they have the same rights as everybody    Good luck with that!!  (other tribes have individuals with similar mindsets, I used jews as an example because it is a media-induced no-no to even think about touching their supremacy).

To me you appear largely clueless, about the level I was 20 years ago. I don't say this to put you down (my level then was a good start) but a few decades of experience adds depth to the thinking. I look forward to the next 20 years to understand more.

No. You guys are really good at putting words in other people's mouths. I never said anything about repression/opression , I specifically emphasized that it would be natural.

There would be nothing totalitarian in here, and certainly not a utopia , but as close as it can get.

__________________________

You guys have really a lack of imagination and are confined in a very prisoner mindset. When I talk about achieving unified culture, you immediately thing as if those that dont want to become part of this would be put in concentration camps? No, that is not how it would be done.

I specifically said that it would be a natural process. Do 35 year olds put 36 year olds into concentration camps (and I always come back to this example because it is really this absurd).

So the difference between 1 human, and the other would really be like the difference between a 35 and 36 year old. There would be no more local culture anymore, the same way that there are no more dinosaurs or caveman anymore.

All you would have is different humans with different personalities, but treating eachother nontheless respectfully. You can still have individual issues and hatred but not group hatred anymore, because there would be no more tribalist groups to speak of.

You are describing utopian totaliarianism here. It is a typical fantasy setting. What it ignores is that there are people who want to be free, and they currently feel that they have certain freedoms, which in the system described would not exist. So they need to be violently repressed to give away their freedoms (does not work), or cheated to give them away (works, but labels your system as unethical and ensures continued resistance by people who learn this). Starting from scratch, many things work, but there is often no way to get there from the current situation.

CK evades this by not requiring every individual be part of it. CK is voluntary, so it can uphold laws that I consider impossible in outside world (where there is no easy way to opt-out). For instance a global transaction tax is a way of tracking every individual's every purchase. It is a diabolic idea for freedom in the world where people need to fight for their freedom or lose it.

CK is implementing a transaction tax, however! In the context where people are voluntarily in, and the ruler of the world wants good to them, and one can exit at any time and the goons are not coming after, it is allowed for a system to make such a tax.

What we can save by doing it, is to keep the labor tax and costs at 0, and sales tax at 0. So when you sell your labor as a medical practitioner (200k/AP) and buy gardening (50k/AP), you get 4 times as many hours. This is the area where outside world sucks the most in western jurisdictions - even if the gardener is in the free market, the medical practice must charge 3+ times the doctor salary.

Also all sales taxes are zero, and duty is levied only on silver, beer, wine and spirits. The transaction tax will be a very small amount per transaction, in the order of 0.0001 XMR or less.

Ah thats nonsense nobody would pay for that, or worse, some rich person can then control the whole voting system.

And even if you outlaw 1 rich person to control the whole system with this money, he can do so covertly through his minions.

Nope the legislature has to be free, otherwise its begging to be corrupted.

If my unified culture theory becomes true, there will be no reason to fight war, and you could not enlist nobody.

All war must have a motivation, otherwise you will not get volunteers. If you declare war on the 35 year old people, then nobody would enlist to such a dumb idea. But if you declare war agains a religion / race or other tribalist entity, then you will find plenty of supporters.

War can be totally eliminated with a unified culture. The best you could have then is mercenary army, that will obey your silly rules but will demand a big wage for that, which is unsustainable for 1 diabolic "world conqueror" or Caesar wannabe.


Sure it would be a federation so a local community can still decide if they want to pay more or not but this has to be voluntary. But the federal tax has to be only 1-2%, levied from each transaction.

I heard this transaction tax from other people, and its already getting some spotlight amongst economists, of course with the current keynesian debt based ponzi economy ,its impossible to implement.

But with another monetary system, it is very doable, and sufficient to finance all public institutions.

The world GDP is:
77,269,168,000,000$

The federation would get a budget of at least 40% of it, given the current transaction velocity. You pay tax as much as you consume, without discriminaton to your income. Shifting from a consumerist economy to a knowledge age economy, as many austrian schoolers want.

Thats plenty enough with high technology, non inflationary economy to finance itself. And there would be no tax cheaters, nor tax havens. Nobody could dodge this, and nobody would have to spend money and time on accountants and bullshit to calculate it.




Well yes, the legislative assembly would decide all public personalities that would hold and office and get elected.

But people would be the ones controlling them. And whenever a person gets out of line, he would be replaced.

These are some very good thoughts; but let me add a bit to them. How about a "dynamic democracy scheme"? One that each tax payer should (pledge to) pay for the laws to be voted or the changes he/she wants. This way no government should have the funds to ie: start a war, without the people's consent. Totalitarianism is based on the fact that a certain group of individuals have unlimited power to implement whatever they see fit (without anyone question them).

Introducing this ledger-based "taxing" system we may (as community) decide ie: if we want more police protection or not; more schools or not, etc. If the government doesn't get the funds, then another party should take the lead in order to implement what the people paid for. In this way we will be in a constant election system that delivers at any single time what the people's will is.

Maybe supervising is a prerequisite by a certain type of "authority" but they won't have to do anything concerning people's choice - just make sure that they're implemented since the people paid/decided for them.

Yep I analyzed the role of the state in society too. I dont really have a problem with social order that is created by the state, I have a problem wit the taxation system, the keynesian ponzi scheme financial system, and the corrupt bureocracy.

I think the best form of governance would be a Terran Federation, that would be subdivided into the continents, and it would not be nationality/race/tribe/religion based, it would be a unified culture. Also this global government would be direct democracy based, with real  transparency, given to us by the decentralized blockhain systems.

It can be a decentralized legislature, based with the current system, or it can be a balanced one with some other clever ideas.

I also think that this global government should not interfere in the market, nor it should have a tax system. Maybe a 1-2% transaction tax, imposed on every transacton, but other than that, nothing else.

Also it should not be keynesian, it has to be austrian school based with gold or bitcoin or whatever backing, so that there would never need to be a debt system that needs to be funded by taxes.

Most taxes go anyway to fund the debt based system, and with a global government, a 1-2% transaction tax, on every transaction is more than enough to sustain every public institution, and all other taxes can go directly into the trash can.

Nonprofit organization could reclaim the taxes at the end of the year.

It would be a really nice system.

RealBitcoin, this is a challenging question but I will add my thoughts.

To answer your question we must first examine the role of government and it's relationship to the base state of nature. This relationship was analyzed in depth by Thomas Hobbs in his book Leviathan.

In the state of nature, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. There is no centralized authority and no external recourse against violence, coercion, or defection. This, Hobbes argued, leads to a "war of all against all"


Such a primitive state cannot endure. Humans are intelligent enough to see that this "war of all against all" is horrible so we accede to a social contract and form tribes which later become cities and eventually nations. Society is a population under some sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede some rights for the sake of protection.

Back in 1651 Hobbs argued that the best type of sovereign authority available was a centralized monarch. Indeed there may well have been a time in human history when monarchy was the best available solution given our overall level of technology and education. I am hopeful, however, that we have outgrown that time. Our current social contract for all its flaws is superior to the monarchies and dictatorships it supplanted.

The role of the social contract is to maximize individual freedom to build wealth, prosperity and happiness via cooperation while minimizing individual freedom to prosper from coercion, violence and defection.

With this framework in mind will a transition to a one world government represent an improvement. I believe the answer to this question is yes. The transition from nation states to a world government contains the potential finally eliminate large scale tribe on tribe and nation on nation war and violence. The importance of such an achievement cannot be overstated.

A diffuse decentralized world government of the type described by macsga above would be of course be superior to a centralized one. However, I doubt we can smoothly transition to such a decentralized system from our current state. We lack both the technology and more importantly the education to make it work. Like our primitive forefathers forced to settle for monarchy as an incremental improvement over despotism a loose centralized world government is an incremental improvement a stepping stone to something better.

 I dont want to impose anything on anybody, you spin my words again

Please read my posts word by word to understand what I`m saying, because you just put words in my mouth.


I only said that free market is not possible until humanity is not united, because individualism is not possible until humans are not viewed as brothers.

Tribalism creates collectivism! Even Ayn Rand admits that, and she was a  real free marketer. The collective belief / group associacion is based on ancient primitive tribalist instincts.

Uniting humanity doesn't mean a marxist world domination, nor any sort of collectivist borg/zombie system. It only means that humans drop their childish tribalist mindset, and start treating people as their fellow humans, with respect and friendship.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tribalism.html

You're demonstrating that your own beliefs are morally superior to others and they must be adopted, how is this different from islam or socialism?

How can you preach individuality while you wish to impose your belief system upon the masses.

The only way a free market can survive is if it cannot be corrupted by anyone, including you.

Well look if you want a truely productive society, and cost effective business (i presume) that costs the least amount to maintain and the most productive outcome, then this has to go.

Tribalism only gave us genocide, mass murders, hatred, concentration camps, bullying , discrimination, racism, religious wars, and unmeasurable brutality.


Now if you are a nice person, and I assume you are, then you want to end this madness, and that can only end if tribalism goes away.


Our technology and civilization is too advanced now for such primitive 100,000 year old society system, and we need a better one, that would enable everybody to reach it's true potential, individually, without any tribal supremacy crap.

Who are you to decide what does and does not belong in the 21st century? Are you god?

Again you are ranting here,and way out of line. I`m not a leftist, but I would like if naturally people would not differetiate eachother, like in terms of bigotry and racism.

Also it's not about individual hatred, so what if individual people dont like eachother, thats one thing.

I`m more concerned about group hatred, based on tribalist and religious division, the primive/animal part of humanity that doesn't belong in the 21 century.

____________________

The leftist-marxist equality is nonsense. I know that. But that doesn't mean that humans should not respect eachother like individuals and put aside these primitive tribalist hatred that they have, and it's based on nonsense.

____________________

Humans are already more mixed than before 1000 years, people can travel, and move to many places, and this regional tribalist mindset is just annoying and non-productive.

If you guys want a real knowledge age with prosperity and world peace, then tribalism must go.

You wont unite humanity by installing a global marxist dictatorship, you're beginning to sound like Ted Turner.

Humanity might start bickering less after all attempts at controlling the free market via warfare, etc. Have proven futile due to it's decentralized nature.

People don't like eachother, you can't force that or eliminate violence.

Hold on a second, you totally misunderstood my post. I`m also for free markets.

I just have a different theory about war/maffia/crime/genocide and other bad things. My theory is that these are created based on social segregation and isolationism.


I don't think we can achieve a free market, before we unite humanity, because there will always be an isolationist group that will either invade or get invaded either by gangs or military.

The only way to achieve peace, and you wont even need policing after, is to make humanity homogeneous, and then we will have peace and prosperity, with free markets, and no isolationist gangs to destroy it.

All gangs are race, religion, or other isolationist idea based. If you eliminate tribalism and isolationist behaviour, you wont have any gangs anymore.

Mobs formed because the state created a black market for them to be profitable.

You can't eliminate nature no matter how hard you try or dislike it.

I find cultural diversity interesting, even warfare and death, and you want to pour multiculturalism on top of everything because it's "savage"

 The problem we have now is people like you create laws and attempt to control nature without thinking of the consequences.

I would also feel safer to defend myself and family from such mobs in a free market, because I would have adequate home security to do so (not relying upon a mediocre police response after the fact) which would discourage mob warfare or claiming territory.