What if Bitcoin could end Hunger or Proverty or both ?

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: disclaimer201 on January 16, 2012, 04:47:58 AM

Guys. Your discussion is quite interesting (I followed so far), yet could you get back to the topic?

The ideas of doing something good with fees isn't so bad. I just second that it be volunatary. Just programme a voluntary 0.001 %btc donation button into the next bitcoin client for doctors without borders, the red cross and or even religious human rights groups. Though I'm an atheist myself, I think they act (thanks to their ability to act) instead of having endless philosophical discussions that lead only to contemplating the world's problems.

Sorry for the off-topic drift.

I don't think having the standard client take extra fees, even voluntary ones, and direct them to a specific charity (or even non-specific or multiple chartities) is a good idea, for reasons others stated above.

However....

From what I can tell, I don't think there's anything preventing any given charity from taking the standard client, keeping the credits and license, slapping their logo/name on it, and including such a voluntary fee. I suppose it wouldn't even have to be the charity doing it... if someone knows a charity that accepts bitcoins, they could release the "Red Cross Bitcoin Client" or "United Way Bitcoin Client" themselves. Everyone could then be reminded of their favorite charity every time they spend bitcoins, and be prompted (regularly or randomly) to add the extra donation; or it could just be an extra field on the "Spend Coins" dialog box.

This would avoid a lot of the problems mentioned above, and still allow for the basic concept. Should make everyone moderately pleased, if not fully happy.

disclaimer201

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1001

Guys. Your discussion is quite interesting (I followed so far), yet could you get back to the topic?

The ideas of doing something good with fees isn't so bad. I just second that it be volunatary. Just programme a voluntary 0.001 %btc donation button into the next bitcoin client for doctors without borders, the red cross and or even religious human rights groups. Though I'm an atheist myself, I think they act (thanks to their ability to act) instead of having endless philosophical discussions that lead only to contemplating the world's problems.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: westkybitcoins on January 15, 2012, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: rebuilder on January 15, 2012, 04:26:51 PM

Quote from: foggyb on January 15, 2012, 04:18:02 PM

If you can't talk about ideas that you don't believe in, that's unfortunate. Not a sign of an open mind.

I think metaphysics is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, that's all.

Rights are essentially a metaphysical concept. You can say they come from God, the Laws of the Universe, our collective oneness, or some other "higher power". But simple physics can't dictate morality, and rights are just a baseline codification of what qualifies as moral human interaction.

"Simple physics" is hopelessly inadequate at studying the source of information, intelligence, and the experience of consciousness. Like trying to watch TV with a radio.

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: rebuilder on January 15, 2012, 04:26:51 PM

Quote from: foggyb on January 15, 2012, 04:18:02 PM

If you can't talk about ideas that you don't believe in, that's unfortunate. Not a sign of an open mind.

I think metaphysics is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, that's all.

Rights are essentially a metaphysical concept. You can say they come from God, the Laws of the Universe, our collective oneness, or some other "higher power". But simple physics can't dictate morality, and rights are just a baseline codification of what qualifies as moral human interaction.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: rebuilder on January 15, 2012, 04:26:51 PM

Quote from: foggyb on January 15, 2012, 04:18:02 PM

If you can't talk about ideas that you don't believe in, that's unfortunate. Not a sign of an open mind.

I think metaphysics is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, that's all.

You're right. Traditional science is a limited tool. However my view is that by combining the study of logic and physical evidence, we can expand our sphere of thought and take over where mere science falls far short.

rebuilder

legendary

Activity: 1615

Merit: 1000

Quote from: foggyb on January 15, 2012, 04:18:02 PM

If you can't talk about ideas that you don't believe in, that's unfortunate. Not a sign of an open mind.

I think metaphysics is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, that's all.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: rebuilder on January 15, 2012, 04:12:03 PM

I just don't think religion is something that can be used to further this discussion. I worried you were hinting at a deity behind these rights, which is a dead end to me since I don't believe in any. The discussion can't go on from that. That's the main point of a secular society, to create a common ground.

If you can't talk about ideas that you don't believe in, that's unfortunate. Not a sign of an open mind.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: ?? on ??

There is no contradiction, I told you I am non-aggressive. You should protect yourself though, no one is going to do it for you.

Turning a blind eye to aggression on others is akin to being the source of said aggression.

If you truly treated others as you treated yourself, you would not claim to deny others their rights (the authority is not yours.)

But of course, you are merely defending YOUR OWN rights in self-defense. You are NOT taking other's rights away.

rebuilder

legendary

Activity: 1615

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

Society exists, and it is real. It's a system whether you like it or not.

I fully agree.

Quote from: foggyb on January 15, 2012, 04:03:33 PM

Right, if its your religion we're discussing, then that's ok? How kind of you. Undecided

I just don't think religion is something that can be used to further this discussion. I worried you were hinting at a deity behind these rights, which is a dead end to me since I don't believe in any. The discussion can't go on from that. That's the main point of a secular society, to create a common ground.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

You're a dictator then?

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: rebuilder on January 15, 2012, 04:01:05 PM

Given by who? I should note I'm not interested in religious discussion here.

Right, if its your religion we're discussing, then that's ok? How kind of you. Undecided

rebuilder

legendary

Activity: 1615

Merit: 1000

Quote from: foggyb on January 15, 2012, 03:56:26 PM

I never said they weren't given, I said they weren't given by people. Inherent means permanent, essential, a characteristic attribute.

Given by who? I should note I'm not interested in religious discussion here.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: ?? on ??

Rights are created by mutual voluntary agreement.

That leaves you free to break the agreement at any time, then. You're the dictator of anyone you choose. That's a contradiction of your statement that you treat others as you would treat yourself.

Or, are you like Obama. Yes, I allowed NADA to pass, but I won't use it.

rebuilder

legendary

Activity: 1615

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

No. Rules are created by rulers.

Rights are created by mutual voluntary agreement.

An agreement, which makes the participants subject to the system they create. Subjecthood doesn't imply a personified ruler.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: rebuilder on January 15, 2012, 03:47:54 PM

Inherent? What do you mean?

Rights ARE given, they are something subjects have. If you are subject to the rule of some party, they may grant you rights. If you are sovereign, the concept of rights is meaningless.

I never said they weren't given, I said they weren't given by people. Inherent means permanent, essential, a characteristic attribute.

rebuilder

legendary

Activity: 1615

Merit: 1000

Quote from: foggyb on January 15, 2012, 03:39:59 PM

Our basic rights are inherent. You cannot give someone else rights. That would make them your slave.

Inherent? What do you mean?

Rights ARE given, they are something subjects have. If you are subject to the rule of some party, they may grant you rights. If you are sovereign, the concept of rights is meaningless.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: ?? on ??

Sorry man, you are so far off base on this one. Don't presume to know me or why I live the way I do.

Its not personal, don't make it that.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I treat people the way I expect them to treat me.

Of course you do. None of us would go to the trouble of being nice if people didn't reciprocate. Its in our best self-interest.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I'm a firm believer in rights, but realize we give those rights to each other.

Our basic rights are inherent. You cannot give someone else rights. That would make them your slave.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: ?? on ??

The need for laws prove that mankind is evil.

Do you need laws to stop you from going out and murdering children? I don't. And from what I've seen, evil men usually don't care to abide by them.

Laws are first and foremost designed to serve justice. You behave in a moral fashion because you know there are negative consequences to immoral actions, even outside the law. You and many of us abide by the law out of a self-centered nature, not out of the goodness of a pristine heart & mind. When you say you're basically a good person, that is immediately proof that you're not.

smiles

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Quote from: herzmeister on January 15, 2012, 11:22:42 AM

Quote from: smiles on January 14, 2012, 01:39:30 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: smiles on January 13, 2012, 08:40:36 PM

Unfortunately the heart of man is evil above all things.

I never knew that! You learn something new every day.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Locke: Man at large is by nature good, it's the state which is patronizing, spoiling and intimidating them and making them bad.
Hobbes: Man by nature is a beast, we need the state to tame them.
Locke vs Hobbes

@OP: It's not recommendable to introduce centralization into Bitcoin, that's not what it's made for. However, Bitcoin can help to free the concept of money out of the control of states and central banks, which would allow fair competition of currency, which would probably end recessions and many of the problems we have today, increasing people's independence and prosperity and standards of living immensely.

Thus this may free resources to offer independent and ingenious help to third world countries, which should consist of helping them become really self-sustaining, instead of making them dependent on global corporocracy like Monsanto which is unfortunately the way things are happening today.

Oh Crap, I thought you were quoting CALVIN and Hobbes.

http://cdn1.matadornetwork.com/bravenewtraveler.com/docs/wp-content/images/posts/20100127-calvin.jpg

herzmeister

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1007

Quote from: smiles on January 14, 2012, 01:39:30 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: smiles on January 13, 2012, 08:40:36 PM

Unfortunately the heart of man is evil above all things.

I never knew that! You learn something new every day.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Locke: Man at large is by nature good, it's the state which is patronizing, spoiling and intimidating them and making them bad.
Hobbes: Man by nature is a beast, we need the state to tame them.
Locke vs Hobbes

@OP: It's not recommendable to introduce centralization into Bitcoin, that's not what it's made for. However, Bitcoin can help to free the concept of money out of the control of states and central banks, which would allow fair competition of currency, which would probably end recessions and many of the problems we have today, increasing people's independence and prosperity and standards of living immensely.

Thus this may free resources to offer independent and ingenious help to third world countries, which should consist of helping them become really self-sustaining, instead of making them dependent on global corporocracy like Monsanto which is unfortunately the way things are happening today.

Topic: What if Bitcoin could end Hunger or Proverty or both ? (Read 3679 times)