0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
He'd urge you to try driving on the left until *you* change your mindSent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
For what it is worth, I am less concerned with conveying my worldview than I am with asking everyone to live by the precepts that he or she advocates for others. Since early adulthood, I have referred to this as 'metarchy' from 'meta-' in the sense of self-referential analysis, and '-archy'.In this way, rather than try to convince anyone to see the world as I do, I would ask only that academic communists be forbidden to hold property, that supporters of the social welfare society be taxed at very high rates, that racists be forbidden to live near or work among individuals of different ethnicities, that anti-immigrationists be denied passports, etc.Help the helpful, be kind to the kind, police the police, judge the judges, tolerate the tolerant, sneer at the arrogant, and stay off my lawn.
Quote from: toast on February 11, 2014, 02:06:20 amQuote from: bytemaster on February 11, 2014, 12:44:22 amPoint noted about extreme political views... Unlike debates with left vs right, communism vs democracy, gay rights, etc all of these views require everyone to adopt their system and threaten to hurt those who do not get with the program. I merely promote views that don't threaten to hurt anyone. Though, I suppose most other views by their very nature would threaten to hurt me for not getting with their program. Look what happened to Jesus for simply telling people to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, give to the poor, go two miles if you are compelled to go one. Do you believe that the myth of Jesus is actually true? Would you describe yourself as any of the following: atheist, theist, deist, Christian? Just so that I can understand exactly where you are coming from.None of the above. After seeing the complete ignorance of the vast majority of society on every other area of inquiry (Money, Economics, Government, Electricity, Health, etc) combined with the complete corruption of any kind of commitment to the truth by every political entity since Genesis was first penned I have no trust in any other individual to accurately convey a message over 2000 microseconds let alone 2000 years, through multiple cultures and languages. Always and everywhere the history books are written by the victors to serve as propaganda for their rule. Lies and myths are accepted as truth today despite clear evidence to the contrary from first hand experience. People DIE for these lies thinking they are fighting for freedom. Does God exist or do we live in the matrix? I believe the answer can only be found within. All of history is a myth and the future a dream. Only now, in this moment, do they exist and are available to guide our next action.
Quote from: bytemaster on February 11, 2014, 12:44:22 amPoint noted about extreme political views... Unlike debates with left vs right, communism vs democracy, gay rights, etc all of these views require everyone to adopt their system and threaten to hurt those who do not get with the program. I merely promote views that don't threaten to hurt anyone. Though, I suppose most other views by their very nature would threaten to hurt me for not getting with their program. Look what happened to Jesus for simply telling people to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, give to the poor, go two miles if you are compelled to go one. Do you believe that the myth of Jesus is actually true? Would you describe yourself as any of the following: atheist, theist, deist, Christian? Just so that I can understand exactly where you are coming from.
Point noted about extreme political views... Unlike debates with left vs right, communism vs democracy, gay rights, etc all of these views require everyone to adopt their system and threaten to hurt those who do not get with the program. I merely promote views that don't threaten to hurt anyone. Though, I suppose most other views by their very nature would threaten to hurt me for not getting with their program. Look what happened to Jesus for simply telling people to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, give to the poor, go two miles if you are compelled to go one.
Quote from: BitMinerN8 on February 28, 2014, 09:56:22 pmQuote from: jae208 on February 28, 2014, 03:39:08 pmumm... is that... you? I wish... it's The Dude.http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+dude In my defense, I was just a child when the movie came out haha
Quote from: jae208 on February 28, 2014, 03:39:08 pmumm... is that... you? I wish... it's The Dude.http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+dude
umm... is that... you?
I read through it all, and I love it. So very exciting to be involved with this project, company, and mindset. It's going to be big!Sorry, I had too... It's the feeling I get after reading threads like this.
Maybe I'm not looking at this from a broad enough perspective, but it seems to me that if drugs (or another easy revenue source for street-level criminals) became illegal, that other forms of illegal activity would rise. Maybe personal assault to steal the iGadget and sell (or could we make this not a possibility?)
It's all a matter of tools. In the society of today the vast majority of people don't have the tools to survive and are in a state of desperation. Living day to day, paycheck to paycheck, or worse they are risking their lives and freedom to get beyond "street level".We should be asking why are people so desperate? We should also be asking why government encourages people to have dependency on it's services but sets monetary and legal policies which may in fact contribute to the desperation people are under?Finally we have to ask what can we do about this? Crime exists where ever human beings are desperate and the laws interfere with the free market. In a free market where selling drugs is not illegal then the drug dealing industry wouldn't necessarily be violent anymore. But let's be honest about it and also admit that if there were better opportunities the vast majority of people who sell drugs for a living would be convinced to do something else.So until we provide better opportunities for people by building tools which cannot easily be confiscated, banned, outlawed, or have the access restricted, then nothing can be expected to change. The other invention we can provide is deflationary currencies/DACs.Anyone can benefit from using their own currency so that they can avoid certain poverty traps. People who don't have good credit cannot go to a bank to get a business loan, but they can go into debt for college. Who decided that college is more important than starting a business?The other important distinction is the distinction between currencies which inflate which means every year the holders will become more desperate and competitive to maintain their position, and currencies which are deflationary which don't require desperation but instead patience. When you have the currency itself programming people into thinking like a criminal because if they don't get all they can and spend it all as fast as they can't it wont be worth anything, then how are you supposed to get people to think long term or set long term goals, save or plan ahead?Those who are promoting the inflationary model are promoting the thug mentality without realizing it in my opinion and we should look very carefully at the effects of deflationary currencies on different demographics to see if it results in a behavioral change.From what I've seen in the Bitcoin community I've noticed it's remarkably well behaved with not very much violence. I also know most people in the Bitcoin community are not rich at all. So there might be an opportunity for a case study on the effects of deflationary currencies on different populations, could it be that deflationary currencies deter crime because people think if they just have patience and save they can get everything they'll need without having to hurt or compete with other people?
Quote from: toast on February 11, 2014, 02:06:20 amQuote from: bytemaster on February 11, 2014, 12:44:22 amPoint noted about extreme political views... Unlike debates with left vs right, communism vs democracy, gay rights, etc all of these views require everyone to adopt their system and threaten to hurt those who do not get with the program. I merely promote views that don't threaten to hurt anyone. Though, I suppose most other views by their very nature would threaten to hurt me for not getting with their program. Look what happened to Jesus for simply telling people to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, give to the poor, go two miles if you are compelled to go one. Do you believe that the myth of Jesus is actually true? Would you describe yourself as any of the following: atheist, theist, deist, Christian? Just so that I can understand exactly where you are coming from.
Quote from: bytemaster on February 11, 2014, 12:44:22 amQuote from: delulo on February 11, 2014, 12:31:44 am I am very excited about the potentials for society and you gave a great talk on that radio station yesterday! Everyone should listen.Some differentiation: Would you agree that consensus technology can make civil law (partly) unnecessary but not penal law. Or would you want to challenge the centralization of the right to use force by the state? If so how would you want to make sure a violant person (for example a killer) gets arrested?A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution. Can't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.
Quote from: delulo on February 11, 2014, 12:31:44 am I am very excited about the potentials for society and you gave a great talk on that radio station yesterday! Everyone should listen.Some differentiation: Would you agree that consensus technology can make civil law (partly) unnecessary but not penal law. Or would you want to challenge the centralization of the right to use force by the state? If so how would you want to make sure a violant person (for example a killer) gets arrested?A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution.
I am very excited about the potentials for society and you gave a great talk on that radio station yesterday! Everyone should listen.Some differentiation: Would you agree that consensus technology can make civil law (partly) unnecessary but not penal law. Or would you want to challenge the centralization of the right to use force by the state? If so how would you want to make sure a violant person (for example a killer) gets arrested?
Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 20, 2014, 02:23:52 amQuote from: progmac on February 19, 2014, 06:06:40 pmCan't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.More generally, where there are imperfect humans there will be crime and violence. The question is how to minimize it without participating in crime (by which I mean the violation of rights) or initiating violence.I think about it a lot. Largely because I live in a neighborhood where i witness drug deals with some regularity and crime in general (petty theft mostly) is higher than average. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if nobody bought their drugs on the street and put the street-level dealer out of business. But then I figure that the people into dealing drugs are mostly poor kids who would be getting their money more violently if they couldn't sell dope. Young, uneducated, generally uncivilized -- how will they participate in the economy? What role would these type of people have in a new economy?
Quote from: progmac on February 19, 2014, 06:06:40 pmCan't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.More generally, where there are imperfect humans there will be crime and violence. The question is how to minimize it without participating in crime (by which I mean the violation of rights) or initiating violence.
Can't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.
Hi Bytemaster,This is all great, and I completely agree with how everything described here is possible with a good consensus building system. But help me understand what you mean by "Consensus Technology"?In my mind ONE of the hardest parts about building consensus, is that everyone quickly finds some minor point they disagree on, the conversation always moves down to that level, no matter how trivial and less important. Immediately, the infinitely repetitive flame, edit, censor wars start, nobody can agree at that level, everyone get's hurt, no progress is made, everyone leaves, any possible consensus is destroyed. And that's just one of the problems. Canonizer.com's goal is exactly to solve all such problems with consensus building, and to be able to rigorously measure for exactly how much you have, in real time, and find out who is still not on board, so you can know, concisely and quantitatively what is required to get most of them to support your camp..Brent Allsop
"I advocate consent of the governed where every Keyhotee ID publicly signs which laws they will follow and by which agencies they are willing to be judged. Then phone software can validate that two people have compatible systems of law and dispute resolution before you do business."Great man! I always tell the people that I would like to have two passports. One of the nation I was born in, ad another one with my own constitution and laws. Then I could say to the national policeman:" But hey, in my own one-man-country I am allowed to do this", and he would have to accept it.But you are, I don't want to slime, a very smart person who can put your ideas to paper and think stuff out on a high intelligence level, you have my big respect Mr. bytemaster. Thank you for all your work!!
Too often "reasonable" goals are defined as the final target, and then we compromise from there until nothing of value is left. ...Unlike most other radical political proposals, the only threat to any existing structure here is if that structure is later discarded as superfluous.
Quote from: bytemaster on February 11, 2014, 12:44:22 amI believe that consensus technology can make both civil and penal law irrelevant. For starters, it can make it possible to come to a consensus about who-dun-it. Then they can be cut of from economic life. The police wouldn't dare harm someone or attempt to lock someone up because if they are wrong the market can hold them personally accountable. A violent person would eventually be put down in an act of self defense, but everyone always has an opportunity to pay restitution and get back in good standing. Imagine how much crime there would be if every time you enter a business and attempt to buy something they get an instant criminal record and if they do business with you they become liable for paying back your restitution as well?A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution. Bottom line is that I believe there are market solutions that eliminate the need to use violence in any way except immediate self defense. I believe that insurance systems can make victims of violent crime whole while the insurance company focuses on collecting the compensation from the perp.Two points here:1) I think you're underestimating the impact of human bias on decisions justice. I would not take any justice DAC seriously until it demonstrated awareness of such biases.2) Be careful about how extreme the political views you express on these forums are, you might be getting a lot more scrutiny than you anticipate soon and it'd be better not to give your opponents ammunition (even if you're right "in the end")
I believe that consensus technology can make both civil and penal law irrelevant. For starters, it can make it possible to come to a consensus about who-dun-it. Then they can be cut of from economic life. The police wouldn't dare harm someone or attempt to lock someone up because if they are wrong the market can hold them personally accountable. A violent person would eventually be put down in an act of self defense, but everyone always has an opportunity to pay restitution and get back in good standing. Imagine how much crime there would be if every time you enter a business and attempt to buy something they get an instant criminal record and if they do business with you they become liable for paying back your restitution as well?A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution. Bottom line is that I believe there are market solutions that eliminate the need to use violence in any way except immediate self defense. I believe that insurance systems can make victims of violent crime whole while the insurance company focuses on collecting the compensation from the perp.
Quote from: Empirical1 on February 11, 2014, 12:39:05 am I agree, it can bring about such positive change! The problem is however great the system is that someone designs, isn't the problem always going to be the fiat to crypto gateway?This is kind of a re-quote from an article I read today... "Due to the nature of its structure, banning crypto-currencies will of course not eradicate them. But what it will do is make it impossible for law-abiding individuals and businesses to use them — and thereby render them practically useless anyway."Everything is legal somewhere.... this would certainly slow things down, but there are just too many benefits to society and individuals who use the coins to keep it down forever.
I agree, it can bring about such positive change! The problem is however great the system is that someone designs, isn't the problem always going to be the fiat to crypto gateway?This is kind of a re-quote from an article I read today... "Due to the nature of its structure, banning crypto-currencies will of course not eradicate them. But what it will do is make it impossible for law-abiding individuals and businesses to use them — and thereby render them practically useless anyway."