Mutual Aid Societies

[lil_jay890]

Affirmative action is also a terrible law... It matches the required criteria stated in the op

[donkeypong]

This is a ponzi scheme.

No, it's not. From a certain angle, any kind of insurance is a ponzi scheme of sorts. You have people paying into it, and those continued payments being required so that others can get payouts. But insurance, benefit societies, and community rainy day funds have been around for thousands of years, and their models are not pponzis.

The difference between insurance and Ponzis is that insurance companies can invest and build up the money they get from premiums. Their businesses can sustain themselves based on returns from their investments and current policyholders paying premiums. If they needed to attract new pay-ins in order to have the money to pay claims, etc., then they would be Ponzis. 

[bitacer]

Just because something is a law/rule does not make it just or needed or actually bettering society.

That is true of course, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the rules that you don't like. The point is that if you want to be part of a society/community/whatever you have to accept the rules, because being part of that society means they are YOUR rules. You cannot claim the benefits of being part of a society without delivering on the expectations that society has on you.

As I said before, if you don't like the rules you can either change them or choose a different society, which in the case of citizenship means moving to a different country. Of course that's not easy, because it means you no longer claim the benefits of being a citizen. That's the point. Society cannot function if people only want the benefits but don't care about the rules. Breaking the rules will force society to take action against you (and rightfully so, IMO).

What is a society?  A country can have a overall layer of freedom to such an extent that we can have multiple societies and getting caught up in other societies just means you have to pay their price. I think you'll find a lot of people in disagreement with you. Disobeying laws is a calculated risk, and when there is no well defined victim of your actions then it is questionable whether state sanctioned violence is needed.

Your view goes way too far. What happens when your society is ruled by some evil entity? These are all just constructs of why we do what we do and ultimately it is a risk/reward ratio that is personalized to everyone's individuality.

Anyway, I came to this thread because there are a few problems with this. #1 You would not want your real identity broadcast over the net as part of Bitshares history. I mean maybe some here would not mind, but it is likely many would rather not have their name SEOed in such a fashion. This leads to #2 which is if it became known that you had such a insurance, it might very well be able to be used against you in a criminal case because it shows some admission of criminality. 

Both of the above reasons fly against the required transparency when putting forth a claim. So this thing will likely be pretty limited.

 One way to fix this is to have the people who decide on payment rather limited, but then you have more problems with trust even if you can do it cryptographically.

I have similar view with you. The concept gets too general with a collectivist definition like  "society". Users should be able to form their own societies per se , I have been thinking about a system where users create what I call circle of trust not so large , just enough big to have auto-control so the circle wont break apart, and any member of the circle, in times of need, can be placed in the center so that the circle can focus their attention to it. I would name it Center of Circle or Circle of trust. I once watched this documentary about how amish community help their members build houses. Community small enough to create a network of trust get together and focus their energy to accomplish a certain task,  like building a house for a member. I would like to use the analogy of a using a magnifying-glass to create a fire,  too large magnifying glass is indeed so powerful but not so flexible and not so easy to maneuver , but same effect can be achieved with a number of smaller magnifying glasses pointing at the same direction.  In that respect it would be nice to be able to form smaller groups to take care of each other rather than a large system where voting and decision making can really get complicated since users might be from very different cultures.

[gamey]

Just because something is a law/rule does not make it just or needed or actually bettering society.

That is true of course, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the rules that you don't like. The point is that if you want to be part of a society/community/whatever you have to accept the rules, because being part of that society means they are YOUR rules. You cannot claim the benefits of being part of a society without delivering on the expectations that society has on you.

As I said before, if you don't like the rules you can either change them or choose a different society, which in the case of citizenship means moving to a different country. Of course that's not easy, because it means you no longer claim the benefits of being a citizen. That's the point. Society cannot function if people only want the benefits but don't care about the rules. Breaking the rules will force society to take action against you (and rightfully so, IMO).

What is a society?  A country can have a overall layer of freedom to such an extent that we can have multiple societies and getting caught up in other societies just means you have to pay their price. I think you'll find a lot of people in disagreement with you. Disobeying laws is a calculated risk, and when there is no well defined victim of your actions then it is questionable whether state sanctioned violence is needed.

Your view goes way too far. What happens when your society is ruled by some evil entity? These are all just constructs of why we do what we do and ultimately it is a risk/reward ratio that is personalized to everyone's individuality.

Anyway, I came to this thread because there are a few problems with this. #1 You would not want your real identity broadcast over the net as part of Bitshares history. I mean maybe some here would not mind, but it is likely many would rather not have their name SEOed in such a fashion. This leads to #2 which is if it became known that you had such a insurance, it might very well be able to be used against you in a criminal case because it shows some admission of criminality. 

Both of the above reasons fly against the required transparency when putting forth a claim. So this thing will likely be pretty limited.

 One way to fix this is to have the people who decide on payment rather limited, but then you have more problems with trust even if you can do it cryptographically.

[Empirical1.2]

This is a ponzi scheme.

While, I think that without risk adjusted premiums the majority of users will be overpaying, I don't think it's a ponzi scheme.

Do you view all benefit societies as ponzi schemes, or just this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_society

[CoinHoarder]

This is a ponzi scheme.

[Empirical1.2]

Just because something is a law/rule does not make it just or needed or actually bettering society.

That is true of course, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the rules that you don't like. The point is that if you want to be part of a society/community/whatever you have to accept the rules, because being part of that society means they are YOUR rules. You cannot claim the benefits of being part of a society without delivering on the expectations that society has on you.

As I said before, if you don't like the rules you can either change them or choose a different society, which in the case of citizenship means moving to a different country. Of course that's not easy, because it means you no longer claim the benefits of being a citizen. That's the point. Society cannot function if people only want the benefits but don't care about the rules. Breaking the rules will force society to take action against you (and rightfully so, IMO).

You do realise the vast majority of 'democratic' societies have rules predominantly decided by the financial elite, designed to empower & enrich themselves at the expense of you? Those rules will be turned against you if you pose any threat to their power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups...for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes.
Initial reports described the selections as nearly exclusively of conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names

Decentralized blockchains have the power to disintermediate governments and banks and as they grow to a more threatening size you may see entrepreneurs and blockchain developers being subjected to 'intensive scrutiny' too. At that point, we'll see whether you think your laws are created and applied fairly by your society...

[pc]

Just because something is a law/rule does not make it just or needed or actually bettering society.

That is true of course, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the rules that you don't like. The point is that if you want to be part of a society/community/whatever you have to accept the rules, because being part of that society means they are YOUR rules. You cannot claim the benefits of being part of a society without delivering on the expectations that society has on you.

As I said before, if you don't like the rules you can either change them or choose a different society, which in the case of citizenship means moving to a different country. Of course that's not easy, because it means you no longer claim the benefits of being a citizen. That's the point. Society cannot function if people only want the benefits but don't care about the rules. Breaking the rules will force society to take action against you (and rightfully so, IMO).

[gamey]

1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.   
5. Those who have their assets seized   

I have two major problems with this proposal.

1. I believe a functioning society needs rules in order to stay functioning, and rules are only useful when violation of these rules is punished in some way.

A durable functioning society also needs rules on how to change and adapt existing rules. So at least for those of us living in "democratic" countries there should be ways to change the rules that we don't like, or to emigrate into a country with different rules.

Your proposal is effectively an encouragement for breaking the rules, which I think is harmful to society.

2. Any kind of insurance costs at least as much as the risk that it covers. The problem there is that the insurance lowers the percieved risk for the insured individual, which incentivises them to take a higher risk, which drives up the overall cost and thereby the actual risk for the individual. From that it follows that an insurance can only work if there remains sufficient incentive for the insured to avoid producing an insurance case.

For example, health insurance works quite well, because although it lowers the percieved risk of the individual, nobody is interested in catching an illness. (Yes, that's a simplification. "quite well", not "perfectly".)

However, people who drive recklessly *want* to drive recklessly. Give them an insurance against traffic fines, and they will drive even more recklessly.

Not all laws are created equally. Although I disagree with Bytemaster on a lot, I can easily agree with the list he put forth as being laws that do not need to exist. Just because something is a law/rule does not make it just or needed or actually bettering society.

Just because you can move away to another country does not mean it is really viable. Voting has problems.  People are basically stupid by and large. Gun violence is at 50 year lows but everyone thinks there is some sort of new problem in the US. Yes, more gun violence than other countries, far less than some, but we have been consistently trending down.

Your analogy with health insurance is not very good. One could just as well argue that with health insurance, people have less reason to take care of themselves. The reality is more like insurance won't have much impact on how people treat their health, because other factors grossly outweigh financial concerns of being unhealthy. Just like no one will want to catch any sort of criminal charge, they won't want some unhealthy thing happening to them.  In health insurance, with very low deductible you have people requesting health coverage for every minor illness. They problems existing in all insurance systems.

I think there are problems with this, but it would be more with the underlying economics. As far as ideas go, this one is probably easier than most and might get coverage. Goodluck to whomever.

[38PTSWarrior]

Bytemaster, when I sing for the people there are the ones who tell me to find a job, others say that I made their day. You know the users who you cannot convince. Blend them out and focus on the people who appreciate your enthusiasm.
Edit: I mean, appreciate your work and who believe in the “full-Bytemaster-package“.
I think that you can do everything good and not only programming.

[santaclause102]

If your premium isn't risk adjusted most of you would be extremely overpaying and dramatically subsidizing high risk candidates like BM.

(This is why various forms of blockchain insurance aren't likely to catch on, though the blockchain should have much lower expenses, in order to provide good value, you probably still need a lot of personal information and actuarial calculations to be made, absent that you may have a very expensive product for most people.) 

It's worth attempting for the potential publicity. It's always good to be first with something.

This would also work better when there is a bond market so that the balance could be put to use and earn interest.

A benefit society, fraternal benefit society or fraternal benefit order is a society, an organization or a voluntary association formed to provide mutual aid, benefit, for instance insurance for relief from sundry difficulties.

A blockchain cannot provide insurance as it is traditionally known, but could easily create a community of individuals who help one another when they face difficulties.  These difficulties can be a wide range of things.

We live in a society where most good people standby and do nothing to help those who are the victim of state violence. This includes those who are punished for victimless crimes or laws that violate the constitution or other basic human rights.  Few people are willing to stand up to the government because the costs are very high on an individual.  If we could only stand together then we would all be protected and regain our freedom.

Typically the way this would work is this, each month members contribute funds to an individualized account that can only be used to reimburse authorized claims by other members. Each member would be allowed to make a claim for at most a multiple of funds contributed derived from the ratio of claims paid out.

The process of making a claim involves making a public request for help and getting the request for help certified by an oracle trusted to verify the facts of the claim. Once the facts are certified other individuals may review the claim and "donate" up to $100 from their locked up funds to cover the claim. 

Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.

I would start this system for five classes of users:

1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.   
5. Those who have their assets seized   

In all cases we presume innocence and believe that the accused deserve a fair defense.

This is a unique product that could easily be codified in smart contracts and provide real world utility that does not exist elsewhere.   

This is also a controversial product that would generate a lot of media attention and attract people who might not otherwise care about crypto currency.

So the question is, how much would you contribute each month to join a community of people united in defense against government attacks on peaceful individuals?

If all funds / accounting were done using BTS then the amount you can get paid out will dramatically increase as adoption grows. The locked up funds would take BTS out of circulation until a claim was made.  It could get very interesting very quickly.

Thoughts?

I like the idea!

derived from the ratio of claims paid out.

I don't understand this bit. Can you explain that?

Once the facts are certified other individuals may review the claim and "donate" up to $100 from their locked up funds to cover the claim. 

Would that system have the overall cost that indidivuals have to pay attention to the claims of other individuals? It's a bit like all shareholders in DPOS have to pay attention in order to vote. Maybe a similar proxy system would make sense?

5. Those who have their assets seized   

Should it say "Those who have their assets seized" or "Those who have their assets seized without having harmed aynone" ?

Could it be that the system ends up with only one class of people? A class where the "legal risk" is the highest while doing no harm to others. So for example: Only "drug" dealers.

What if you are not harming anyone yourself but you are helping someone that for example is a contract killer by washing his money?

Much of the critique has been along the lines of the arguments above. I marked the ones that are not philosphical / politcal but just game theorectical objections bold. I haven't seen any contra argument @bytemaster

[sittingduck]

There are still plenty of rules and plenty of incentive to avoid risky activity. Car insurance doesn't cause more risky driving.  No amount of cash makes jail time desirable.

[pc]

1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.   
5. Those who have their assets seized   

I have two major problems with this proposal.

1. I believe a functioning society needs rules in order to stay functioning, and rules are only useful when violation of these rules is punished in some way.

A durable functioning society also needs rules on how to change and adapt existing rules. So at least for those of us living in "democratic" countries there should be ways to change the rules that we don't like, or to emigrate into a country with different rules.

Your proposal is effectively an encouragement for breaking the rules, which I think is harmful to society.

2. Any kind of insurance costs at least as much as the risk that it covers. The problem there is that the insurance lowers the percieved risk for the insured individual, which incentivises them to take a higher risk, which drives up the overall cost and thereby the actual risk for the individual. From that it follows that an insurance can only work if there remains sufficient incentive for the insured to avoid producing an insurance case.

For example, health insurance works quite well, because although it lowers the percieved risk of the individual, nobody is interested in catching an illness. (Yes, that's a simplification. "quite well", not "perfectly".)

However, people who drive recklessly *want* to drive recklessly. Give them an insurance against traffic fines, and they will drive even more recklessly.

[btswildpig]

on a more serious note, I already grabbed the FuckThe DecentralizedExchange.com

The question is should I go for

IrresponsibleDriversofAmerica
or
MutuallyAssuredCrackHeads
?

GrantPursueOfFreedomLifeLiberityForAllExceptFinishingBitshares sounds more like your style .

[tonyk]

on a more serious note, I already grabbed the FuckThe DecentralizedExchange.com

The question is should I go for

IrresponsibleDriversofAmerica
or
MutuallyAssuredCrackHeads
?