Author Topic: Mutual Aid Societies  (Read 32201 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
I think creating something like this will only bring about more penalties for non-violent crimes.  It's kind of like prohibition.  The mob wanted alchohol to remain illegal because they were making a boatload selling it.  They were the only game in town.  Just like vegas wants gambling to stay illegal in all other states.

Lawyers are going to see this as a cash cow.  They are going to push for more petty laws so that they can continue to take advantage of this source of revenue.

Offline bytemaster

I'm working out the details now.   This concept is really resonating with everyone I talk to.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline roadscape

I like it, it's a very simple and smart model. All it would take to build an app like this is a few new operations in the core and a nice UI, right? I bet the team could build a basic working prototype over a single weekend.. :)

Interesting idea that contributions are limited to something like $100.. it ensures that various "causes" have a wide approval and it helps prevent gaming the system while being engaged on a more regular basis. If someone had $50,000 in unjust legal fees, 500 members could provide full aid.

I'd be willing to pay at least $30-$60 a month.. or quite a bit more if it could truly replace or supplant traditional forms of insurance.
http://cryptofresh.com  |  witness: roadscape

38PTSWarrior

  • Guest
I already told many people about this Mutual Aid Society and it blows their mind.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
"With BitShares M.A.S. I can finally do live LSD trip-reports on YouTube!"

Offline Vizzini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vizzini

I'm only here because I've been banned everywhere else.
... I plan on being waterboarded in secret

My God, fingerman, you've done it. You've hit upon the magic formula that will make Bitshares go apeshit viral! Forget the secret part. If you plan to be waterboarded, then please DO IT IN PUBLIC. In a toilet. You have worshiped the porcelain goddess in vain after over-imbibing; now you must worship her as a true acolyte.

You can be the taxi driver in Tunisia who set himself ablaze and triggered the Arab Spring uprisings all across North Africa and the Middle East. (At last check, they've accomplished absolutely nothing, but that's beside the point. And who wants to burn to death anyway.) You're our flashpoint!

When you become the first apostle to be baptized in a toilet bowl, imagine the POWER of that notion! We'll have scads of people lining up to be dunked. Celebrities will say 'fuck the ice bucket challenge, I'm going to get baptized today! Flush away my sins for a greater purpose!'

What is voluntary waterboarding if not self-sacrifice?

We can raise millions for the secret aid society and draw millions of new users to BitShares. Our common purposes? Someone else figure that out, but at least there's method to the madness: everyone gets dunked. Baptism by flush.

Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

Offline lovejoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
    • Cryptofresh
  • BitShares: lovejoy
Another quote from Peter Kropotkin which is relevant to the philosophical, biological, and societal underpinnings of mutual aid.

Quote
A soon as we study animals — not in laboratories and museums only, but in the forest and prairie, in the steppe and in the mountains — we at once perceive that though there is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species, and especially amidst various classes of animals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defence amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society. Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle. Of course it would be extremely difficult to estimate, however roughly, the relative numerical importance of both these series of facts. But if we resort to an indirect test, and ask Nature: "Who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?" we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development and bodily organization. If the numberless facts which can be brought forward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle; but that as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance, inasmuch as it favors the development of such habits and characters as insure the maintenance and further development of the species, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment of life for the individual, with the least waste of energy.

-Mutual Aid as a Factor in Evolution, by Peter Kropotkin

Offline bytemaster

What of the idea that insurance fosters irresponsibility? State laws aside, for example in a hypothetical free society, wouldn't you be a more careful driver if you drove an expensive car without insurance than if you shielded yourself from some of the risk by buying insurance?

That's not saying insurance is not useful, but what are the secondary effects? Could it be slowly changing our perspective  about personal responsibility?

The presence of insurance for Cell Phones means many people are "less careful" with how they handle their phones.  So the question becomes a matter of moral hazard present in all socialized activities.

Smoking Pot increases your risk of injustice.  Breaking any arbitrary law intentionally increases your risks.

So lets say you had insurance against getting mugged.  Does this mean you walk down a dark alley alone without a cellphone, gun, or pepper spray? 

We buy insurance so we can exercise our freedoms.  Insurance can only offset financial costs, it cannot give you back time spent in jail or points on your license, or increases in your car insurance rates.  There are plenty of incentives to behave in a responsible manner without government thugs piling on top.

I support insuring the pot smoker so the pot smoker can support onceuponatime in running a crowd fund campaign.  They are both intentionally engaging in risky behaviors, they are both exercising freedom, and neither one is harming anyone else.


For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
What of the idea that insurance fosters irresponsibility? State laws aside, for example in a hypothetical free society, wouldn't you be a more careful driver if you drove an expensive car without insurance than if you shielded yourself from some of the risk by buying insurance?

That's not saying insurance is not useful, but what are the secondary effects? Could it be slowly changing our perspective  about personal responsibility?

Insurance is a valuable way of calculating risk.  If you engage in risky behaviors you will cost more to ensure and so there should be a risk controlling incentive.  Some behaviors will be uninsurable thereby letting you know that they are very risky.

What we have in this thread would most certainly provide an incentive to engage in illegal behavior that is risky, mainly because you have to worry about the actions of the state.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Thom

What of the idea that insurance fosters irresponsibility? State laws aside, for example in a hypothetical free society, wouldn't you be a more careful driver if you drove an expensive car without insurance than if you shielded yourself from some of the risk by buying insurance?

That's not saying insurance is not useful, but what are the secondary effects? Could it be slowly changing our perspective  about personal responsibility?
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
To add on to what delulo said.

What I (or anyone else) choose to do should not be considered as a basis for legality.  There are numerous actions that I choose not to take part in.  Either because I find them distasteful, or because I find them to risky.

If I owned a school and any connecting roads I probably would not allow people to drive 80 mph on it.  At least not during certain hours.  Unless of course I had protections put in place such as high walls and a protected path to a parking lot for children.  Of course in that case I would have to provide safety for my pupils since they would be there by choice not by force.

If I owned an airplane I probably wouldn't allow people to carry guns on it.  Maybe knives and tazers though.  I'm not exactly sure.

In regards to environmental regulations, remember that the group that takes the best care of their environment is wealthy people.  You can see the difference just going from a poor neighborhood to a rich neighborhood.  I think a good place to start is to work to make more people wealthy.  Then they can have the luxury of caring about their environment.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
While I like the general idea of such an "insurance", I think you may forget
that some laws are put in place to PREVENT people getting injured, such as most
rules in traffic:
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone

And of course this is not only true for traffic alone. It's not only about
punishing people that harm others!

Would you drive by a school with 80 miles/h?
Would you allow people to carry a gun in an air plane?
Would you allow lose regulation in banking and finance so that intelligent people can easily rob not so intelligent people?
Haha there we are right in the middle of the mainstream vs austrian debate.
The austrian perspective is that people would be(come) self responsible (and drive by schools slowly) in order to prevent being sued in case they actually harm anyone. The rationale is: If there is no big brother you have to justify your actions towards you will justify them towards yourself and towards others (or towards overall consciousness, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20582.msg265556.html#msg265556).

It also relates to the subjectivity / objectivity debate. Austrian economics says there is no objectivity. So a state can not possibly set sufficent and objective limitations on people's behaviour. A market mechanism has to do it. In this case a quasi market mechanism would be that people judge their own risk (being sued) / reward (time saved by driving fast) ratio.

With banking the austrian perspective imo make a ton of sense: I would say that the reason there is so much "risk" in the system and the reason that there is no financial education is that the state is absorbing all the risk. But that just increases the overall risk that (big) financial players take which get all their play money from the little man that has no risk awareness. If there would be no regulation in finance whatsoever the little man would certainly not give his money to a bank which is taking big risks.

There are other areas where an application of pure austrian economics is at least difficult which is global externalities such as CO2 production or other outputs of the production / consumption process. Here the austrian perspective would practically suggest that farmers in Bangladesh collectively sue those that were the big CO2 producers over the last centuries.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 04:05:06 pm by delulo »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
While I like the general idea of such an "insurance", I think you may forget
that some laws are put in place to PREVENT people getting injured, such as most
rules in traffic:
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone

And of course this is not only true for traffic alone. It's not only about
punishing people that harm others!

Would you drive by a school with 80 miles/h?
Would you allow people to carry a gun in an air plane?
Would you allow lose regulation in banking and finance so that intelligent people can easily rob not so intelligent people?

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 11:23:46 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
 +5% I like the idea a lot and I would be willing to participate and help the fund proportionate to bts market cap rise.
I mean I love the idea but at this market cap to be honest I need first to recover losses from holding and buying bts for the last 2 years and then once bts market cap eventually rises to the moon again I will be more than willing to make monthly donations to the fund.

So let's focus on how to increase the DEX liquidity first and increase our market cap, stabilize at high levels for some time and all the other great ideas like this one will take their course.. On the other hand without ideas like this one, we are not going to achieve our market cap goals..so count me in for just small donations for the time being..