Would everyone leave? Has that happened in stable conditions?
Of course they would. Money is not the only thing people care about. No, it isn't. But it is what lets them get those other things. Unless you're trying to tell me that people who have sweated, and slaved, scrimped, and saved, to get to where they are, would then stick around and support the rest of the population out of the goodness of their hearts? And if so, why then make such support mandatory? Would they not do it anyway? People do moan. But most don't go very far. It all really depends on levels of support. If you get double or triple by working most will work. Also for most people moving away will likely lower the quality of life. And some might even be able to look further than their current situation. By being in this system they know that they will get same support if they need it. Mandatory system gets rid of free riders, or atleast prevents real issues with those. |
|
|
|
What kind of overhead does this system include? I mean in total including spend time by individuals, collecting payments and how long it would take to reach agreement on sharing the cost and reaching sufficient amount of investors for one project.
Beats the piss outta me  It could be as simple as a community joining together and figuring out how they'll go about it, to an automated system, perhaps a website, which collects funds to be distributed by a trusted member of society (LOL) for the contractors who auctioned for the job. What about a two-way auction; workers decide on prices they'd like to work for, and people decide how much they're willing to spend for the projects--people as in, entities, groups of people, or maybe one charitable rich individual (LOL) Two way auctions is interesting system. Still, would need some sort of common platform. First get group of people agreeing on what will be bid on at on what terms including placing a seed bid in, then people can bid into their part into system and at same time other side provides bids to provide the service. At some point these two would be met and possibly after certain time the lowest bid for providing service would win and the bids for service would be moved to trusted party possibly. Not really good explanation, but I think this kind of system might be needed at some point. It's not perfect as there needs to be one or two third parties or trust in service providers. Still, the question remains is this efficient use of resources, mainly would people bidding to get service use their time to produce something. While some party could be much more efficient in using taxed resources. |
|
|
|
|
And guess who pays those fees...
I think better options must come...
|
|
|
|
Services would be paid for by the people who use the services. Let's say we need to repair a road we all use in a specific part of town. We need to raise enough money to pay some people who specialize in road repair to do the job. In our current system of taxation, you not only need to collect the money (an automatic process, which you must comply with to survive,) but then you have to convince the mayor (or whoever's in charge) to spend that cash that you've given him on the road you'd like to be repaired. Instead, in my case anyway, he spends it on another fucking stadium, in a completely different part of town. And the road is still fucked up. (It doesn't even have a sidewalk.) If taxes were not there, one might assume the road would never get fixed. However, if enough people got together and decided they'd like the road they drive on to be nice, they'll cough up the cash and pay someone to do it. At least in this way, if instead of the road getting fixed, they decided to build another fucking stadium, we know it's nobody's fault but ours. And besides that, you have complete control over where your money goes; since the folk living on the north side of town want another fucking stadium, they can pay for it (which they can't, as most people in that area are poor, as all jobs in that area are apart of entertainment and pay minimum or close to it, not to mention most of the housing is apartments and hotels.) Those who live in the south part of town will want to invest in the road closest to them a lot more, as they'll be using it more than anyone in the north side of town. The down side is, areas with more rich folk are going to appear much, much nicer, and areas with more poor folk are going to look as such. But that's assuming America actually ever drops taxation, which means a lot more will be dropped before that happens. If that occurs, I can only hope these fictional class distinctions will pull much closer to one another, where rich people aren't filthy stinking rich, and poor people aren't filthy stinking poor. What kind of overhead does this system include? I mean in total including spend time by individuals, collecting payments and how long it would take to reach agreement on sharing the cost and reaching sufficient amount of investors for one project. |
|
|
|
Start of the end?
Russian leaders love bashing Western countries. It's catnip for the locals. They even have an entire network, Russia Today (RT), created and funded for that aim. Pretty much, I think it helps to turn people away from their own problems. Like all child-kidnapping etc. cases they do about Finland. How horrible this western nation is in taking and stealing Russian children... Though I have no idea how taking money from saving accounts would help at all as there is more debt than money... |
|
|
|
If you plan to secede, be prepared to fight the most dangerous and misguided military in the world. It's illegal because they said so and that's final so nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh.
Heck, if Texas wanted to secede, they'd have to do so out of force. America's got a funny way of creating laws which couldn't possibly benefit society.
Why fight? Not like they can't just circle the place with fence and lock everyone inside, shoot any incoming air traffic down. I think it isn't exactly the greatest idea to be isolated nation inside unfriendly one... It's exactly like that, actually... Texas has major ports, rail and roadway hubs, and a very large stretch of border - including some with Mexico. Even if they could, cutting off trade through, or with, Texas would be a very damaging thing for the US to do to themselves. State or country is very different thing when it has either shoreline or sufficiently friendly neighbors. Only having one is a big issue... Micro-nation on other hand with unfriendly surroundings... Texas would hardly qualify as a "micro-nation." It's the second largest economy in the US. And it's almost twice the size, geographically, of Germany. No, the US needs Texas. Always has. I was referring more to buying a town and seccessing it... Texas would work, not sure about synergies lost on either sides though... |
|
|
|
You're not a conspiracy theorist, however, until you ask the question "Why is education so bad in any given country?" and answer with "Because it is intentional."  Not intentional, just the inevitable effect of a monopoly. (of course, it might be intentional, if PTB understand the consequences of monopoly.) I think in some cases monopolies can lead to acceptable results. Finland does pretty well on some tests, though those test can also be questioned. And it's system is pretty much monopoly. Still, I think it more as should every person has right for education? |
|
|
|
On other hand I think that some system is needed. I'm probably a socialist, but I believe it's best for government to provide the minimum living standards for individuals.
That's all well and good, but those resources have to come from somewhere. The question is, are they collected voluntarily, or is it mandatory? Mandatory. If you want to live in system, you play by common rules. On other hand no one should be stopped from moving to place not controlled by that system. OK, and when all the people who don't want to pay for everyone else have left, and you're left with a population consisting mostly of people who can't (or simply decide not to) provide for themselves, what then? Where do the resources come from to feed all those hungry people? What would still be left is land which could sustain certain amount of population or resources to buy food. And really why would people leave, how often it happens unless there is massive downfall of society? Generally it seems that majority will bear the payments and stay instead of moving out. Majority pays to minority for their own protection. If they don't they have to either deal with minority in other ways or minority will deal with them. Most modern societies seem to be able to afford this. Would everyone leave? Has that happened in stable conditions? |
|
|
|
If you plan to secede, be prepared to fight the most dangerous and misguided military in the world. It's illegal because they said so and that's final so nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh.
Heck, if Texas wanted to secede, they'd have to do so out of force. America's got a funny way of creating laws which couldn't possibly benefit society.
Why fight? Not like they can't just circle the place with fence and lock everyone inside, shoot any incoming air traffic down. I think it isn't exactly the greatest idea to be isolated nation inside unfriendly one... It's exactly like that, actually... Texas has major ports, rail and roadway hubs, and a very large stretch of border - including some with Mexico. Even if they could, cutting off trade through, or with, Texas would be a very damaging thing for the US to do to themselves. State or country is very different thing when it has either shoreline or sufficiently friendly neighbors. Only having one is a big issue... Micro-nation on other hand with unfriendly surroundings... |
|
|
|
On other hand I think that some system is needed. I'm probably a socialist, but I believe it's best for government to provide the minimum living standards for individuals.
That's all well and good, but those resources have to come from somewhere. The question is, are they collected voluntarily, or is it mandatory? Mandatory. If you want to live in system, you play by common rules. On other hand no one should be stopped from moving to place not controlled by that system. Not that the system having control is a good thing either and without problems. Still it's only way to prevent some other problems. Whole thing is obviously very complicated and no good solutions have yet emerged. The problem is that there isn't any place for libertarians and certain thinking people just now. |
|
|
|
New second might be interesting idea at somepoint.
The SI unit of time is the second. The value of this, used to be 1/86,400 of a day. Now we use a single atom of an isotope of cesium to provide a more precise, and universal value of a second. We do this because the rotation speed of earth (1 day) is actually slowing. Arbitrarily defining a new unit of time would cause serious problems with our system of measurements. Many SI units have a time component. If the new second, was 110% the value of the old second, constants would have to be added to all kinds of equations, especially if you wanted to compare measurements with those taken before the change. Velocity in M/s would be M/1.1s. Formulas where the second value appears more than once would become increasingly complex. For example acceleration is denominated in m/(1s*1s) or m/s 2. Now if you had your new second the formula, the equation would become m/(1.21*s 2). Sure, people could easily learn to incorporate these new constants into equations, but it would add unnecessary complexity with no offsetting benefit. True, but at same time we could rescale all the units to something else. And get rid of freaking kilogram too. It annoys me in someways on having a single unit with prefix in it, a unit which affects many other units... |
|
|
|
If you plan to secede, be prepared to fight the most dangerous and misguided military in the world. It's illegal because they said so and that's final so nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh.
Heck, if Texas wanted to secede, they'd have to do so out of force. America's got a funny way of creating laws which couldn't possibly benefit society.
Why fight? Not like they can't just circle the place with fence and lock everyone inside, shoot any incoming air traffic down. I think it isn't exactly the greatest idea to be isolated nation inside unfriendly one... |
|
|
|
Social security is the govs way of saying you are too stupid to save your own $$ No doubt, the majority of humans on this Earth are indeed too stupid for such things. Why should you save when you can rob other people, physically... And that is a valid solution model for individual in some ways. Not ethical, but still valid. I think social security as price paid for stability and general safety. Other option would be to kick out everyone who can't provide for themselves and are risk to others, but there is certain lack of places to place them and prisons can also be considered to be social security for prisoners, they aren't penal colonies were prisoners are set to make living for themselves... I don't disagree with the current system not being very good. On other hand I think that some system is needed. I'm probably a socialist, but I believe it's best for government to provide the minimum living standards for individuals. |
|
|
|
The source code is the best specification. No documentation written in human language be complete and unanimous enough to be sure that everything is covered. You cannot compile Hemingway writings into executable code.
Bitcoin with connectivity difficulties would have problems with different Bitcoin clients, but will happily create disconnected network and all sorts of other nasty things.
Bitcoin have much more at stake than Gnutella warez download.
+1 The source code is the best documentation possible, and I dont wish to see few other implementation from third party, this may just brings problems.. I think this is where some of the disagreement is. I prefer to have multiple clients, for a long term(next 20 years and on) safety it's better and safer. And earlier it's done the better. If crypto-currency were to be anything very much larger than software toy of small geek population it needs to be in multiple hands... Other argument is that is stability of system more important than it not being centralized in some way and one implemention ruling over all is centralised power in my mind. |
|
|
|
To create tulip bulbs you just plant bulbs in favourable soil and environment and 1 year later you dig it up to find many more new bulblets, replant in larger trays and so on. why the fuck would people enter a speculation frenzy on such an easily duplicated item?
BTC is completely different ...
People not familiar with Bitcoin don't see a difference. They say that anyone can start a new type of coin tomorrow. When you try to explain how it is difficult to gain traction for a new type of coin they just look at you funny. I'm more worried about if the community can keep that traction. It's really hard to say where will bitcoin go, in my mind the current situation of development isn't acceptable for wide scale use. On other hand it does have downfalls, possibility of getting multiple soft-forks if the communications detoriate and some areas get isolated. I think gold is over-valued, but it does have some practical uses. |
|
|
|
Great words, but don't forget that Jefferson's "freedom" model was designated for the white and was based on slavery.
Today western "freedom" is also backed by 3rd world countries which play the role of those slaves.
Don't forget the leagues of people with three jobs in America Yeah, this need to eat and to have some place with relative warmth in northern and southern parts of planet really does have some effects how free one can be... |
|
|
|
Over here, I can get unlimited internet for my mobile around ~$10 a month, if you can live with the slow speeds.
Where is over there? I want unlimited 10$ nets too Some prices from Finland: 9.90€ for 1Mb/s 12,90 for 21Mb/s 39.90 for 100Mb/s 4G Max speeds, real speeds might differ, no limits though some fair use clauses might exist (no p2p, big servers)... |
|
|
|
|
Does it really matter what the time you wake up is called?
7:00 or 12:00?
I'm not saying we change our local rhythms just that we use one time system for it. And the details of that system are arbitary. New second might be interesting idea at somepoint.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin does have much much more at stake than some filesharing network, which is why there should be spec to follow.
For something that my life depend on, I want certainty that it's well understood and tested.
An how would specification prevent what happened yesterday? Document the unknown bugs? Only thorough examination of source code could reveal hidden flaws. I completely agree on the importance of Bitcoin. Write a spec, get multiple implementations. Majority of them should be correct and those who disagree must be fixed. I believe it's the best long term strategy. It's really bad to base entire thing on one implementation in long run. |
|
|
|
|
I would like to take step further and move to one time zone. Would make global life so much easier in everyway...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
