Where will the money for base wage come from? People's taxes? so if you lessen the amount of people working then wouldn't that lead to less tax money for the government? It's easy. Pass a law making the minimum wage $1,000 per hour. Problem solved. It's so easy I often wonder why the authoritarian collectivists didn't think of this sooner.  You're not generous enough... $10,000 per hour. Happy times, happy times... clap, clap, clap... Yayyyyyy!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Given: A base wage for every "citizen" is good.
Premise 1: A society with a base wage will be more productive.
Premise 2: Society will have fewer poor individuals.
Premise 3: A base wage will raise the standard of living.
What you're really saying...
It's okay to use violence to take the property of another. Or do you expect people to do this in a charitable fashion? In which case, I'd likely go along with it.
What will actually happen:
1. Society will become more violent by nature and theft more prevalent due to the fact you're encouraging that type of behavior. This is what we call the "entitlement" attitude. It's a fancy word for "justifiable thievery".
2. A temporary shift of property will transfer into the hands of the poorer class (base wage earner). It's likely this money/assets/property will be squandered which would have happened anyway without the entitlement program in the first place.
3. The poor will eventually become poor again, unless they try to change their lot in life by providing a service or product other's will desire (getting an education might help, maybe???). Just having stuff doesn't necessarily make you resourceful or productive.
4. The purchasing power of all individuals as a whole, over a period of time, will stabilize back to where it was previously, or go down, benefiting the poor over the short term. If you increase the money stock (inflation), you aren't creating anything. It's just numbers in a computer, or ink on paper. Altering raw materials into things/items which are desirable to another person is what improves the condition of the individual, and society as a whole. Money is nothing more than an accounting method. Although it can serve some other intrinsic purpose from time to time.
5. It doesn't matter if the base wage is 1 unit of money or 1,000,000 units of money, the purchasing power will eventually stabilize, unless we're talking about hard currencies, in which case, you will create a civil war. Nobody will tolerate stealing for too long (they tend to take it personal when they worked hard for their livelihood to only have it taken away from them to give it to somebody else who didn't earn it).
6. And as we're already aware, wars are not profitable. In fact, they're purely destructive. It's a lose-lose for everybody.
TL;DR: Don't steal, don't inflate. It isn't nice, and it tends to lead to violent behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure it's been mentioned several times now, but a solution such as Open Transactions could work well to maintain asset tracking, whilst simultaneously avoiding the "long arm of the law" problems. However, even that I don't think is sufficient.
There needs to be a market forming around an agreeable mediation procedure/technique/ruleset wherein we can arbitrate our disputes in an acceptable manner to the parties involved (it must be considered in the beginning of any engagement and it must be binding, IMO). However even then, I don't believe it will ever be completely solved using crypto-like transactions. Contracts always have a way to be misinterpreted, and participants in markets such as ours will almost invariable have a few bad apples.
|
|
|
|
What might work better is to print up some Bitcoin bank notes using BitAddress: - https://www.bitaddress.orgClick Paper Wallet, then mark the checkbox for Art. This is the result:  Then you can fund the bills as you sell them. Include instructions on how to redeem. I don't see on the website where you check a box for the artwork. |
|
|
|
What is the relevance of an ideology here? I'm saying (to you and myself), let's not discuss ideology. Instead, let's toss out ideologies, look at how things work, and discuss solutions. So what if I suggest regulation? I am not personally doing any regulating. What I am doing is trying to get others to at least know how things work before they render an ideology that solves the problem.
I don't have an interest in discussing application of an ideology (promoting mine, whatever it may be, or listening to others promoting their's) until we understand what the problems are. Even presupposing I'm as evil and control minded as you think, it's not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is understanding the dynamics of the problem space. Why don't we focus on that?
For example, look at the title of this thread (which I did not create). Isn't it rather absurd, given that its goal is to make recommendations to those who actually take the time to study ecology, environmental science, biology and such from someone who is almost certainly far behind the curve within those fields? Isn't that kind of ridiculous? Before you answer, consider: it's not always healthy to do whatever you want, and especially when you're not fully informed on the ramifications of what you're doing.
I bolded some of the key words you used. The first is the word 'discuss'. Nothing wrong with that one. We can do that all day long and nobody gets hurt. The second word was 'regulation'. Despite the fact that you think that it's okay to regulate someone and their things, you rang the philosophical ideology bell (again). You've now just stepped back into the "ideology ring" and put your boxing gloves back on. You may not actually be the one "regulating", but you are complicit in its implementation if you agree with it. Say it ain't so. If you aren't interested in discussing ideological implementations, why are you in this thread in the first place? Why not just start a science thread outside the 'politics and society' blog? Then you wouldn't get so confused and accosted by the likes of other "politically charged" characters such as myself. And finally, and last but not least, you use the word 'healthy'. Healthy for who? Me? What if I want to be a big fat slob? Should you regulate what I eat? Make laws that increase the cost of specific foodstuffs you think might ruin my life? Oh wait, that's not what you mean. Of course not, you're talking about the little creatures and plant life that live on my property. You want to make them healthier... So nice of you to care... Exactly how are you going to achieve that? How many times do I have to ask the same question over and over again? Are you going to sacrifice my life for a creature that roams my land (or hire others to do it for you)? Because if you do, then I could just as easily consider you a creature too and hunt you like prey. If you stray onto my hunting ground that I've marked (I'm territorial), I might just have you for dinner. All's fair in prey and predator right? We're just a bunch of animals right? No right nor wrong, just food and apex predatory behaviour. |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent,
Say you won't force a man to use his property like you want him to, and we're all ears. Say you won't use coercion or threats to change his opinion about the utilization of his property, and we're all ears. Say you won't commit violence upon another man unless you can directly show trespass or vandalization of the property of others, and we're all ears.
Say it, or you're no different than any other robber baron out there. A political thief, hack, and back-room highwayman parading as the saviour of the Earth. You tell us to concede our ideology. I say, you first. If you're going to engage in the determination of what is "right" and "wrong", you'll have to be the first to abandon your religion.
And just so we're clear science is not religion.
I dare you. I'm waiting...
|
|
|
|
What is your point about the dodo bird? All I can imagine is, you think concern over species extinction is about aesthetics. Is that correct? Is it safe to assume that you don't understand ecosystem services, trophic cascades, coevolution, nutrient cycling, water quality, flood control, and so on?
Actually, it does go beyond aesthetics, of course that's a given. And no, I don't understand all of the nuances, specifics, and infinite interactions of all species in relation to all other species and their environment. All I'm trying to say is, if you're going to educate people, then do just that. Do not use the law to force it down their throats. Unfortunately, that is what you appear to do. Your discussions are slanted in the direction of using force and coercion, if not outright violence, imprisonment, and death of another human being, if they don't respect the environment as much as you do. You will never convince anybody of anything good, if you wave a "gun" in their face (or get your disciples to do it for you). This is what most governments do. They use the "religion" of "environmentalism" and science to manipulate less educated individuals into relinquishing their property. And for what? The elite? The few? The educated minority? The "perfect" ecosystem -which would be what exactly? Even you couldn't possible assume to know this (gives new meaning to hubris, if that's your claim). It seems humans are being relegated to beasts of the field. Except that the educated aren't beasts, they're our masters. Weird how that happens. Sounds so last millennia. I thought we got over this slavery thing. |
|
|
|
I'm curious. Consider:
Let's say someone hires you on the East Coast. They pay you wages to fulfill their vision for their land. By doing so, the "improvements" to the land are environmentally neutral. However, we could consider the cases where the "improvements" are positive or negative as well. After years of toil, you have saved up your money from these labors, and you set out for the West Coast, money in tow.
So far so good, except that what I do to the land I own, whether I "affect" positive or negative things to it, is perfectly fine. It's my property. You must prove I have negatively affected the property of others. To wit, you must demonstrate direct harm, not inconvenience. If I can't do what I want to my property (including burn it to the ground) only means that my property, becomes your property. My property rights are destroyed, and yours are automatically improved. Do this on a grand scale, and you have communism all over again. I'm seeing red. You have converted your labor to money, possibly at the expense to the environment. However, we won't hold it against you.
Glad you agree with private ownership, assuming it's only the environment constrained by and within my property boundaries, we're good. Again demonstrate actual harm, trespass, or vandalization of your property, and we have something to "fight" over. Otherwise, bugger off. You arrive at the West Coast and purchase land, becoming a proud property owner, whereupon you commence in creating your own "improvements" to the land you purchased. Let's assume that your "improvements" have a negative environmental impact to your land, but not the surrounding land. This, incidentally is unlikely, due to how the environment interacts, but for the sake of argument, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Everything affects everything in some way, including your environmentalism. It's unavoidable. Shall we all just prostrate ourselves upon the earth and die now? It seems Humans are less than the dust of the earth these days. Sometimes I feel I'm on par with the snails. So, let's summarize:
- Your labor (and the desires of your employer) resulted in a net neutral effect of the environment on the East Coast.
- Your labor granted you the rights to receive compensation in the form of money.
Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you having money.
- Your money afforded you the right to travel to the West Coast and purchase land.
Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you owning land on the West Coast.
- Your ownership of land now provided you the ability to make "improvements".
- These "improvements" have a net negative impact on the land you own, environmentally.
1. So what? Neutral doesn't mean anything to me. Define it. Put context to the words. Do it concisely. 2. Who cares whether or not I received money. That's not the issue. 3. I purchased land. Again, who cares. Not the issue. 4. Net neutral meaning what? Affecting who, or what? 5. Improvements??? Ok, whatever. 6. A negative impact on my land is my business, not yours. Thus, your net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast, according to you, provides you with the right to negatively affect the environment on the West Coast.
No it doesn't. Never implied that. Your just reaching now. Your logic is now fallible. Having achieved a transfer of land does not accord anybody the right to use that land to affect changes (specifically negative changes) to other persons' property. Now, imagine if your labor on the East Coast actually resulted in a net negative effect on the environment. Whatever the case, your argument appears to be that labor, which earns you money, then earns you the right to purchase land, own the land, and harm the land. This is not a sustainable model, yet it's one you support.
Purchasing, transfering, or assigning of land, does not give anybody rights to destroy the property of others, including affecting their environment (whatever that might actually mean). However, if it is my property, then I can do with it whatever I want, with the exception that I can't use it to harm others, or from proscribing the right of others to use their property how they choose. Define "sustainable". Very crafty you are... Your putting words in my mouth I never uttered. Nice try. Caught you, careful next time, or you might make an fool of yourself. Your much smarter than that. You've got the right scientific knowledge, but your political leanings are extremely dangerous, if not borderline sociopathic. Regulations can and do help alleviate this.
False. It assists the statist/elitist/corporatists in fradulently obtaining property that was never theirs to begin with. Or at a minimum, it confuses and obfuscates who actually owns what, who is responsible for the stewardship thereof, or at the very least, distorts the markets attempt to evaluate the utility of the land in question. Let's examine other models you support:
1. Being born to rich parents provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
2. Being given money provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
3. Inheriting land from your parents gives you the right to negatively affect the environment.
1. False. Your 'ass'uming. Never said that. Those are your words. 2. Also false. Similar premise to 1, just reworded. 3. False again. See 1 and 2. Your leaving out critical information. It's like saying it's okay to kill somebody. Hmm.... Well that depends. Are you being attacked by a vicious mugger, in your home with a large knife? Well duh!! It's called self defense. Pick up your side arm and put a bullet in him center mass. However to kill with no provocation, well that's a very different story now isn't it? Keep your facts straight, and at a minimum, include all the relevant criteria. Makes you look stupid if you don't. And, as described in detail above:
4. Labor, regardless of what type and where performed, affords you the right to negatively affect the environment.
In all cases, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt such that your "improvements" actually don't extend beyond your property boundaries, which would be a rare case. However, that really doesn't seem relevant.
The issue then, is what defines effective stewardship of land, and the consistent application of it through individual ownership among thousands.
Labor does not equate to "damaged" environment. All physical activities (that would include everything, in case you were wondering) will always affect the environment around you, including your manipulation of the environment thru "environmentalism". The only thing that matters, is whether or not the environment I affect within the boundaries of my property, somehow "spill/effuse/emit" physical material matter onto your land. If I do that, you have yourself a potential lawsuit. Anything beyond that only means you don't like what I've done with my microenvironment, and so instead of trying to convince me that I could find a better use of my resources, thru education, you use the long arm of the law to try to plunder me. In which case, you now believe you have a right to take my property from me, and keep it for yourself, or give it to others (likely your government cronies who've crafted laws to ensnare me in some purported "criminal" environmental activity). It is the only thing that's relevant here. Don't be so snide to think that your utopian environmentalist world won't just end up being the private playground of the rich, the famous, and the politically inclined. I'm not interested in destroying the environment for me or my successors, but I'm certainly not going to quitely let my life become overridden by elitist ego-maniacal highwaymen, who have nothing better to do with their time but play gods on earth, and pretend to be do-gooders, when they just want more slaves to play with. Your must think I'm as dumb as a rock. |
|
|
|
|
I really wished we could have saved the dodo bird, I think they're kinda cute. Alas... it can never be.
Education not violence. Try it on for size. It might just suit you. It's certainly less painful for others.
|
|
|
|
What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.
Humans acting like gods never ends well. You've got a completely wrong take on the matter. And when I say wrong, I mean really wrong. The real solution (as everyone who is educated on the matter) is to not act like gods, but to do less. Less means less pollution, less suburban sprawl, less population growth, less resource extraction, less consumption, less deforestation, and so on. That's not acting like gods. That's being informed, and unifying the public on the matters. How are you going to go about implementing your nature protection suggestions? Persuasion or force? Education or statism? Individual choice, or authoritarian central planning? You see I'm not going to discuss your views on proper stewardship of the environment, you will probably have the upper hand in that knowledge department, but I will definitely defy you every step of the way if you think you're going to lord over me by participating in the rampant theft and plunder of private land so you can have your utopian nature preserve. Some of the science is questionable, some of it is not, but your implementation methods are definitely what's at stake here. I could be the smartest "god/man" on earth, but I'm not about to make you my serf, subject, minion, or liege because I know what's the "best" use for your land. |
|
|
|
|
Price adjustment (and again):
Selling bitcoin reminder bands for .3 BTC + .3 BTC for shipping (stateside).
Total .6 BTC.
|
|
|
|
You should have been around for the long, hundred+ pages I wrote refuting every salient aspect of what can be referred to as "Libertarianism". Just go browse my old posts. Plus I'm writing a book (albeit slowly) that is going to refute and destroy every aspect of this cult-ideology. I hope to be able to finish it in a year and am starting officially end of August or first of September.  Point me in the general direction, otherwise I won't bother (or summarize as I have). I'd love to see how you use logic to explain it away, or is that not a necessary component to your refutation? I'd imagine the fact you consider your reasoning to have any meaning and be worthy of review it would have to be logical, in which case, I'd be interested in what axioms you start with to begin your arguments. You see the problem isn't the fact that you can make any moral rules you want, the issue is one of enforcing them. At that point things get really dicey. They're great for those who sign on to be ruled in such a fashion, but makes it extraordinarily violent for those who just want to be left to their druthers. It's when opinion, ethics and morality crosses over into the physical world where you start to produce a plethora of consequences. |
|
|
|
|
That didn't take long niemivh. Resorting to ad hominem. I guess our conversation is effectively finished.
And as for you FirstAccent, it seems your entire discussion is an attempt at ignoring property definition and engaging in verbal diahhrea -trying to convince everybody that all property is common (violating the very definition of ownership), which of course is not true in the outcome, because it will resort to an Authoritarian system of government where all resources are effectively owned by the ruling class (of which I'm sure you'd like to have a membership).
Sorry, not buying. You can throw all your special environmental terminology at me all you want (no disrespect), but if all it does is result in theft and plunder of the masses under the pretense of "saving the planet", I'm having nothing of it. Notwithstanding, I respect the environment, and don't believe in pollution because of it's affect on others (trespass and vandalization).
Private property is the best way IMO to protect the environment from harm. And finally, if anything, Libertarians are nitpicks for the details. I may not be an environmental grandmaster wizard, but I'm not stupid either.
|
|
|
|
That is a terribly dangerous viewpoint, and it demonstrates how your lack of desire in exploring those topics in depth render you ability to propose and judge laws and policies with regard to ownership of property somewhat handicapped.
It's not dangerous if my property remains contained within the defined boundaries. It may be dangerous if it is not. I'm in the politics and society section. We're mainly speaking of philosophies. It would appear your muddying the two. Again, this is not an adequate and encompassing view. There are so many inter-dynamics occurring here that transcend the boundaries of one property and another.
You didn't read what I wrote. I stated it as if the property is contained. "Inter-dynamics" is not a self-containing definition. |
|
|
|
Feel free to start a thread regarding it. Care to address your views on property within the context of oceans, rivers, fishing, migration, pollination, pesticides, timber, whaling, poaching, black markets, free markets, drilling, pollution, trophic cascades, predation, ecosystem services, soil maintenance, climate amelioration, nutrient cycling, flood control, freshwater supply, genetic resources, and recreation?
I'm only interested in addressing those topics if they affect the property of others sans permission. If you can reasonably demonstrate that any one or all of those significantly affect the property of others, then we can have a discussion about what consequences could be directed at the person whose property effuses or emits unwanted material beyond its boundaries. It's just physics you're talking about. Those topics are just specialties under the umbrella of physics. All very interesting stuff. Nevertheless, I'm not so concerned as to the specifics of the affects (since there are nuances within nuances) as I am the constant meddling of governments who claim to be the fountain of all knowledge, ethics and punishment (the pretense being that they are our moral overlords). Besides, if you don't like what others do on their property (assuming their activities remain confined to the dimensions of said property), what makes your utility so much better than theirs? |
|
|
|
I'm sure I won't avoid the ire and snideness of the libertarian-haters out there, but this is what I believe. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902It doesn't include the diversity of the entire universe, but that doesn't make it a crude ideology either. Besides, I don't think that's the point of a philosophy in the first place (at least the ethics of it). It tends to exclude the empiricism (being of secondary concern) and focuses on the ethical morality of the outcomes of the actions of its participants. It is a war of "shoulds" and "shoudn'ts". But y'all already knew that. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, one of the most prolific, esteemed and celebrated philosophers, Ludwig Wittgenstein, mentions very little of the physical sciences (physics) in his works. The application of opinions and philosophies are those in which you affect changes in the environment around you (applied sciences), and then see how individuals respond. |
|
|
|
|
I was a democracy pandering nitwit for awhile until someone showed me the folly of my ways. I personally won't force anyone to do or say or believe any specific thing, especially on what's right and wrong, given that it's a subjective topic, and given that it's against my personal beliefs to do so. However, what I can say is that Libertarianism, in it's simplest form, is the most logically sound of philosophies I've read. Although admittedly, it does encounter some 'life-boat' scenario oddities. But who cares about the one-in-a-million happenstance? Besides, if you do, then logic and reasoning is important to you, in which case, you should reconsider all of your beliefs.
That doesn't make it right or wrong per se, but if you use logic and reason to justify anything you do (which is the premise of any of the idealogues), it makes all of the other philosophies look absolutely ridiculous by comparison.
Simply put, if I respect your opinions, will you respect mine? If you do, you can't force your opinions on me and vice versa, without violating that simple premise. Shall we accord each other the right to our opinion and not impose it on each other? Because if we do that, that's the basis of Libertarianism, and if it's not, it's a battle of wills, not one of reasoning.
Flame on.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps a suggestion to Pirate --just to shut the critics up:
Very simply, why not just return all the principal and interest to all of your clientele? It's likely that all the investors you have now will reinvest and/or return to you even after the interim closure. It might temporarily disrupt your business for a few days, but it's probably nothing you couldn't cure over the short term with your profits.
I'm not sure how this could be proven without full disclosure from all of the participants, and it does expose some of the privacy from each of the account holders, but I'm sure it could be arranged with nanotube for him to make the final determination. Additionally, it shouldn't be considered a trick either, since if it were a true Ponzi, the interest and principal could not be returned, thus incurring a default. The only other possibility is Pirate's deep pockets and infinite altruism.
All things being equal, I think it would be a hassle, but it would make for some really interesting newsworthiness. Events such as these could very well prove that the less the regulatory friction, the better returns on the average, are available to market participants. I hate the cost of overhead...
Personally, I don't care whether or not it's a Ponzi, I like the game. It is what it is. I can live with that.
EDIT: Scratch that. I just remembered that Mt.Gox limits outflows. That would suck for me until I became qualified. I guess I better get on that, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to step in the middle of this ****storm to slow things down a bit, but would it be possible for those who have already made their point to stop repeating themselves so that other threads in the parent category can get a fair shake at getting read? Their moment to shine perhaps??
I'd also like to ask a favor and allow Pirate to control his thread a bit more, as it was his to start with. Do we need a child board just for Pirate discussions (ponzi and anti-ponzi rhetoric)? I'd like to think we're all adults here and we can reasonably fend for ourselves. Both sides to this argument have been made. Some good, some not so good. I'd say were fairly satiated with the nuances and details regarding the speculation surrounding Pirate's business.
I don't think much more light will be shed on the topic matter until new events transpire. I think there were some interesting questions Pirate could have responded to regarding some of his new changes to the "program", but were buried in all of the tit-for-tat inundation.
Respect begets respect.
|
|
|
|
|
Price adjustment (again):
Selling bitcoin reminder bands for .6 BTC + .4 BTC for shipping (stateside).
Total 1.0 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
