Bitcoin Town: Let's Make the Future Come to us

[Anenome5]

If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?

Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.

I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.

If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.

How is anyone hurt by that?

[surebet]

Because ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it, and that in a parallel universe where every half-hectar is a sovereign state with it's own rules you will not be able to follow up.

Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.

[cWq34#9tH-3]

Just imagine having to read a giant set of "laws" for every household or business that you set foot onto: Whew, it's a good thing that I'm a speed-reader. LOL

[cWq34#9tH-3]

As for me, I'm going to use the internet to copy & paste as many laws protecting me as possible into my "house constitution" and I will use as much legalese and as many wherefore's and hereto's and amendments and disclaimers as possible - such as that in the event of anything adverse or "unhappy" in regards to someone's visit to my country (oops I mean house) that their recourse is limited to a maximum of an award of $5.00. Make sure you don't miss that clause, it will be on page 5,914, in section c, sub-paragraph b, article 8094-1a.

[Anenome5]

Because ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it, and that in a parallel universe where every half-hectar is a sovereign state with it's own rules you will not be able to follow up.

Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.

Technology will take care of this. You create an online database tied to GPS records. You can then lookup the legal set of any property simply by visiting it, and the agreement can be served to you digitally without needing to even interact with anyone else.

[cWq34#9tH-3]

Because ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it, and that in a parallel universe where every half-hectar is a sovereign state with it's own rules you will not be able to follow up.

Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.

LOL!

[surebet]

Because ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it, and that in a parallel universe where every half-hectar is a sovereign state with it's own rules you will not be able to follow up.

Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.

Technology will take care of this. You create an online database tied to GPS records. You can then lookup the legal set of any property simply by visiting it, and the agreement can be served to you digitally without needing to even interact with anyone else.

So I'd have to report my sovereign country's rules and regulations to a centralized entity for scrutiny by others?

That sounds like communism to me.

[cWq34#9tH-3]

If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?

Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.

I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.

If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.

How is anyone hurt by that?

One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL

[Anenome5]

Because ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it, and that in a parallel universe where every half-hectar is a sovereign state with it's own rules you will not be able to follow up.

Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.

Technology will take care of this. You create an online database tied to GPS records. You can then lookup the legal set of any property simply by visiting it, and the agreement can be served to you digitally without needing to even interact with anyone else.

So I'd have to report my sovereign country's rules and regulations to a centralized entity for scrutiny by others?

That sounds like communism to me.

No, completely optional. If you are public access it's going to be public anyway and that's the scenario I see using that for. If it's a private residence, do it on a case by case basis privately where it's manageable, or w/e.

Communism? Please.

[Anenome5]

If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?

Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.

I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.

If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.

How is anyone hurt by that?

One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL

If the dude didn't get it in writing or on video, then he's taking a risk.

Considering that it's being served digitally, changing the rule would be as simple as pulling it up on a smartphone and crossing out that line, sending it to your visitor who then signs it. A 30 second transaction, thus there's no need to rely on verbal commitments and risk death.

In any case, I doubt any independent court would consider it reasonable to shoot someone for having their shoes on. And neither would any guest. If some dude had that rule, whose house you wanted to enter, you'd probably think him insane and refuse to enter in any case.

[cWq34#9tH-3]

If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?

Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.

I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.

If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.

How is anyone hurt by that?

One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL

If the dude didn't get it in writing or on video, then he's taking a risk.

Considering that it's being served digitally, changing the rule would be as simple as pulling it up on a smartphone and crossing out that line, sending it to your visitor who then signs it. A 30 second transaction, thus there's no need to rely on verbal commitments and risk death.

In any case, I doubt any independent court would consider it reasonable to shoot someone for having their shoes on. And neither would any guest. If some dude had that rule, whose house you wanted to enter, you'd probably think him insane and refuse to enter in any case.

What? We have to give an independent court jurisdiction over our castle?!!

[surebet]

If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?

Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.

I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.

If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.

How is anyone hurt by that?

One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL

If the dude didn't get it in writing or on video, then he's taking a risk.

Considering that it's being served digitally, changing the rule would be as simple as pulling it up on a smartphone and crossing out that line, sending it to your visitor who then signs it. A 30 second transaction, thus there's no need to rely on verbal commitments and risk death.

In any case, I doubt any independent court would consider it reasonable to shoot someone for having their shoes on. And neither would any guest. If some dude had that rule, whose house you wanted to enter, you'd probably think him insane and refuse to enter in any case.

What? We have to give an independent court jurisdiction over our castle?!!

COMMUNISM!

[Anenome5]

If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?

Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.

I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.

If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.

How is anyone hurt by that?

One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL

If the dude didn't get it in writing or on video, then he's taking a risk.

Considering that it's being served digitally, changing the rule would be as simple as pulling it up on a smartphone and crossing out that line, sending it to your visitor who then signs it. A 30 second transaction, thus there's no need to rely on verbal commitments and risk death.

In any case, I doubt any independent court would consider it reasonable to shoot someone for having their shoes on. And neither would any guest. If some dude had that rule, whose house you wanted to enter, you'd probably think him insane and refuse to enter in any case.

What? We have to give an independent court jurisdiction over our castle?!!

Assuming you can't work out your dispute with the offended party you seek out a dispute resolution service provider--an independent court. This doesn't give them jurisdiction over your "castle," however you'll likely agree to be bound the decision because those who don't will lose their reputation and no one will do business with them anymore.

[surebet]

If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?

Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.

I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.

If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.

How is anyone hurt by that?

One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL

If the dude didn't get it in writing or on video, then he's taking a risk.

Considering that it's being served digitally, changing the rule would be as simple as pulling it up on a smartphone and crossing out that line, sending it to your visitor who then signs it. A 30 second transaction, thus there's no need to rely on verbal commitments and risk death.

In any case, I doubt any independent court would consider it reasonable to shoot someone for having their shoes on. And neither would any guest. If some dude had that rule, whose house you wanted to enter, you'd probably think him insane and refuse to enter in any case.

What? We have to give an independent court jurisdiction over our castle?!!

Assuming you can't work out your dispute with the offended party you seek out a dispute resolution service provider--an independent court. This doesn't give them jurisdiction over your "castle," however you'll likely agree to be bound the decision because those who don't will lose their reputation and no one will do business with them anymore.

You seem to think I'm a rational actor, but actually, I'm a cat lady with mental issues and a severe dislike of shoes. I refuse your third party communistic thingamabob.

[Mike Christ]

You seem to think I'm a rational actor, but actually, I'm a cat lady with mental issues and a severe dislike of shoes. I refuse your third party communistic thingamabob.

Just as well; since you're known to be a crazy cat lady, nobody wants to be around you in the first place, not to visit or for service, since you're both violent and likely to not pay, if not likely to rob the guy.  I hope your castle never needs repair, because guess who'll be doing that   But on the upside, the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses will probably leave you alone.

Also, the system presented is not communism; in communism, your property is already home to several hobos, since it's "public" property (rather, it's state-owned property, which is different than capitalism, where you have state-owned property that's individually rented out to people which they mistakenly think is theirs.)

[surebet]

Libertarianism: everyone is a rational actor, always. We shot all the people with mental illnesses.

[cWq34#9tH-3]

OMG, I'm an exceptionally fast reader and I don't have anywhere near enough time to read all the "terms of service" contracts for all the software & services that I use. I hate it but I'm forced to "skim" many of them because there's just no friggin' way in hell that I could possibly read all that. The only way I could see this possibly working is if there was a standard rules agreement and people had to list where there rules deviated from that. Otherwise, it's just not happening baby - it's a pipe dream.

[Mike Christ]

Libertarianism: everyone is a rational actor, always. We shot all the people with mental illnesses.

Not so.  Mentally ill people already take medication, and those who commit crime are treated like most any other person; this does not change, no matter what system you live under.  Though Libertarians may generally be rational, they should not assume all people of the world will always be rational.  Are you one of those irrational people?  If not, don't worry about them; they already figured out how to get by now, they'll figure it out any other way.  If you are, you should already know how you're getting along now.

The only way I could see this possibly working is if there was a standard rules agreement and people had to list where there rules deviated from that.

We already have that; just list everything you don't like to happen to you, and then don't do that to other people.  Ta-da; it may seem surprising, but most people generally don't like the same things.  If you want a really simplified version of this:

1. Don't fuck with people.
2. Don't get fucked.

[Anenome5]

OMG, I'm an exceptionally fast reader and I don't have anywhere near enough time to read all the "terms of service" contracts for all the software & services that I use. I hate it but I'm forced to "skim" many of them because there's just no friggin' way in hell that I could possibly read all that. The only way I could see this possibly working is if there was a standard rules agreement and people had to list where there rules deviated from that. Otherwise, it's just not happening baby - it's a pipe dream.

It's likely entire communities would adopt similar contracts, sort of like Blue Sky laws. Thus you'd only need to know what's common in that area and anywhere that points differ could be automatically pointed out for you.

[TomUnderSea]

OMG, I'm an exceptionally fast reader and I don't have anywhere near enough time to read all the "terms of service" contracts for all the software & services that I use. I hate it but I'm forced to "skim" many of them because there's just no friggin' way in hell that I could possibly read all that. The only way I could see this possibly working is if there was a standard rules agreement and people had to list where there rules deviated from that. Otherwise, it's just not happening baby - it's a pipe dream.

It's likely entire communities would adopt similar contracts, sort of like Blue Sky laws. Thus you'd only need to know what's common in that area and anywhere that points differ could be automatically pointed out for you.

Gee, maybe I should bring this idea up at the next home owners association meeting.  Having a slightly more restrictive set of laws, enforced by a small additional fee, that everyone agrees to when they buy in is such a novel concept.

Really, guys?

Tell me again how this scheme differs from what I am living in right now.  I have the US law, with the local state law (CA) layered on top of that.  Then the local county law and, in my case, the local homeowners association "rules".    If I don't like the HOA, I sell and buy elsewhere.  If I don't like the CA state laws, I move to a different state.  If I don't like the US law, I immigrate to a place with "better" laws like Cuba (free medical) or Pitcairn Island (age of consent is 16 or perhaps lower).  Personally, I like my current location better than my experiences in the Pacific Orient, Europe or the Middle East.