6 Bitcoin Societal Issues

[wingspan]

Assuming Bitcoin gets Zerocoin applied and it becomes impossible to trace the money, would an honest person want to live in a country where these "evils" might increase?

1) Bribery -- authorities can be bribed to grant favors.  Can police/politicians be trusted?
2) Unfair elections -- untraceable alien and excessive donations controlling election advertising.
3) Tax only the honest? -- under-the-table commerce and pay is not taxed.  Only fair tax left is a flat "head" tax.
4) Financial aid cheating -- wealth can be hidden so poverty can't be determined as easily.  Who should get government aid?
5) Terrorism and Crime -- no stopping funding of enemies foreign and domestic.
6) Porn and Drugs -- buying this stuff is made easier and undetectable.

My answer is YES to all of these because I think solutions are easy.  And there is so much good to let Bitcoin happen: a) efficiency of payments, b) prevention of inflation (once people stop pricing things in fiat), and c) freedom from government tyranny/control over our wealth. 

Below are my solutions to the six "evil" issues of Bitcoin I thought of:

For example, on
1): all public authorities should conduct their jobs "in the open" - no more closed door meetings.  All decisions open to review by the public.  That would be quite the change.
Or for 2): Just butch up and let money get spent anyway.  The public needs to use their brains to ignore slanted advertising.  Sort of like tough love election style.
On 3):  If there is a fair tax besides a flat head tax in this MoIP world, I'm all ears.
On 4): Stop all government/institutional needs-based aid programs.  Give based on merit, or let local aid programs or people's families step in to help the truly poor.
On 5): Carry a big stick.  Make criminals/terrorists regret their actions to prevent recurrence.
On 6): make convicted offenders' jail time more painful.  Why shouldn't criminals slave in prisons producing wealth for the rest of us so that their incarceration doesn't cost us anything?

Can you list more "evils" and solutions to them?

[1714940437]

1714940437

[1714940437]

1714940437

[herzmeister]

1) Bribery -- authorities can be bribed to grant favors.  Can police/politicians be trusted?

what if there were no authorities and politicians to bribe?

2) Unfair elections -- untraceable alien and excessive donations controlling election advertising.

what if there were no elections, "unfair" or otherwise?

3) Tax only the honest? -- under-the-table commerce and pay is not taxed.  Only fair tax left is a flat "head" tax.

what if there were no taxes, neither for the "honest" nor the "dishonest"?

4) Financial aid cheating -- wealth can be hidden so poverty can't be determined as easily.  Who should get government aid?

what if there were no poverty and no one who'd need government aid?

5) Terrorism and Crime -- no stopping funding of enemies foreign and domestic.

what if there were no terrorism and no places of high symbolic value for an authoritarian regime being worth a target?

6) Porn and Drugs -- buying this stuff is made easier and undetectable.

what if there were no wars on drugs?

[wingspan]

those "what if" questions seem to all be answerable as "would be nice - but...let's be real."

In my country, it seems most people tend toward "goodness" but yet a small percentage occasionally break the laws - even common sense laws like "don't murder".  In that case, I figure we have to have authorities to enforce the laws (police), which means we need a small government at least, and so taxes, etc.  Is there any country whose every leader would resist bribery?  Where all citizens voluntarily pay their share of taxes?  Where there is no child pornography or drug addiction?  I think evil happens.  But honest folks can help fight it.  Bitcoin's "can't follow the money" issues can be solved with effort.  Right?

[hashman]

Nice list!

1) Bribery -- authorities can be bribed to grant favors.  Can police/politicians be trusted?

This will always be an issue.  Sound money will only level the field a bit by somewhat lessening the controllers of the money supply role as briber of last resort. 

2) Unfair elections -- untraceable alien and excessive donations controlling election advertising.

Today, "unfair elections" is a tautology, even before we consider donations.  Coins could improve this tremendously if they are used as part of a fair voting protocol..  if anybody cared or fair votes were ever needed. 

3) Tax only the honest? -- under-the-table commerce and pay is not taxed.  Only fair tax left is a flat "head" tax.

Tax only the honest (or rather, tax only what people declare) is already the system.  Coins will only enable more open operations and more fair taxation.  With coins there is a way that a company could actually prove what their revenues were. 

4) Financial aid cheating -- wealth can be hidden so poverty can't be determined as easily.  Who should get government aid?

This is the same problem we have today.  Where do you think all the welfare money is going?   

5) Terrorism and Crime -- no stopping funding of enemies foreign and domestic.

Once again, already true.  The oranizations that fund "enemies" foreign and domestic now can draw from "credit creation", total impunity, etc.  A sound system of money will eliminate some of the need for funding enemies, but people will always be able to play that game if they remain ignorant.

6) Porn and Drugs -- buying this stuff is made easier and undetectable.

If you are somebody that needs to pay for porn, you don't have the technology available to use bitcoin.  If you think people should not be able to choose their own foods/drinks/medicines, then why should we be allowed to use money at all?   

[Rassah]

1) Bribery -- authorities can be bribed to grant favors. 
2) Unfair elections -- untraceable alien and excessive donations controlling elections.
3) Tax only the honest? -- under-the-table commerce and pay is not taxed. 
4) Financial aid cheating -- wealth can be hidden so poverty can't be determined as easily.
5) Terrorism and Crime -- no stopping funding of enemies foreign and domestic.
6) Porn and Drugs -- buying this stuff is made easier and undetectable.

Ironically, #'s 1 through 4 are already a problem without Bitcoin in the mix. So... Business as usual?

[J603]

1) Bribery -- authorities can be bribed to grant favors. 
2) Unfair elections -- untraceable alien and excessive donations controlling elections.
3) Tax only the honest? -- under-the-table commerce and pay is not taxed. 
4) Financial aid cheating -- wealth can be hidden so poverty can't be determined as easily.
5) Terrorism and Crime -- no stopping funding of enemies foreign and domestic.
6) Porn and Drugs -- buying this stuff is made easier and undetectable.

Ironically, #'s 1 through 4 are already a problem without Bitcoin in the mix. So... Business as usual?

All already exist. All will keep existing.

I can bribe an official, send excessive donations, declare whatever taxes I want, hide my wealth, fund terrorists, and buy drugs with or without bitcoins.

Also, bitcoins will never be completely untraceable. You have to use a computer, so that ensures that in some shape or form your transactions will be traced, whether it's with the blockchain, through your IP, or even through keylogging.

Cash is still less likely to be tracked. If I give someone a dollar and no one else sees, there's no way that that transaction will ever be known.

[Rassah]

Also, bitcoins will never be completely untraceable. You have to use a computer, so that ensures that in some shape or form your transactions will be traced, whether it's with the blockchain, through your IP, or even through keylogging.

You don't have to use a computer. You can create a paper wallet (even manually hashing an address) and store coins on paper, and create transactions and sign them by hand. Then you can either call someone else with a connected computer to spell out the transaction to them, or even snail-mail that paper to them.

Or you can use Tor and a mixing service on an OS you run from a bootable CD that only transmits transactions, which you sign on a computer you never hook up to the web.

[J603]

Also, bitcoins will never be completely untraceable. You have to use a computer, so that ensures that in some shape or form your transactions will be traced, whether it's with the blockchain, through your IP, or even through keylogging.

You don't have to use a computer. You can create a paper wallet (even manually hashing an address) and store coins on paper, and create transactions and sign them by hand. Then you can either call someone else with a connected computer to spell out the transaction to them, or even snail-mail that paper to them.

Or you can use Tor and a mixing service on an OS you run from a bootable CD that only transmits transactions, which you sign on a computer you never hook up to the web.

Well if you mail the wallet or call then there's the trace right there... Unless you deliver it by hand, in which case why not just use cash?

I guess you could do that CD idea but that would be quite a hassle.

[Zaih]

Yep & cash can't do this?

[Lethn]

None of these problems you list are specifically to do with Bitcoin, Bitcoin is just an extremely efficient means of transferring wealth, the problems you describe have always existed in society no matter what and the people who bash Bitcoin are just another example of ignorant twats bashing a new technology.

. alchohol is evil! It's influencing our men to do terrible things ( Prohibition anyone? )

. heavy metal is evil we should ban it because it negatively influences our children

. games are evil, we should ban it because it negatively influences our children

. porn is evil, ban it! Think of the children! ( In the mean time keep them terrified and loyal by scaring them with lots of images and lies about Muslims killing everyone )

We should probably come up with a list of all the things that has been declared by incompetent parents and religions 'evil' and 'morally wrong', I bet it would be pretty long, I also take particular exception to porn, I'm getting sick to death of people who are terrified of sex coming along and trying to deny me the experience of getting it, porn is currently my only outlet ( yes I'm a virgin live with it ) and trust me you don't want to see what I'm like if I go for a week without it never mind any longer than that.

p.s. Masturbation is extremely healthy and keeps my sex drive low so I can approach women in a fairly normal way

[wingspan]

None of these problems you list are specifically to do with Bitcoin...

I didn't mean to say these would be new issues due to Bitcoin, but that they would go up at least a little bit.  Also, regarding porn, I mean child porn.  Regarding drugs, I mean drugs that addict and make humans behave dangerously.

My question really is:  Assuming Bitcoin really takes off and everyone with a smart phone pays with and gets paid in bitcoins... how many of you see Bitcoin making these 6 unwanted social activities easier - and therefore more common with our current methods of combating these activities?

Also, thank you for all your replies.  For example, I can appreciate your feedback about authorities via bitcoin won't be stealing (via inflation) as much from us - and so people won't have as much motivation to steal back.  Any other thoughts?

[Mike Christ]

Bitcoin isn't the magic society pill   What you've described are issues with society itself, which cannot be fixed with money.  Unrelated to Bitcoin, however, I can offer simple solutions to these problems and non-problems:

Bribery: The easiest way to prevent bribery is to stop allowing special rights to specific citizens.  If no one person is allowed control over other people (who do not want to be ruled, at least), then bribery ceases to be a large scale problem.  At such a point, bribery becomes a highly ineffective way of attaining what you want; there's no central person to bribe, and so you would be forced to bribe many people, and if you wanted to go this route, you'd be better off playing fairly to begin with.  At some point, bribery becomes too expensive to be worth it.

Unfair elections: Basically the same as above; all elections are unfair, in my opinion, since I have every option except "no one".

Tax:  The solution to the problem of taxation, and thus any problem following taxation, is to allow the individual to decide where and how much of his money he will allocate to his surroundings, to his security, to his infrastructure, and his other charitable donations.  This is the entire point of capitalism, anyhow.

Financial aid: We agree, welfare is bad, and with my proposed solution to the taxation problem, it will be a non-problem; nothing has ever stopped scholarships from working, which is another way of saying, "a charitable donation for use with school".

Terrorism: With no central head of a state, terrorism becomes a tricky thing to do; it's simple to influence a government, where power is allocated to the few, but try influencing millions of people with little individual power; you'd really need to pull off something grand to piss everyone off enough to get your way.  Anyway, there's not a lot you can do about the terrorists; some people don't like you and want to kill you, but it's really a non-problem, at least in regards to government, which has a higher death count by leagues when compared to any terrorist group, and even all terrorists combined.

Crime:  As for crime, the solution is to prevent crime, not stop it after the fact.  To prevent crime, you would need to build a society in which there is little reason to commit crime; as most crime is a matter of "he's got what I don't and I need it", then, it seems, free trade is the grand peace keeper; if people have enough capital to grow on, they can produce enough work for other people to grow on, on and on, and crime, so I predict, will sharply decrease (but I doubt will ever completely go away.)  I do not recommend "carrying a big stick", because that does not deter the thief when he is hungry; you could pass a law that stated, stealing under any circumstance results in the death penalty, and still there would be crime--and a lot of dead people.  There was a common law in the middle-east where, if you stole something, you got your hand cut off.  Unsurprisingly, thieves just innovated their methods so as not to get caught.  We see here, then, that it is not the threat of violence which stops violence.  However, if the thief had ample opportunities for well-paying work, he would not be bothered to commit crime, for he would be able to buy all the things he needed.  This wouldn't stop the thrill-seeker who steals just for the high, but it would stop most violent criminals.

Porn:  A complete non-problem; we like sex, even when there's no one to have it with, and, hopefully, for posterity, nothing will change that.  Now, in regards to CP, this is a very serious crime, and there's nothing Bitcoin, the dollar, or any law will solve; pedophilia, much like heterosexuality, or furry, or name whatever other thing people are into, is something ingrained into certain people; we like what we like, and pedophiles are unfortunate enough to enjoy what they like.  Much like guys who cannot help but be a fan of the man (), pedophiles like children, and want to satisfy their desires--of course, none of us want this to happen.  It's an unfortunate aspect of us, and I can offer no solution which can change human preconditions.  I know there is art of child pornography, which I have no objection to, since it does not involve a real person; however, actual depictions of child porn are simply inevitable, so long as there is a demand for it.  Similarly to my thief reference, pedophiles figure out more secure methods to share their exploits to avoid the hand of law, no matter how severe or lax it is.

Drugs: Another non-problem.  The real problem is being force-medicated, such as pouring poison into the water supply and claiming it's good for the teeth.  I'd rather people have absolute control over what they put into their body; drug dealers wouldn't have to resort to shady means of business if they weren't treated as criminals.  If people want weed, crack, meth, and whatever else they desire, they should be allowed to attain these items as safely as possible, since we have proven, time and time again, that if somebody wants something, they will get it, even if it's illegal; the only thing a ban accomplishes is turning innocent people into criminals.  It's not up to you or I to police the drug addict; it's up to them to decide when and if they want to improve.  As with all my other solutions to our problems, the solution is understanding the cause and eliminating that, instead of beating the shit out of the effect with hopes of seeing results later.  I believe the cause of drug addictions stem from a want to escape reality, and coupled with all the problems outlined above which nobody wants to actually fix, but merely prolong, then it's a surprise there aren't more drug addicts; if not for the ban against drugs, they'd probably be a lot popular.

The point is to realize that our current "war on X" is just skirting around the fact that we can't face our problems head-on and look for real solutions, for what we find threatens our current way of life--and I say this in a good way, because nothing threatens the systematic use of violence, poverty, robbery, and misdirection more than rational thought, and until we face the seven ton elephant in the room, that our current solutions to our problems aren't working, from the methods to the validity of government itself, we'll sit here in this vicious cycle and have this conversation again someday soon.

[Rassah]

These can be answered another way:

1) That's a symptom of authority having too much of it. Reduce the authority's power, and there would be no purpose to bribing them
2) Reduce the power of elected politicians, so they can't give out special favors and subsidies, and there would be no need for secret election donations. No one would donate to a politician if they can't get anything out of them
3) Hopefully the "honest" will become less "honest" and don't subject themselves to taxation, either. With lower tax revenues, government will have to make sure it's spending responsibly (though that won't likely ever happen)
4) With reduced tax revenue, there will also be less financial aid to cheat off of
5) Crime and terrorism are less profitable than honest business. People resort to terrorism out of desperation (also, attackers call them "terrorists," defenders call them "rebels" or "freedom fighters") Not defending his actions in any way, but Osama's stated reason for 9/11 was American military bases in Saudi Arabia. So, again, no tax revenue, no money to send the military all over the place. As for local crime, and specifically secret funding of it, some of that crime may be an assassination market. Those are likely going to result in people behaving much nicer, lest they get a large contact on their head.
6) Yay!

EDIT: Or what he said ^

[J603]

Bribery: The easiest way to prevent bribery is to stop allowing special rights to specific citizens.  If no one person is allowed control over other people (who do not want to be ruled, at least), then bribery ceases to be a large scale problem.  At such a point, bribery becomes a highly ineffective way of attaining what you want; there's no central person to bribe, and so you would be forced to bribe many people, and if you wanted to go this route, you'd be better off playing fairly to begin with.  At some point, bribery becomes too expensive to be worth it.

There will always be someone to bribe. Someone will always have power. Even if it's as simple as paying someone so I can walk across their land we will always have to pay someone for something.

Unfair elections: Basically the same as above; all elections are unfair, in my opinion, since I have every option except "no one".

I don't disagree with this.

Tax:  The solution to the problem of taxation, and thus any problem following taxation, is to allow the individual to decide where and how much of his money he will allocate to his surroundings, to his security, to his infrastructure, and his other charitable donations.  This is the entire point of capitalism, anyhow.

If you were given the option to not pay for infrastructure, would you take it? I don't think infrastructure could stay together without taxes.

Financial aid: We agree, welfare is bad, and with my proposed solution to the taxation problem, it will be a non-problem; nothing has ever stopped scholarships from working, which is another way of saying, "a charitable donation for use with school".

Financial Aid is a joke. If you're a minority you automatically get favored. If scholarships and aid were based purely on how hard you worked, then I would believe in them.

Terrorism: With no central head of a state, terrorism becomes a tricky thing to do; it's simple to influence a government, where power is allocated to the few, but try influencing millions of people with little individual power; you'd really need to pull off something grand to piss everyone off enough to get your way.  Anyway, there's not a lot you can do about the terrorists; some people don't like you and want to kill you, but it's really a non-problem, at least in regards to government, which has a higher death count by leagues when compared to any terrorist group, and even all terrorists combined.

Terrorism can still be done with or without a government. Look at Somalia. There's no centralized power and that doesn't stop Al-Shabab from blowing up civilians. And why would it matter if millions of people have the same amount of power? They still are going to think somewhat similar. Remember that our government's actions are representative of the will of the people. After 9/11 the government did not choose our war; the majority of the people thought "hurr 'Murica let's go get the A-rabs" and that's why we got involved.

Crime:  As for crime, the solution is to prevent crime, not stop it after the fact.  To prevent crime, you would need to build a society in which there is little reason to commit crime; as most crime is a matter of "he's got what I don't and I need it",

This make sense.

then, it seems, free trade is the grand peace keeper; if people have enough capital to grow on, they can produce enough work for other people to grow on, on and on, and crime, so I predict, will sharply decrease (but I doubt will ever completely go away.) 

This does not. In a completely free economy, some people will be dirt poor with no hope of ever improving their situation. I'd like to bring up Kowloon as an example. If they can make a market of sunlight, they will.

I do not recommend "carrying a big stick", because that does not deter the thief when he is hungry; you could pass a law that stated, stealing under any circumstance results in the death penalty, and still there would be crime--and a lot of dead people.  There was a common law in the middle-east where, if you stole something, you got your hand cut off.  Unsurprisingly, thieves just innovated their methods so as not to get caught.

Have you actually lived in the middle east? That law worked pretty well, at least in Saudi Arabia. People would leave their cars running with the keys in (since it's so hot you'd burn yourself if you left it in the sun) and I never saw any get stolen. A hand was not worth attempting to steal something, since you'd almost surely get caught.

 

We see here, then, that it is not the threat of violence which stops violence.  However, if the thief had ample opportunities for well-paying work, he would not be bothered to commit crime, for he would be able to buy all the things he needed.  This wouldn't stop the thrill-seeker who steals just for the high, but it would stop most violent criminals.

It is impossible for everyone to be satisfied in a free market economy. If every single person can afford something, then businesses will raise the price so as to make more money. A society in which everyone (supposedly) receives well-paying work is communism, which is impossible to implement outside of the imagination.

Porn:  A complete non-problem; we like sex, even when there's no one to have it with, and, hopefully, for posterity, nothing will change that.  Now, in regards to CP, this is a very serious crime, and there's nothing Bitcoin, the dollar, or any law will solve; pedophilia, much like heterosexuality, or furry, or name whatever other thing people are into, is something ingrained into certain people; we like what we like, and pedophiles are unfortunate enough to enjoy what they like.  Much like guys who cannot help but be a fan of the man (), pedophiles like children, and want to satisfy their desires--of course, none of us want this to happen.  It's an unfortunate aspect of us, and I can offer no solution which can change human preconditions.  I know there is art of child pornography, which I have no objection to, since it does not involve a real person; however, actual depictions of child porn are simply inevitable, so long as there is a demand for it.  Similarly to my thief reference, pedophiles figure out more secure methods to share their exploits to avoid the hand of law, no matter how severe or lax it is.

I think that clearing up pedophilia laws could help with this. Statuatory Rape should be better defined. If an 18 year old has sex with their willing 17 year old partner, why should the 18 year old go to prison, and have the same "rapist" label as a 40 year old man who raped a 12 year old?

I'd rather people have absolute control over what they put into their body; drug dealers wouldn't have to resort to shady means of business if they weren't treated as criminals. 

Not so sure about this. An opium or crack dealer will never not be shady. After all, they have to deal with people that literally need their product.

If people want weed, crack, meth, and whatever else they desire, they should be allowed to attain these items as safely as possible, since we have proven, time and time again, that if somebody wants something, they will get it, even if it's illegal; the only thing a ban accomplishes is turning innocent people into criminals. 

I somewhat agree with this. Read my next paragraph.

It's not up to you or I to police the drug addict; it's up to them to decide when and if they want to improve.  As with all my other solutions to our problems, the solution is understanding the cause and eliminating that, instead of beating the shit out of the effect with hopes of seeing results later.  I believe the cause of drug addictions stem from a want to escape reality, and coupled with all the problems outlined above which nobody wants to actually fix, but merely prolong, then it's a surprise there aren't more drug addicts; if not for the ban against drugs, they'd probably be a lot popular.

Being someone who does drugs I'd like to say that I do not do them to escape reality. I'm not depressed or anything, and I hang out with a ton of people who've been my friends my entire life. I'm not addicted to anything, but I have done some of the harder stuff (Molly/Meth and many different opiates) a few times, knowing that doing these regularly is unhealthy. While subconsciously my body was telling me I should do it again, I consciously knew that ultimately the risk of death or addiction is greater than the reward, so I don't do them often.

There is really not one reason why people do drugs. I've done the drugs I've done simply because I thought they would be fun. I feel like this reasoning never is understood by people who don't do drugs, but believe it or not we are not all depressed. Just how like normal people go drink at parties or at the bar with friends (and alcohol is the most dangerous drug!) some people do acid, cocaine, shrooms, smoke weed, etc. Now, there are people who actually do do drugs because they are depressed. But in this case, it's the depression and not the drugs that cause problems. I don't think anyone should have to be in a situation where they think that drugs are a necessity to feel good.

That being said, this is why I do believe that there needs to be a ban on certain drugs, because some people will abuse them and they will hurt themselves. Some people can handle hard drugs fine, and never get addicted, and know how much to dose and such. But the majority of people do not. Krokodil, Heroin, PCP, and Meth should not be readily available to anyone. These drugs should not be legal, but they shouldn't be criminalized either. Instead, we should educate people on why they shouldn't do these kinds of drugs, and give help to those who need it.

[Mike Christ]

snip

I agree; there will always be someone to bribe.  Bribery is something people simply do; the qualifications for bribery are flimsy, at that.  If I paid you to come clean my house, it might be said I were hiring you; if I paid you after that to keep quiet about the bodies in the closet, only then is it a bribe, but either way, I'm using money to alter your course of action.  If someone paid me to keep a secret, I'd have to weigh my morality against the secret and how much it is worth to me to stay silent (and I would gladly shut up about some corpses if someone offered me a million this situation is completely unrealistic and I could take the money and still tattle but I'm not creative enough for a realistic example...); since morality is completely subjective to the individual, all one could hope to do is make bribery more difficult.  I've never known a politician who didn't accept money to alter his actions, however, which is the point I'm driving; in a "free" society, you will have leaders, just not all-powerful leaders.  If I knew the guy I followed or paid for his service was taking bribes to alter his course of action, especially if this worked against me (say, an arbitration company were taking cash to ignore certain bits of evidence), then I, and hopefully many people with like minds, would not want the service of a man who was easily swayed this way.  In this case, I believe our situation can be improved, but I do not envision a utopia, of course; perhaps once we get to that point, we'll be able to figure out where to go from there.  Until then, I can't pretend to predict the future.

On infrastructure: the philosophy works as follows: if it's something we need, we will naturally pay for the luxury.  If we don't need it or don't want it, we'll naturally not pay.  Lets say there's a bridge we often cross to get from our side of town to work; we need this bridge, for without it, we might have to drive way the fuck around into another city to get to our place of employment; we'd waste more gas this way than we would if we chipped in to collectively own and take care of the bridge, and so it makes more sense to take care of the bridge so we have it, than not; likewise, only people who liked the bridge would want to pay for it, since everyone else in the city who didn't ever use the bridge would not be subject to pay for what they'd never use.  Alternatively, the bridge could be owned and operated at a profit to the owner, who would have a vested interest in ensuring his bridge remained both in service and in repair; I personally don't like toll bridges but I especially don't like them when they were built with my tax money.  Anyway, ultimately, people would have to become more interested in the world around them for this to work; as it stands, you could live in a bubble, and the roads would still be fine.  Freedom isn't cheap, but at least you'll know your cash went to roads and dams and bridges, and not social security and interest and an already bloated military.  We could take this whole system a step further and simply hire a guy to worry about our roads, and make sure he gets paid and gets enough cash to pay the people who fix the roads; but as with all payments, so long as we're not forced to have him around through the process of taxation, we'll be better off, I think.  If your neighbor gets upset that you're not paying for his road that you don't drive on, tell him to fuck himself; if you wanna donate, go ahead; but I don't believe having our money stolen for our own good is the best possible system to ensure out infrastructure stays intact.

On scholarships: that's just how it is.  If I only want to give my money to a low-income middle-eastern female who scored at least B's in school, then I may be both racist and sexist, but it's still my money.  I have no idea why someone would care about skin color or gender in regards to educational donations, but that's the society we live in.  On federal grants and subsidized "community" colleges, however, I'd rather there be actual jobs in the market for me to go through even if I got a degree, than for schools to be cheap.  Schools just don't look worth it anymore.

You're right about terrorism, but the point being made is thus: terrorists strive to achieve political goals through violent means, which governments see and attain more power over their people with the promise of security, and so the means of terrorism to achieve their goals becomes easier as the power is shifted from the individual to a very small minority; if this small minority feels different than the majority, it wouldn't matter, as it's up to them to make decisions.  Ultimately, if a terrorist's goal is to instigate war, then there is no easier way than through their mere existence; it's easier for a nation to go to war when you have a handful of people making this decision, especially in the case of America (and I'm sure other countries whose politics I'm ignorant of) where one, single man can make the decision between war and peace.  In the case of smaller government, or no government, where declaring war is much more complex than one man in a "yes or no" situation, it becomes more difficult for terrorists to achieve political gain.  It won't stop the terrorist acts, but it dampens the effect, and won't lead us further into a hole.

There would still be poor people, but they wouldn't be made poor; when there is more wealth circulating in a nation, being spent back on the nation, then there are more jobs to be had.  At that point, if jobs were entirely abundant, and you were still miserably impoverished, I would hope there would be at least the notion that there is a chance to pull oneself from this condition, than to simply resort to crime as a way of getting ahead.  I have no doubt, however, that organized crime will always remain; I hope it will never evolve into the case of government again, but I'm positive there will always be people who want to place themselves into a position of power through the use of force.  Again, there's no such thing as a utopia, and I can only really speak for people who want to help other people by helping themselves; for the hardcore criminals among us, they'll continue to operate with or without a king, and we'll have to defend ourselves as a society, just as we always have.

I've never been in the middle-east, so I'll have to take your word on that; in the same vein as before, I could say, a king might behead someone for thievery, but if you're debating death or death with a chance of living if you don't get caught, you generally go with the risk of crime than moral highness and starvation.

If everyone can find work under communism, then the work was always there; what matters is what the work is for; communism can create jobs with the snap of a finger by going to war; we can also create jobs for peaceful means, especially true in the arts and sciences.  On the other hand, I'm most curious as to how we'll handle the automation of our labor through improved machinery.  No system of society seems to be prepared for a post-scarcity economy, but that's another conversation all together.  I don't claim to have all the answers, but I will say this: natural monopolies are known to have the lowest prices of all, since they have to ensure their competition cannot compete by providing a product that is of the highest quality for the absolute best price; OTOH, the coercive monopolies (oligopolies?) of today instead use political means to ensure their competition cannot compete.  The only difference between the two is one has a central source of power to manipulate, and the other doesn't.

I don't believe clearing up the pedophilia laws will necessarily help; we must still assume that, if we make something illegal, people will stop doing it.  We've shown that people keep on doing what they'd like, no matter what is illegal, if they like it enough.  There's still the problem of mixing morality with law; nobody can agree what age is right for sex but the person consenting.  Otherwise, if the person is not consenting, it's always wrong; so, a child who has not yet hit puberty cannot consent to what they have no desire for, and thus this would be a clear standard for what constitutes as CP.  But I'm certain people won't find this adequate, as many of us would still believe 12, 13, 14 years old is still much too young for consenting sex with a 30+ year old.  Even if we went with the "puberty" standard, people would be all over the place about what their children do and with whom and if they do it at all.  Just an odd thought: if a society of pedophiles lived in the same space and had children...?

You're right about me not doing drugs (I don't even drink, at that ); I have considered the possibility that people do it just for the fun of it, and this is precisely why I feel it's better for people to decide on their own what they're capable of; if we refuse to outlaw alcohol, which, when coupled with cars, have resulted in many, many deaths, what difference does it make, then?  We still drink and don't really care what happens, and complain if we try to take it away.

That being said, this is why I do believe that there needs to be a ban on certain drugs, because some people will abuse them and they will hurt themselves.

These drugs should not be legal, but they shouldn't be criminalized either. Instead, we should educate people on why they shouldn't do these kinds of drugs, and give help to those who need it.

See, I like the second one better, because the first implies that we must solve a problem through force (but I've never heard of a law that was designed not to be enforced.)  I understand pot, shrooms, ecstasy; it's just fun.  But I can't see someone taking heroin for fun for long, after we know what happens to a person after continued use.  We cannot ban knowledge, you see; we know how to create these drugs, and to ban them would be as effective as banning guns; we know how to make those too, and at home.  We can make a drug out of anything; my sister snuffed freon from an A/C unit outside when she was a kid and got high for a minute or two that way, although it was poisonous.  She doesn't do it anymore, of course, or so I think.  Point is, if it's lethal enough, we'll know not to use it, or at least weed out the population in the process of people who think they can deal with it.  I've seen the insane things people do while on the harder drugs, but those are already banned, and such things still happen; the money spent on attempting to combat this went to a lost cause.  Beside that, if people know what they're doing and want to feel good, I feel absolutely no desire to make criminals out of them for simply having the stuff.  Of course, what crimes they may commit while under the influence of drugs is something else entirely.

[Peter Lambert]

Ultimately, if a terrorist's goal is to instigate war, then there is no easier way than through their mere existence; it's easier for a nation to go to war when you have a handful of people making this decision, especially in the case of America (and I'm sure other countries whose politics I'm ignorant of) where one, single man can make the decision between war and peace. 

The US constitution stipulates that War is to be declared by Congress, not the President. However, your point is correct since the current and recent US presidents pretty much ignore the constitution and do whatever they want.

Fun fact: Who was the last country which the US declared war against? Answer: Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (June 5, 1942)

[Elwar]

6) Porn and Drugs -- buying this stuff is made easier and undetectable.

wait...what?

Buying porn will be undetectable? As opposed to...?

[J603]

On infrastructure: the philosophy works as follows: if it's something we need, we will naturally pay for the luxury.  If we don't need it or don't want it, we'll naturally not pay.  Lets say there's a bridge we often cross to get from our side of town to work; we need this bridge, for without it, we might have to drive way the fuck around into another city to get to our place of employment; we'd waste more gas this way than we would if we chipped in to collectively own and take care of the bridge, and so it makes more sense to take care of the bridge so we have it, than not; likewise, only people who liked the bridge would want to pay for it, since everyone else in the city who didn't ever use the bridge would not be subject to pay for what they'd never use.  Alternatively, the bridge could be owned and operated at a profit to the owner, who would have a vested interest in ensuring his bridge remained both in service and in repair; I personally don't like toll bridges but I especially don't like them when they were built with my tax money.  Anyway, ultimately, people would have to become more interested in the world around them for this to work; as it stands, you could live in a bubble, and the roads would still be fine.  Freedom isn't cheap, but at least you'll know your cash went to roads and dams and bridges, and not social security and interest and an already bloated military.  We could take this whole system a step further and simply hire a guy to worry about our roads, and make sure he gets paid and gets enough cash to pay the people who fix the roads; but as with all payments, so long as we're not forced to have him around through the process of taxation, we'll be better off, I think.  If your neighbor gets upset that you're not paying for his road that you don't drive on, tell him to fuck himself; if you wanna donate, go ahead; but I don't believe having our money stolen for our own good is the best possible system to ensure out infrastructure stays intact.

The thing is, bridges and roads are not cheap. If there really were no taxes, I'm sure that there would be a bunch of people that would say "screw that" and never pay for the bridges and roads even if they used them. That's why tolls exist in the first place. You may say that people would think logically and say "we need this bridge", but the reality is, they wouldn't. In my city, at least, when anything is built and it costs more than a dime everyone complains. Given the option to not pay a lot of people wouldn't. Plus, the people who don't live on main roads (pretty much everyone) are SOL because they won't be able to afford their roads, at least inexpensively.

On scholarships: that's just how it is.  If I only want to give my money to a low-income middle-eastern female who scored at least B's in school, then I may be both racist and sexist, but it's still my money.  I have no idea why someone would care about skin color or gender in regards to educational donations, but that's the society we live in.  On federal grants and subsidized "community" colleges, however, I'd rather there be actual jobs in the market for me to go through even if I got a degree, than for schools to be cheap.  Schools just don't look worth it anymore.

Low income and scoring at least B's is not what I meant. I'm talking about how you can get a scholarship for being black, or hispanic. It doesn't matter if you're a genius or an idiot, you pull the race card and the money starts flowing. To be fair, I am white as snow and yet because my father is technically hispanic (he was born in Venezuela and his family's Spanish) I got some extra financial aid for being a minority. Also, it's not just community colleges. One of my friends who's Indian goes to Dartmouth, and while he is a genius so I don't believe he should have been denied there, the admissions office admitted that part of their decision was because he's dark skinned...

You're right about terrorism, but the point being made is thus: terrorists strive to achieve political goals through violent means, which governments see and attain more power over their people with the promise of security, and so the means of terrorism to achieve their goals becomes easier as the power is shifted from the individual to a very small minority; if this small minority feels different than the majority, it wouldn't matter, as it's up to them to make decisions.  Ultimately, if a terrorist's goal is to instigate war, then there is no easier way than through their mere existence; it's easier for a nation to go to war when you have a handful of people making this decision, especially in the case of America (and I'm sure other countries whose politics I'm ignorant of) where one, single man can make the decision between war and peace.  In the case of smaller government, or no government, where declaring war is much more complex than one man in a "yes or no" situation, it becomes more difficult for terrorists to achieve political gain.  It won't stop the terrorist acts, but it dampens the effect, and won't lead us further into a hole.

A handful of people do not decide whether or not we go to war. Much as the public would like to blame the president of congress or whatever scapegoat they can find, public opinion is what drives the war machine. The people decided to go to Afghanistan and Iraq, and we decided when we would pull out. The people may be influenced by the government, but if they're so easily influenced as to attack an innocent country then they are weak minded and there's no helping them.

The US is one of the few countries on this planet to not force people into the military. The fact that we still have the second largest military (after China) shows exactly how much the American people love war. Think about how much soldiers are glorified. A soldier is "braver" than a firefighter, even though both risk their lives but only one kills people.

This reminds me of the quote by Voltaire (paraphrased): "Killing another man is a sin, and thus murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

The American people are perfectly capable of going to war with or without a government.

There would still be poor people, but they wouldn't be made poor; when there is more wealth circulating in a nation, being spent back on the nation, then there are more jobs to be had.  At that point, if jobs were entirely abundant, and you were still miserably impoverished, I would hope there would be at least the notion that there is a chance to pull oneself from this condition, than to simply resort to crime as a way of getting ahead.  I have no doubt, however, that organized crime will always remain; I hope it will never evolve into the case of government again, but I'm positive there will always be people who want to place themselves into a position of power through the use of force.  Again, there's no such thing as a utopia, and I can only really speak for people who want to help other people by helping themselves; for the hardcore criminals among us, they'll continue to operate with or without a king, and we'll have to defend ourselves as a society, just as we always have.

Even in the richest countries there is still poverty. It's simple logic: not everyone can have money. If everyone has something, no one has something. If we all are millionaires, then 1,000,000 is worthless. There may be more jobs, but that doesn't matter. You can have a job and still be poor. And the more jobs, the lower the wages as there's more competition.

I've never been in the middle-east, so I'll have to take your word on that; in the same vein as before, I could say, a king might behead someone for thievery, but if you're debating death or death with a chance of living if you don't get caught, you generally go with the risk of crime than moral highness and starvation.

First off, you weren't beheaded for stealing. The hand-cutting punishment does still exist, and the courts reserve the right to use it, however usually a thief would get a caning. There wasn't much of a threat of death. And how many thieves are stealing in a life or death situation? The biggest thieves do not steal food.

If everyone can find work under communism, then the work was always there; what matters is what the work is for; communism can create jobs with the snap of a finger by going to war; we can also create jobs for peaceful means, especially true in the arts and sciences.  On the other hand, I'm most curious as to how we'll handle the automation of our labor through improved machinery.  No system of society seems to be prepared for a post-scarcity economy, but that's another conversation all together.  I don't claim to have all the answers, but I will say this: natural monopolies are known to have the lowest prices of all, since they have to ensure their competition cannot compete by providing a product that is of the highest quality for the absolute best price; OTOH, the coercive monopolies (oligopolies?) of today instead use political means to ensure their competition cannot compete.  The only difference between the two is one has a central source of power to manipulate, and the other doesn't.

I really think you should look up Kowloon. It is a perfect example of a free market. It's also a perfect example of a dystopian society (thought I'd note that word tried to correct "dystopian" to utopian  ).

I don't believe clearing up the pedophilia laws will necessarily help; we must still assume that, if we make something illegal, people will stop doing it.  We've shown that people keep on doing what they'd like, no matter what is illegal, if they like it enough.  There's still the problem of mixing morality with law; nobody can agree what age is right for sex but the person consenting.  Otherwise, if the person is not consenting, it's always wrong; so, a child who has not yet hit puberty cannot consent to what they have no desire for, and thus this would be a clear standard for what constitutes as CP.  But I'm certain people won't find this adequate, as many of us would still believe 12, 13, 14 years old is still much too young for consenting sex with a 30+ year old.  Even if we went with the "puberty" standard, people would be all over the place about what their children do and with whom and if they do it at all.  Just an odd thought: if a society of pedophiles lived in the same space and had children...?

Certainly clearing up pedophilia laws will stop putting innocent people in jail. Like I said, there needs to be a difference between a 40 year old screwing a 12 year old and an 18 year old and 17 year old in a consensual relationship.

You're right about me not doing drugs (I don't even drink, at that ); I have considered the possibility that people do it just for the fun of it, and this is precisely why I feel it's better for people to decide on their own what they're capable of; if we refuse to outlaw alcohol, which, when coupled with cars, have resulted in many, many deaths, what difference does it make, then?  We still drink and don't really care what happens, and complain if we try to take it away.

That's why I said education is key. Don't force people. Just explain to them why certain drugs are bad. I also think that responsibility should be taught. If people (especially kids, teenagers, and young adults) were taught "You can do drugs, just do it where you're comfortable and don't drive" as opposed to "IF YOU DO DRUGS YOU'LL DIE INSTANTLY" they might actually take the educations seriously, and make educated choices. I do believe that there has to be some regulation on the age, as you can't have 9 year olds drinking and doing lines of coke. However, if people are free to do it in their own homes, at their own pace, with no fear of getting arrested, they have more time to be responsible.

I'm guessing that most underage drunk driving is due to people having nowhere to go and being "forced" to be mobile.

See, I like the second one better, because the first implies that we must solve a problem through force (but I've never heard of a law that was designed not to be enforced.)

I guess it would technically be through "force", but that would only be if someone fought back. And if someone is fighting over a heroin needle I think it's safe to assume that it would be healthier for them to give it up.

I understand pot, shrooms, ecstasy; it's just fun.

I'm nitpicking but ecstacy is methamphetamine and MDMA mixed together. It's both kinds of meth in one powder cocktail. It's not on the same level as mushrooms or weed.

  But I can't see someone taking heroin for fun for long, after we know what happens to a person after continued use.  We cannot ban knowledge, you see; we know how to create these drugs, and to ban them would be as effective as banning guns; we know how to make those too, and at home.  We can make a drug out of anything; my sister snuffed freon from an A/C unit outside when she was a kid and got high for a minute or two that way, although it was poisonous.  She doesn't do it anymore, of course, or so I think.  Point is, if it's lethal enough, we'll know not to use it, or at least weed out the population in the process of people who think they can deal with it.

You'd think that we'd know if something was lethal enough, but we don't. And this is mostly because of misinformation. If you look at a high school DARE class, they basically say the same thing about every drug. Weed kills. Alcohol kills. Tobacco kills. Meth kills, Heroin kills, etc. The thing is, meth and weed are not on the same level. And kids will end up trying weed anyways, and find out it's not bad at all. They'll get braver, and move on to hallucinogens. They'll see that these were lied about too. You aren't seeing unicorns on acid (unfortunately  ) At this point, they won't trust any information that they've been taught. And this is a problem, because while weed won't kill you, heroin and meth certainly will. But if meth and heroin are treated the same as weed, and one of those isn't bad at all, how are people supposed to know what's actually bad and what's fine?

That's why I think (truthful) education is key. No one should be huffing freon, they have medicine for that  .

  I've seen the insane things people do while on the harder drugs, but those are already banned, and such things still happen; the money spent on attempting to combat this went to a lost cause.  Beside that, if people know what they're doing and want to feel good, I feel absolutely no desire to make criminals out of them for simply having the stuff.  Of course, what crimes they may commit while under the influence of drugs is something else entirely.

Most "insane" things are done because that person is crazy. They'd do it with or without drugs. Not to diminish their danger, but meth and heroin have less of an effect on the thought process than something more benign, such as shrooms.

I agree that they shouldn't be made criminals. But I also don't think that people should be running around shooting dope. That's why I think that all non-addictive substances should be legal, and all addictive substances should be at the least decriminalized while still illegal. The best option I think would be to regulate the supply of addictive substances, so that people can't hurt themselves even if they try. If for example, one company owned heroin and they limited you to 100 mg a week, people could not get as addicted as some are now.

[Rassah]

As far as I remember it, the majority of the public was against the war. That's also why Cheney made that quip about leaders lead instead of listening to polls.

[J603]

As far as I remember it, the majority of the public was against the war. That's also why Cheney made that quip about leaders lead instead of listening to polls.

That's not how I remember it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/5029/eight-americans-support-ground-war-afghanistan.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx