Economic Devastation

[RealBitcoin]

These are some very good thoughts; but let me add a bit to them. How about a "dynamic democracy scheme"? One that each tax payer should (pledge to) pay for the laws to be voted or the changes he/she wants.

Ah thats nonsense nobody would pay for that, or worse, some rich person can then control the whole voting system.

And even if you outlaw 1 rich person to control the whole system with this money, he can do so covertly through his minions.

Nope the legislature has to be free, otherwise its begging to be corrupted.

This way no government should have the funds to ie: start a war, without the people's consent. Totalitarianism is based on the fact that a certain group of individuals have unlimited power to implement whatever they see fit (without anyone question them).

If my unified culture theory becomes true, there will be no reason to fight war, and you could not enlist nobody.

All war must have a motivation, otherwise you will not get volunteers. If you declare war on the 35 year old people, then nobody would enlist to such a dumb idea. But if you declare war agains a religion / race or other tribalist entity, then you will find plenty of supporters.

War can be totally eliminated with a unified culture. The best you could have then is mercenary army, that will obey your silly rules but will demand a big wage for that, which is unsustainable for 1 diabolic "world conqueror" or Caesar wannabe.

Introducing this ledger-based "taxing" system we may (as community) decide ie: if we want more police protection or not; more schools or not, etc. If the government doesn't get the funds, then another party should take the lead in order to implement what the people paid for. In this way we will be in a constant election system that delivers at any single time what the people's will is.

Sure it would be a federation so a local community can still decide if they want to pay more or not but this has to be voluntary. But the federal tax has to be only 1-2%, levied from each transaction.

I heard this transaction tax from other people, and its already getting some spotlight amongst economists, of course with the current keynesian debt based ponzi economy ,its impossible to implement.

But with another monetary system, it is very doable, and sufficient to finance all public institutions.

The world GDP is:
77,269,168,000,000$

The federation would get a budget of at least 40% of it, given the current transaction velocity. You pay tax as much as you consume, without discriminaton to your income. Shifting from a consumerist economy to a knowledge age economy, as many austrian schoolers want.

Thats plenty enough with high technology, non inflationary economy to finance itself. And there would be no tax cheaters, nor tax havens. Nobody could dodge this, and nobody would have to spend money and time on accountants and bullshit to calculate it.

Maybe supervising is a prerequisite by a certain type of "authority" but they won't have to do anything concerning people's choice - just make sure that they're implemented since the people paid/decided for them.

Well yes, the legislative assembly would decide all public personalities that would hold and office and get elected.

But people would be the ones controlling them. And whenever a person gets out of line, he would be replaced.

[rpietila]

But the federal tax has to be only 1-2%, levied from each transaction.

I heard this transaction tax from other people, and its already getting some spotlight amongst economists, of course with the current keynesian debt based ponzi economy ,its impossible to implement.

But with another monetary system, it is very doable, and sufficient to finance all public institutions.
- -
And there would be no tax cheaters, nor tax havens. Nobody could dodge this, and nobody would have to spend money and time on accountants and bullshit to calculate it.

You are describing utopian totaliarianism here. It is a typical fantasy setting. What it ignores is that there are people who want to be free, and they currently feel that they have certain freedoms, which in the system described would not exist. So they need to be violently repressed to give away their freedoms (does not work), or cheated to give them away (works, but labels your system as unethical and ensures continued resistance by people who learn this). Starting from scratch, many things work, but there is often no way to get there from the current situation.

CK evades this by not requiring every individual be part of it. CK is voluntary, so it can uphold laws that I consider impossible in outside world (where there is no easy way to opt-out). For instance a global transaction tax is a way of tracking every individual's every purchase. It is a diabolic idea for freedom in the world where people need to fight for their freedom or lose it.

CK is implementing a transaction tax, however! In the context where people are voluntarily in, and the ruler of the world wants good to them, and one can exit at any time and the goons are not coming after, it is allowed for a system to make such a tax.

What we can save by doing it, is to keep the labor tax and costs at 0, and sales tax at 0. So when you sell your labor as a medical practitioner (200k/AP) and buy gardening (50k/AP), you get 4 times as many hours. This is the area where outside world sucks the most in western jurisdictions - even if the gardener is in the free market, the medical practice must charge 3+ times the doctor salary.

Also all sales taxes are zero, and duty is levied only on silver, beer, wine and spirits. The transaction tax will be a very small amount per transaction, in the order of 0.0001 XMR or less.

[RealBitcoin]

You are describing utopian totaliarianism here. It is a typical fantasy setting. What it ignores is that there are people who want to be free, and they currently feel that they have certain freedoms, which in the system described would not exist. So they need to be violently repressed to give away their freedoms (does not work), or cheated to give them away (works, but labels your system as unethical and ensures continued resistance by people who learn this). Starting from scratch, many things work, but there is often no way to get there from the current situation.

No. You guys are really good at putting words in other people's mouths. I never said anything about repression/opression , I specifically emphasized that it would be natural.

There would be nothing totalitarian in here, and certainly not a utopia , but as close as it can get.

__________________________

You guys have really a lack of imagination and are confined in a very prisoner mindset. When I talk about achieving unified culture, you immediately thing as if those that dont want to become part of this would be put in concentration camps? No, that is not how it would be done.

I specifically said that it would be a natural process. Do 35 year olds put 36 year olds into concentration camps (and I always come back to this example because it is really this absurd).

So the difference between 1 human, and the other would really be like the difference between a 35 and 36 year old. There would be no more local culture anymore, the same way that there are no more dinosaurs or caveman anymore.

All you would have is different humans with different personalities, but treating eachother nontheless respectfully. You can still have individual issues and hatred but not group hatred anymore, because there would be no more tribalist groups to speak of.

[rpietila]

You are describing utopian totaliarianism here. It is a typical fantasy setting. What it ignores is that there are people who want to be free, and they currently feel that they have certain freedoms, which in the system described would not exist. So they need to be violently repressed to give away their freedoms (does not work), or cheated to give them away (works, but labels your system as unethical and ensures continued resistance by people who learn this). Starting from scratch, many things work, but there is often no way to get there from the current situation.

There would be nothing totalitarian in here, and certainly not a utopia , but as close as it can get.

Utopia:
A utopia is a community or society possessing highly desirable or near perfect qualities. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempt to create an ideal society, and imagined societies portrayed in fiction.

The word comes from the Greek: oὐ ("not") and τόπoς ("place") and means "no-place", and strictly describes any non-existent society 'described in considerable detail'. However, in standard usage, the word's meaning has narrowed and now usually describes a non-existent society that is intended to be viewed as considerably better than contemporary society.

I specifically said that it would be a natural process. Do 35 year olds put 36 year olds into concentration camps (and I always come back to this example because it is really this absurd).

So the difference between 1 human, and the other would really be like the difference between a 35 and 36 year old. There would be no more local culture anymore, the same way that there are no more dinosaurs or caveman anymore.

All you would have is different humans with different personalities, but treating eachother nontheless respectfully. You can still have individual issues and hatred but not group hatred anymore, because there would be no more tribalist groups to speak of.

Well, you don't understand then that entire tribes (eg. jewry) are founded on the notion that others are subhuman. You plan to make all jews believe that they have the same rights as everybody    Good luck with that!!  (other tribes have individuals with similar mindsets, I used jews as an example because it is a media-induced no-no to even think about touching their supremacy).

To me you appear largely clueless, about the level I was 20 years ago. I don't say this to put you down (my level then was a good start) but a few decades of experience adds depth to the thinking. I look forward to the next 20 years to understand more.

[macsga]

CK evades this by not requiring every individual be part of it. CK is voluntary, so it can uphold laws that I consider impossible in outside world (where there is no easy way to opt-out). For instance a global transaction tax is a way of tracking every individual's every purchase. It is a diabolic idea for freedom in the world where people need to fight for their freedom or lose it.

CK is implementing a transaction tax, however! In the context where people are voluntarily in, and the ruler of the world wants good to them, and one can exit at any time and the goons are not coming after, it is allowed for a system to make such a tax.

What we can save by doing it, is to keep the labor tax and costs at 0, and sales tax at 0. So when you sell your labor as a medical practitioner (200k/AP) and buy gardening (50k/AP), you get 4 times as many hours. This is the area where outside world sucks the most in western jurisdictions - even if the gardener is in the free market, the medical practice must charge 3+ times the doctor salary.

Also all sales taxes are zero, and duty is levied only on silver, beer, wine and spirits. The transaction tax will be a very small amount per transaction, in the order of 0.0001 XMR or less.

Well, it seems like the perfect testbed towards a virtual "perfect world". I believe it's done once more but with the economic part of Valve's community and as a chief economist Yanis Varoufakis. Steam engine has about 200M active users IIRC. In any case,  I must find myself some more time to play CK! (yeah, that 25th hour on the day would've come handy right now)

[CoinCube]

…
And there would be no tax cheaters, nor tax havens. Nobody could dodge this, and nobody would have to spend money and time on accountants and bullshit to calculate it.

You are describing utopian totaliarianism here. It is a typical fantasy setting. What it ignores is that there are people who want to be free, and they currently feel that they have certain freedoms, which in the system described would not exist. So they need to be violently repressed to give away their freedoms (does not work), or cheated to give them away (works, but labels your system as unethical and ensures continued resistance by people who learn this). Starting from scratch, many things work, but there is often no way to get there from the current situation.
...

Power Vacuum: a situation where the benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups, while the costs, in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects are diffused through the entire population.
Cooperation: Voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange.
Defection: An exchange that advances the individual to the detriment of his fellows typically involving coercion, violence, or ignorance.

There is no such thing as complete freedom except for the state of nature as described by Hobbs. In every other scenario the best we can achieve is a partial freedom. We agree to some limitations of our freedoms to maximize our ability to prosper and cooperate while minimizing individual freedom to coerce, and defect.

The ideal government is no government at all. In this utopia nearly all individuals act only cooperatively. A stable utopia would require its participations to identify, correct, and in extreme cases neutralize those choosing defection over cooperation. Such a society is simply is not possible at our current juncture in history. We lack the required education, moral fiber, technology, and transparency and have simply not advanced enough to make it work. This leaves us no choice but to settle for an inferior semi-centralized alternative subject to an exploitable power vacuum.

There are two types of “freedom fighters” that rise up in opposition to the social contract. The first is the angry defector. Many individuals are optimized for violence, force, and coercion. Historically violence was a viable evolutionary strategy. The modern social contract has increasingly limited opportunities to profit from violence and those optimized for it are genuinely worse off as a result. The angry defector thus hates the social contract and longs for a return to the more primitive state for which he is optimized.

The second type of “freedom fighter” is the disillusioned cooperator. The social contract is a blunt and crude instrument. It is easily abused and manipulated. This weakness creates openings for today’s defector aka the intelligent narcissist. By exploiting the power vacuum the narcissist and his junior partner the parasite are able to succeed at the expense of others.  Disillusioned cooperators grow angry at a system that permits this abuse. Sometimes this leads to a conversion to anarchism which is either a desire for the utopia described above, a desire for a return to primitive tribalism, or some muddled mix of the two.

The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism evolved into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. Perhaps in the future republics will be consumed by world government, world government will advance into decentralized government, and decentralized government will finally mature into the optimum of no government at all.

[RealBitcoin]

…
And there would be no tax cheaters, nor tax havens. Nobody could dodge this, and nobody would have to spend money and time on accountants and bullshit to calculate it.

You are describing utopian totaliarianism here. It is a typical fantasy setting. What it ignores is that there are people who want to be free, and they currently feel that they have certain freedoms, which in the system described would not exist. So they need to be violently repressed to give away their freedoms (does not work), or cheated to give them away (works, but labels your system as unethical and ensures continued resistance by people who learn this). Starting from scratch, many things work, but there is often no way to get there from the current situation.
...

Power Vacuum: a situation where the benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups, while the costs, in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects are diffused through the entire population.

There is no such thing as complete freedom except for the state of nature as described by Hobbs. In every other scenario the best we can achieve is a partial freedom. We agree to some limitations to our freedoms to maximize our ability to prosper and cooperate while minimizing individual freedom to coerce, and defect.

The ideal government is no government at all. In this utopia nearly all individuals act only cooperatively. A stable utopia would require its participations to identify, correct, and in extreme cases neutralize those choosing defection over cooperation. Such a society is simply is not possible at our current juncture in history. We lack the required education, moral fiber, technology, and transparency and have simply not advanced enough to make it work. This leaves us no choice but to settle for an inferior semi-centralized alternative subject an exploitable power vacuum.

There are two types of “freedom fighters” that rise up in opposition to the social contract. The first is the angry defector. Many individuals are optimized for violence, force, and coercion. Historically violence was a viable evolutionary strategy. The modern social contract has increasingly limited opportunities for coercion and those optimized for it are genuinely worse off as a result. The angry defector thus hates the social contract and longs for a return to the more primitive state for which he is optimized.

The second type of “freedom fighter” is the disillusioned cooperator. The social contract is blunt, crude and highly inefficient. It is easily abused and manipulated. This weakness creates openings for today’s defector aka the intelligent narcissist. By exploiting the power vacuum the narcissist and his junior partner the parasite are able to succeed at the expense of others.  Disillusioned cooperators grow angry at a system that permits this abuse. Sometimes this leads to a conversion to anarchism which is either a desire for the utopia described above, a desire for a return to primitive tribalism or some confused muddled mix of the two.

The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism evolved into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. Perhaps in the future republics will be consumed by world government, world government will advance into decentralized government, and decentralized government will finally mature into the optimum of no government at all.

My theory is that not all freedoms are important, because if you have too many of them it becomes chaos.

So some sort of heavily restrained, and population controlled government would not be a bad idea.


For example I could care less about my freedom to build a tank, or my freedom to build a nuke.

I also dont want my freedom of throwing a piece of trash on the ground. And I`m sure many of you guys agree with this.


The most important freedoms for humans are the following: freedom to private property (with the above limitations), freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of self defense.

Thats about it all, anything else is non-important. And even the above have to be clearly defined, I mean I cannot keep slaves, and then say that you cannot free the slaves because they are my private property.

So obviously these things have to be definited strictly, and with proper limitations.

[CoinCube]

....However, such a world offers little if it does not also limit coercion and defection.

 
 
And with this, you just became my newest favorite account to read. 

Thank you I am humbled.

I like to think of this thread and the forum in general as a modern version of the 17th century English coffehouse. A place where we all learn from each other and discuss the news of the day.

[rpietila]

For example I could care less about my freedom to build a tank, or my freedom to build a nuke.

I also dont want my freedom of throwing a piece of trash on the ground. And I`m sure many of you guys agree with this.

If someone limits your freedom to build a nuke (with the assumption that it is the only worrying thing you are doing), then he is overstepping. The problem is that if only the ones have nukes who have successfully denied having them to others, these guys can use this power to demand tribute, mass murder, and crush all the freedoms everywhere (yes: US Military).

I don't really wish a the world where the most unstable individuals have access to nukes (like they have to guns in the US and the result is more violence and crime, and still government is not adequately contained). But the current situation that only the bullies have access to nukes and for everyone else it is a crime as defined by the banksters and their puppet governments, this is laughable (if it wasn't sad) as well.

Of course you don't have "your freedom" to litter others' property, who made you think you had? Your mother? School?

Theory update: Positive freedoms ("rights") are almost universally bad. It is difficult to give anyone a right without imposing the costs of this right to diminished freedom of others. I list rights in order of intrusiveness to (negative) freedoms (power to do what you want with what you have rightfully obtained):

Right to live a normal life if eg. disabled
Right to be kept alive in same situation
-----------------------------------------------
Right to live in the forest in someone's property with no clear damage
-----------------------------------------------
Right to walk on the street
Right to breath the air.

Without further explanation now (I don't even know if going back to highschool basics interests anyone), the rightful extent of rights (which does not infringe the negative (good) freedoms, goes to one of the dotted lines.

[RealBitcoin]

If someone limits your freedom to build a nuke (with the assumption that it is the only worrying thing you are doing), then he is overstepping. The problem is that if only the ones have nukes who have successfully denied having them to others, these guys can use this power to demand tribute, mass murder, and crush all the freedoms everywhere (yes: US Military).

I don't really wish a the world where the most unstable individuals have access to nukes (like they have to guns in the US and the result is more violence and crime, and still government is not adequately contained). But the current situation that only the bullies have access to nukes and for everyone else it is a crime as defined by the banksters and their puppet governments, this is laughable (if it wasn't sad) as well.

Of course you don't have "your freedom" to litter others' property, who made you think you had? Your mother? School?

Theory update: Positive freedoms ("rights") are almost universally bad. It is difficult to give anyone a right without imposing the costs of this right to diminished freedom of others. I list rights in order of intrusiveness to (negative) freedoms (power to do what you want with what you have rightfully obtained):

Right to live a normal life if eg. disabled
Right to be kept alive in same situation
-----------------------------------------------
Right to live in the forest in someone's property with no clear damage
-----------------------------------------------
Right to walk on the street
Right to breath the air.

Without further explanation now (I don't even know if going back to highschool basics interests anyone), the rightful extent of rights (which does not infringe the negative (good) freedoms, goes to one of the dotted lines.

Ok but these freedoms are so broad that its impossible to universalize them.

The rapist and the serial killer also wants his right to do these things. And by stopping them from doing so you are interfering in their right.

Ok that is a clear example, if we overrule specific rights with morality, but what about this:

By breating air, you are violating the right of 10000000000x other bacteria and living creatures to breath that air, and many of them will die, because you breath it from them.

So it's really hard to define and universalize these rights.



If you setup 1 rule, that nobody ever is allowed to be raped. But what if by letting somebody raped you prevent 100000x people from being murdered?

So you see, these things are too broad and undefinable.


So we need a clear rule-set, that is not just brute force, because that will effectively destroy civilization. But also a set of laws that use morality, and common sense in a balanced mixture.


The current laws are too irrational, and mostly made from sensationalism or from emotions, the lack the common sense part, and most of them are old anyways. They are based on 300-400 year old law books.

[macsga]

So we need a clear rule-set, that is not just brute force, because that will effectively destroy civilization. But also a set of laws that use morality, and common sense in a balanced mixture.

May I propose that those two are rarities within the world we're living. I'd say (without being fully wrong) that the majority of the people are incapable of thinking via the so called "common sense". I don't want to mention "moral" because morality is based on one's personal preference, the way of thinking, the way he's/she's raised, educated, etc.

You know, sometimes asking for the obvious is the most difficult part of all...

[RealBitcoin]

So we need a clear rule-set, that is not just brute force, because that will effectively destroy civilization. But also a set of laws that use morality, and common sense in a balanced mixture.

May I propose that those two are rarities within the world we're living. I'd say (without being fully wrong) that the majority of the people are incapable of thinking via the so called "common sense". I don't want to mention "moral" because morality is based on one's personal preference, the way of thinking, the way he's/she's raised, educated, etc.

You know, sometimes asking for the obvious is the most difficult part of all...

Well there are 4 main rules to morality.

1) Dont aggress against private property
2) Dont aggress against a person
3) Don't murder
4) Don't rape

These are the 4 main rules, and from this we can expand. But even these need to be carefully defined not to fall into the traps mentioned above.

If these 4 rules are respected then, you have nothing to worry about in a society.

[macsga]

So we need a clear rule-set, that is not just brute force, because that will effectively destroy civilization. But also a set of laws that use morality, and common sense in a balanced mixture.

May I propose that those two are rarities within the world we're living. I'd say (without being fully wrong) that the majority of the people are incapable of thinking via the so called "common sense". I don't want to mention "moral" because morality is based on one's personal preference, the way of thinking, the way he's/she's raised, educated, etc.

You know, sometimes asking for the obvious is the most difficult part of all...

Well there are 4 main rules to morality.

1) Dont aggress against private property
2) Dont aggress against a person
3) Don't murder
4) Don't rape

These are the 4 main rules, and from this we can expand. But even these need to be carefully defined not to fall into the traps mentioned above.

If these 4 rules are respected then, you have nothing to worry about in a society.

I don't mean to be a contrarian here, but there's fundamental difference between the definition of "property" in a society like ours and (let's say) a tribe in Amazonian Jungle. Property there has a vague definition and the land is collectively considered to be "everybody's". Also, aggression there is a prerequisite in order to find food to feed your children, so it's a noble thing among what is considered "family".

That's why I specifically noted that morality is based on one's personal preference, the way of thinking, the way he's/she's raised, educated, etc.

On a modern society rules 1/2/3/4 are being punished and enforced by the police. Don't we need enforcement?

[rpietila]

1) Dont aggress against private property
2) Dont aggress against a person

Only 2 rules are needed, 3&4 obviously included in 2.

Private property cannot be held in allodium, making it easy to justify that my watch is mine, but hard to justify that all the lands of the Duchess of Alba who does not use them, and has received them because the King of Navarra killed the previous owners in the 1500s, are hers.

If we uphold that allodial title belongs to the government, there we go and nobody's property is any more free than it has been. If we uphold that "by my shotgun I am sovereign in my land" it is problematic either.

And the native tribes who held land as part of Mother Nature are anyway slaughtered and land taken away. That system of society works fine until others have a different system with more guns.

Nobody may ever be raped (rape is defined as done without permission). The whole notion "that 1000000 would be saved" is ridiculous and further decreases my evaluation about the level of your thinking. This "greater good" thing belongs wholly to the domain of collectivism, and not here. The basic thing to understand in liberty talk is that freedoms/liberties/rights, if they exist, they are uninfringeable. It is the definition.

What (you) collectivists also lose when you start to force people is individual responsibility. Surely if in a practical example million people will be slaughtered unless one is raped, someone will sacrifice himself. If not, the whole bunch is either not fitting to live based on lack of sacrifice, or is glorious martyrs based on stauch determination to not give in. They decide.

Are you from Europe?

[macsga]

I know this is not the proper thread but I can't help but think that somehow this guy reads us, as much as we read him! 

How to Create A Fairer System

QUESTION: Mr Armstrong,

I am an avid fan of your site and thoroughly enjoy your posts.
As much as I am against tax, would you not agree it’s rather sick that a company the size of Facebook paid out less tax than I did last year?

[...]

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38438

[CoinCube]

Imo that's down to whatever society/community etc. you're a part of, if you and yours want law and order and you're the dominant part of the community then those that don't are pushed out and vis versa. The idea that we can have an entire world of peace and harmony is preposterous and the changes that would be needed to achieve it are terrifying, there will always be differences and resolving them starts from the bottom up, the individual to the family to the community to the natural borders and beyond.

World of peace and harmony is not in the cards anytime soon if ever. However, fundamentals may actually get us there someday as peace and harmony is a more economically efficient state.

The evolution of the social contract appears to be a progressive climb to higher potential energy systems with increased degrees of freedom. The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism advanced into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. I suspect that in the future republics will be consumed by world government, world government will evolve into decentralized government, and decentralized government will finally mature into a shared consensus among individuals with limited or no government.

Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. To borrow from the links in the opening post each iteration increases the amount of entropy the system can sustainably support.

This is not to say we cannot revert to a lower energy state. A world war could set us back to tribalism or worse. Even in that event, however, the survivors would simply start the slow climb all over again. Progress is always a terrifying proposition. As the old saying goes the higher you climb the harder you fall.

[RealBitcoin]

I don't mean to be a contrarian here, but there's fundamental difference between the definition of "property" in a society like ours and (let's say) a tribe in Amazonian Jungle. Property there has a vague definition and the land is collectively considered to be "everybody's". Also, aggression there is a prerequisite in order to find food to feed your children, so it's a noble thing among what is considered "family".

That's why I specifically noted that morality is based on one's personal preference, the way of thinking, the way he's/she's raised, educated, etc.

On a modern society rules 1/2/3/4 are being punished and enforced by the police. Don't we need enforcement?

The problem with the Amazonian tribe's "common land" idea is, that since it's not defined, it's ruled by agression.

If 1 tribesman decides to build a hunting post at one place, but another one wants a hut to be built there, then the only way to settle their differences is to fight, sometimes even till death.

It is one way of settling the issues, but it is not good for a 21 century enlightened human.

_____________

We need a civilized way to settle the issues, and for that you need clearly defined rules, otherwise you still end up with courts and judges that will just decide from their own authority.

If the law doesnt specify one thing then the judge will just decide from his own point of view what he likes the most, and then we fall into the trap of authoritarianism too.

For something to be civilized, the rules has to be so clear that you wont even need a court to rule something out, a computer AI would be enough.

____________

We will need some form of enforcement, but it has to be more mental, rather than agressive. The rewards and risks has to be balanced in that way that only in the worst case scenario the use of force is justified, in any other case, some other form of punishment is needed.

[rpietila]

I believe there is no other way to hold physical property but in allodium. Because there will always be a thug that is stronger and faster, that can just steal it, or gang upon it.

On reread, my own text was difficult to understand. Thought goes like this: "Governments deny anyone the option to have land in allodium, and misuse their own allodial ownership. It would be cool to skip the governments, although this would lead to the state where neighbors could actually have wars over land, the same way as governments fight each other."

So the allodium, which I kind of idealize, allows the problems you describe. In both systems, 1)land owned by government and you have fee simple or other title (current one, although exact legalese varies), and 2)allodial ownership by the user tribe of the land, eternal vigilance is required. This is not a place where people may live at peace, not for now. Those wanting peace need to be prepared for war. Those believing to have found peace on Earth will lose it, and will be robbed of everything else they have as well.

In my example, a 2% transaction tax is really enough to enforce the property rights, but there has to be some clear rules on what the owners can do on it and what not.

If you buy up all the land around the river, and deliberately you dont build a bridge just to fuck with people, then it's obvious that some land should be taken from you to build a bridge there. So there is "intention" and "motivation" too, so I think the allodial system is not that bad.

If you buy up all agricultural land, and then export all grain, but deliberately starve your country, it is easy to see where this will lead.

So property confiscation is really bad, but in worst case scenarios, it is needed, but if you get compensated the value of the land after, then it's a no big deal.

Although with the same logic (showing negative actual or imaginary examples are demanding action by a "superior") all governments should be stripped of all the power instantly since they commit the greatest errors. Corporations, tribes, families and individuals also commit errors, so they should not be able to decide on anything. But remember, the governments, banks, and global governance are liable to even larger errors and they should not be given the slightest power in this utopia.

^^Above I am describing how the individualist/family centred worldview comes into existence. Recognizing that you know best your own things and not those of the others, and taking it to the logical and optimal end.

I`m not a collectivist, but I was thinking recently about balancing individualism with common problems. And it can be done from bottom-up too.

I also make daily decisions to solve common problems, and spend all my time and money on solving them. This does not mean I welcome any interference to my job by any collective "who knows better" because if they did, they would already be so busy working on it with their very own resources that they would not have time to harass me with their non-voluntary proposals.

And even though you are right that 1's moral behaviour can change if an opposite one with more guns comes along, yet, humans in general have a pretty much common understanding of morality, but they only project it on their tribe.

Now this can be changed if some fanatics come along and brainwash them, but it has been fairly consistent amongst humans since the beginning

The problem with your though is that you talk about 1 group's morality being overthrown by another one with more guns.

But that is the exact characteristics of tribalism

People mostly care about others, but only in their tribe (or circle), if we eliminate tribalism, then they will care for all, the same way as they previously cared for their tribe.

Not only me but you also need to practice clear writing. This passage sounds to me as: "Humans have a common conscience, which is applied towards the members of their tribe. This can be attempted to change only by fanatics, and I, RealBitcoin, am such a fanatic by my wishes and attempts to "eliminate tribalism", which is the societal equivalent to what 'being required to give money to anyone upon request instead of members of the tribe only', is economically.

I have never used guns to convert other people's morality, nor would I be willing to convert myself. So it is not correct to call it "my" problem. I understand it is a common problem, though.

The banksters know that "eliminating tribalism" is impossible. Their forced mixing of races by the manufactured refugee problems does not serve to increase tolerance (which never was a problem in the first place - people all over respected theirs and others' right to be left alone. Tolerance becomes an issue when people are 1)forced to 2)change their culture and 3)pay for it, to 4)accommodate strangers. This is no difference to military occupation.) The real intention is to cause strife and internal conflict and make previously strong tribes more easily manageable.

[RealBitcoin]

It is but only by turning us into generic mindless clones, we've gone a fair way down that route already but it has diminishing returns and getting it the point where we could all peacefully co-exist under a single world system would take a long, long time. We think we're a species above other creatures but we're still animals inside and things like the natural splitting of herds are burned into our bios so unless someone comes up with a way of re-flashing that part of us we'll always work that way.

The elite are already experimenting with genetic-engineering, so that might not be as far as you think.

I dont think it will be that bad, and it will achieve our ultimate goal. If we eliminate the tribalist narrowminded genes and start our cooperative openminded genes it will be literally heaven on earth.

The 2 problems with humans today are:  they are too stupid, they are too too evil, or both.

If you solve those 2 problems, then all other problems are solved.

[RealBitcoin]

Still things that are burned in though and imo if science was to find a way of forcing them out of us we'd lose the ability to evolve after a few generations. I'm not saying we can't all co-exist in a far more peaceful state than we do now btw, just that we cant all live by a single set of universal rules. Brehon law worked for hundreds of years by allowing for that, a few rules that everyone agreed on, regional rules that varied, local rules that varied way more, folks could live around each other peacefully with higher judgement there if they needed it and when they moved around they respected the laws of the locality far more. Thinking we can draw a line on a map and say everyone inside that line lives this way is stupid but it's required for centralised authority.

But their flexible system was their doom eventually (since the outside invaders had the same internal system that was better and overruled them eventually).

If you unite all people on earth, there will be no outsiders to worry about. (unless some aliens come, but I doubt that's likely)

If you let everybody wander around then they will form gangs, tribes, kingdoms, and the wars and genocides start again.

You can choose for a 200-300 year periodic revolutions, or you can end the violence once and for all by removing the "animal" part from humans.