Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 11:00:02 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Governments will want their TAX ??? The solution is obvious but scary.  (Read 14662 times)
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 10:47:31 PM
 #101

Order without orders, is a natural event. Like water seeking level ground at the lowest possible point.

Exactly. I think you're beginning to get it. If every member of a society follows this one rule:

Quote
You are not allowed to initiate the use of force, threats of force, or fraud against another person, nor is anyone you delegate.

Then an ordered society naturally flows from that.

I get the Idealism, I don't get the Realism.

If everyone ?   If everyone lost all greed it would be better too. But if 1 person doesn't follow those rules, the whole thing fails.

And applying this to Humans, is contradictory in our nature. You know we are from a predatory branch. When we need to eat and we see some easy to get things, we go get them. Threats of force and/or fear of force being applied is why there is peace within our predatory system. Communes didn't work out so well, because resources are not abundant and/or free.

However, if everyone had but to ask for or just wish for food and water to receive it at no cost, we could build the society that so many want. It will have to start with the Food and Water.

Because when all is striped away, there are 3 things we must do in order to continue: Eat, Sleep, Propagate. 

The Sleeping is Free. Eating is not, Sex (well that depends on your point of view).

So in order to build the Peaceful No Force Society, we need Free Sleep (check), Free Food (nope), Free Sex (sometimes).

Just easy to acquire food would be a start. But with 5 billion people in the world, decreasing Oil supplies, rising costs, Nah, I hear the Drum Beats in the Distance.  Sorry,  anything but peace is coming.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
1481367602
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481367602

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481367602
Reply with quote  #2

1481367602
Report to moderator
Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481367602
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481367602

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481367602
Reply with quote  #2

1481367602
Report to moderator
error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 11:07:10 PM
 #102

Nobody said "no force". So I'm not quoting your wall because it's irrelevant.

15UFyv6kfWgq83Pp3yhXPr8rknv9m6581W
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 11:07:52 PM
 #103

I get the Idealism, I don't get the Realism.

On the contrary, when someone breaks that rule, there are other means available to fix it... Check out the comic I linked on the last page. The "bad guys" in there tried to strand two asteroid miners out in the belt. That's decidedly not nice. The miners would have been perfectly within their rights to space the bastards and let THEM drift. They didn't, so we get to see what a criminal proceeding looks like in a free society.

I think everyone would agree that it's better if we work together, right? Hell, even game theory backs me up: Even if only one person can win, it's in your best interest to help the other contestants, because if you do, they'll help you.

You'll note also that the "rule" I quoted uses the word "initiate". That means it's not OK to start a fight, but it's plenty fine to finish one. So it's not like I'm advocating pacifism here. Frankly, for the system to work, and for Order to flow naturally from that one rule, only most people need to follow it. As long as the peaceful people outnumber the bullies, all is well.

You don't need free food, or free sex, even for that matter, to have peace. You simply have to have people willing to agree to trade something of value (Say, a bitcoin) for something of lesser value (to them, anyway), like an apple (or an hour in bed, as the case may be).

However, I do agree that without drastic change, by which I mean the discarding of old, worn, and harmful traditions, we may yet spiral back down to a new dark ages. But there are those, and I count myself among them, who bear the torch of Liberty still, and so I still hope for a better future.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 11:14:44 PM
 #104

Frankly, for the system to work, and for Order to flow naturally from that one rule, only most people need to follow it. As long as the peaceful people outnumber the bullies, all is well.

I think the really interesting thing about this statement is that it is exactly the same for statism. If, in a statist society, the bullies outnumber the peaceful, then we will almost definitely get bullies running things.

As it is, my opinion is that the peaceful outnumber the bullies, but they are convinced that they must put bullies in charge, or else all of those other peaceful people will turn against them.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 11:26:00 PM
 #105

Beg your pardon you did say "initiate".

So be prepared, because others "might" use force. Then I guess it comes down to who practices the most and who is better.

Agreed on the part when we help each other.

Food is our prime motivator. When it is plentiful, we come up with grandiose plans. When it is scarce, all bets off.

Take the most peaceful group you can think of, even the ones helping each other. At first the larger group would break down into smaller groups of people helping each other for food. And again, and again, until there is only enough food for One. Then it is Survival of the Fittest.

Abstract Thought is just a one tool in survival of the fittest. It sometimes leads people to dream. Nature cares not of our dreams, it will go on its course with or without us.

This can be tested very easily.

Hate to say, there should never have been 5 Billion Humans on the planet. The Balance is out, it will be corrected, weather we like it or not. The Groups and Sub-Groups are already forming. Rates of individual food growth is going up. Sadly, many have forgot or looked down on those skills. Farming was never a profession, it was the basis for all life on the planet.

gtg

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 11:33:36 PM
 #106

What if central planning is inefficient?

What if a free society could produce more food at less cost (of time and resources)?

What if a free society could also produce the food that people want to eat, as opposed to that which is subsidized by the government?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 11:51:00 PM
 #107

As it is, my opinion is that the peaceful outnumber the bullies, but they are convinced that they must put bullies in charge, or else all of those other peaceful people will turn against them.

My view of the matter is that a statist society offers a position of power for the bullies to seek, and the hierarchy that will support him when he usurps that position of power. The clearest example of this is a Kingdom: Should someone topple the king and take his place, especially if he can do it through subterfuge, but conquering by the sword was not uncommon, he has, already in place, everything he needs to subjugate the populace. A democracy is not much better... It just switches birth or sword ability for who can lie the best.

The problem is the power structure itself. Take that down, there's nothing to take over. Combined with a population not conditioned to accept whoever happens to be in a position of power as a rightful authority, and you get the political equivalent of the Bitcoin network: It's easier and more profitable to play nice than it is to try and take over the system.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 05, 2011, 12:49:15 AM
 #108

What if central planning is inefficient?

What if a free society could produce more food at less cost (of time and resources)?

What if a free society could also produce the food that people want to eat, as opposed to that which is subsidized by the government?

The problem is central planning became to good, and replaced a loose networked system of producers. The network of small systems inter-related provided a stable system that was not easily broken. A section could be hurt, but the others could just re-route around the problem.  Centralization, was a mistake, even though it was more efficient. We needed to balance efficiency with stability.

Producing more food is 1 part, delivering it is the other. This is why geography matters. We have passed Hubbert's Peak Oil, the cost of goods being delivered will only go up. To a point to no deliveries. Prior to Oil, most people lived within 50 miles of vital resources. Las Vegas is done, as many others places. Then it comes down to "adaptive space", it will shrink an put pressures on the others.

The government subsidizing food is a moot point, it in effect is others giving and sharing. It a collapsed society or one in distress those who rely on the government will starve. (i.e. Katrina and New Orleans, many other examples exist) So it is not what the government can do, but what the individual can do. Can you produce what it take to live? The answer to that for most Americans is: No   If however you can, you are positioned well in the order. For others will do for you, for what you can do for them.  They need your food and clothing, you don't need their Xbox.

Problem is, that most people know farming is hard work and don't want to do it.  Even less people will want to do it, with out Oil.

Do I believe it is possible to achieve the "perfect" society?  Yea, I don't think others will think it is so perfect because of all the hard work. People won't have Wars, commit serious crimes, etc... because they won't have time to and be to tired at the end of the day.

But the Star Trek, perfect reality, not until we get one of those Food Materializers that rearranges molecules. Guess what would be the most important job then. The Farmer would become the Food Materializer Repair Man.  Grin

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2011, 01:25:16 AM
 #109

The government subsidizing food is a moot point, it in effect is others giving and sharing.

More like people getting mugged for their sandwich, after which a bite (or 12) is taken out, and what's left is passed on to whoever needs it.

Central planning has never been good. Ever.

What happened is, a free market allowed the more efficient companies to grow to their optimal size, at which point they bought I'm sorry, supported, enough politicians to ensure that they could grow beyond optimal size, without worrying about competitors.

God, I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 05, 2011, 01:41:26 AM
 #110

Quote
What happened is, a free market allowed the more efficient companies to grow to their optimal size, at which point they bought I'm sorry, supported, enough politicians to ensure that they could grow beyond optimal size, without worrying about competitors.


Agreed.  Grin

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
river
Guest

March 18, 2011, 03:10:00 AM
 #111

Taxes are only CONTRACT LAW.

DO NOT SIGN a contract ... then you do not have to pay taxes.   Since Taxes are an ACT .. NOT A LAW ...
ACTS only have to power of law upon CONSENT of the citizen ... so ...

unless you create(d) a "LEGAL" business by signing a GOVERNMENT CONTRACT to apply for a business license
OR
you get a "job" and sign the employment CONTRACT for that job .. you are NOT required to pay tax.

It's all a lie.

They can't even arrest you for tax evasion because they themselves illegally signed all these corrupt laws ..

(did you know that makes ALL OF THEM national criminal traitors) .. and by any "common law rule" nation on earth (Canada, U.S. ... LOTS OF others) .. there is only ONE Lawfully permitted "sentence" for said crimes .... guess what that is!

But .. they do have guns .. and brutal, pain thirsty, threatening, tazing, murdering, Nazis forces (you call them cops and military) ... so hide what you have .. just in case.
TheKoziTwo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1479



View Profile
March 18, 2011, 06:55:26 PM
 #112

Quote
They can't even arrest you for tax evasion because they themselves illegally signed all these corrupt laws ..
Ed Brown refused to pay his taxes using a similar argument. 37 years prison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dITKfUJKkl8

Anonymous
Guest

March 19, 2011, 02:21:43 AM
 #113

I find it hilarious that the same people advocating peak oil are the same ones saying there will be global warming. If theres no oil there will be no global warming . Shouldnt we use all the oil to save humanity from global warming then  Huh


Oh I forgot the science is in.....
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
March 19, 2011, 03:52:00 AM
 #114

I find it hilarious that the same people advocating peak oil are the same ones saying there will be global warming. If theres no oil there will be no global warming . Shouldnt we use all the oil to save humanity from global warming then  Huh


Oh I forgot the science is in.....

Either I'm not understanding what you're saying, or you don't understand peak oil or global warming.

We humans have been discovering new oil and consuming it at an increasing rate. There is a finite amount of oil to discover and consume. At some point, our increasing rate of consumption will have to stop. That point is peak oil, and there is a possibility that it has already past. Which means it's only a matter of time before the oil economy comes crashing down around us. Should we prepare for it, or just ignore the possibility?

If the theory of anthropogenic global warming is correct, then our increasing industrialization, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is having an impact on the planet's climate. Fossil fuels are not a problem when in their original form, as they are effectively huge sinks of sequestered carbon. When these fuels are burnt, that stored carbon is released into the atmosphere and, according to AGW, alters the climate.

Keep in mind, according to the theory of AGW, we don't have to solve the problem to "save the planet", we have to solve the problem to save humanity. Even if we cause 99% of all life to become extinct, within a couple of million years nobody would ever notice we had ever been here.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506


View Profile
March 19, 2011, 04:57:03 AM
 #115

At some point, our increasing rate of consumption will have to stop.

[...]

When these fuels are burnt, that stored carbon is released into the atmosphere and, according to AGW, alters the climate.

These two problems will solve themselves. As oil prices rise, the incentive to use alternative methods will increase. Less oil will be burned due to higher prices, and the impact that oil has on global warming will be greatly reduced.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
March 19, 2011, 05:03:19 AM
 #116

These two problems will solve themselves. As oil prices rise, the incentive to use alternative methods will increase. Less oil will be burned due to higher prices, and the impact that oil has on global warming will be greatly reduced.

I think part of the worry is that too much damage has been done, and the other (of mine, anyway) is that states will fight to keep energy prices cheap until the day they die, causing a prolonging of the damage.

By no means do I support anything other than market solutions to the potential problem of AGW. However, states have a perverse incentive to keep their citizens fat and happy, even if that means an even harder crash down the line.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506


View Profile
March 19, 2011, 05:44:46 AM
 #117

State interference in the energy market will cause major problems, to be sure. It can't last forever, though. Eventually the market has to win. Maybe if the crash comes hard, people will wise up to the uselessness of governments (though I doubt it).

I haven't seen any data that causes me to be even remotely worried about "doomsday-class" climate change. From what I've seen, the worst-case scenario is a significant reduction in the amount of land suitable for farming. This will have a terrible effect on the economy, but we'll recover from it eventually.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 22, 2011, 05:00:34 PM
 #118

I am glad to see people seeing the Hubbert's Peak Oil problem, finally. I have been trying to get people to see it since 2008.

We have reached Peak Oil, the key to the whole formula is Energy In : Energy Out ratio and not the increase/decrease in supply and demand.

Yea as oil goes up the demand goes down, and up and down, etc... This shows where you are: on the down slope of the graph which can go on for awhile with the poor countries initially getting hurt, then countries that rely on imports of Necessity Goods (Food, etc..), and then finally countries that rely on internal transportation (significant parts of the U.S.) Bye, Bye Las Vegas.

The reality is the earth will not run out of oil because we will stop drilling for it due to costs. Currently the 2/3rds of the Oil Recovered has an EI:EO ratio greater than 1. It costs more in energy to get than we get from it.

Think of it as AP:AR (accounts payable:accounts receivable) We (the world) are throwing money down a hole that we will never get back. But we have to because we didn't prepare for it. The nothing will prevent the change without a significant scientific find in energy that can be used to fuel vehicles. Hydrogen's ratio for generation is greater than 1, but if we could find a way of getting it below 1 it would solve the energy crisis.

Best thing to do is prepare, live within 50 miles of suppliers of necessity products (food, wood, water, etc ) The 50 miles was the average distance anyone would travel prior to Oil. Buy a horse and hay.

The old times will be new again.

BTW: Political unrest has a lot less to do with politics and more to do with food costs. Anyone want to guess where food costs have the most affect. Yep, it is the Middle East. When people can't afford to eat, they fight.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 22, 2011, 05:01:47 PM
 #119

Go nuclear.

fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440


View Profile
March 28, 2011, 03:52:14 PM
 #120

I read once, or saw in a documentary (sorry, can't remember where), that there is presently about 60 years of nuclear fuel left in the world - for currently existing conventional nuclear power stations.  If all electricity generation were to be done by nuclear, then all that fuel would last only 3 years.

So going nuclear, with a startup time of at least 20 years, is not really an option.  Some newer technologies might come online though, e.g. fuel reprocessing etc.

Go nuclear.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!