Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 10:23:15 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: George ought to help.... (should we use violence on him if he chooses not to?)  (Read 4291 times)
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 27, 2012, 09:12:59 PM
 #21

...snip...

I guess what I am saying is that interpersonal interactions are most fundamental. Person-society, society-person, society-society interactions are an abstraction of person-person.

...snip...

There is no person-person equivalent of taxing a granny who lives in the mountains to pay for the coast guard.  Person-person generally is voluntary and transaction based.

Here is where I think you are going off track. Generally, you could say person-person interaction is voluntary, sure. There are also times when one person forces the other to do something. Like if the coast guard sent a guy with a gun to the granny in the mountain and told her to pay up or else.

Quote
States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

I agree, this is why the activities of the state are not modeled very well by voluntary transactions between two people.

So we are in agreement.  And that's why the video about George fails.  It tries to apply the logic of 2 people in a transaction to taxation and of course it doesn't work.

1480846995
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480846995

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480846995
Reply with quote  #2

1480846995
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480846995
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480846995

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480846995
Reply with quote  #2

1480846995
Report to moderator
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
January 27, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
 #22

I'm not sure why you call that a failure when I see it as the point. I will watch the video again later on. Can you explain what you think is the source of a state's legitimacy?
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 27, 2012, 10:19:20 PM
 #23

I'm not sure why you call that a failure when I see it as the point. I will watch the video again later on. Can you explain what you think is the source of a state's legitimacy?

Tough call.  Myself and a friend used argue about it.  He said the state is like a football game where we all know the rules because otherwise you won't have a common enterprise.  I said that states evolved from bandit fiefdoms where people paid one warlord for protection rather than pay every fool with a spear who comes along.  

No doubt there are better theories.  

bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 03:06:09 AM
 #24

Quote
States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

I agree, this is why the activities of the state are not modeled very well by voluntary transactions between two people.

So we are in agreement.  And that's why the video about George fails.  It tries to apply the logic of 2 people in a transaction to taxation and of course it doesn't work.

If George gives money to Oliver due to your personal threat of violence would you consider it a voluntary transaction? If so, please define "voluntary" and "transaction" further because I do not understand. If not, what would you consider such a transaction?
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 03:08:58 AM
 #25

Quote
States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

On rereading this I don't agree with the second point. If not transaction based, what is the basis? I suppose this depends on the definition of transaction.
Iyeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 189


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 04:44:17 AM
 #26

I think george shouldn't pay anything.

BTC: 1aombYbEyggW4uKuX2VgYBjPMu8yxcYCX
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 04:58:27 AM
 #27

I think george shouldn't pay anything.

What if he wants to?
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 07:48:34 AM
 #28

It asks if violence is moral.  The seems to be the tougher question.

It asks if aggression is moral.  This seems to be the tougher question.

ftfy
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 28, 2012, 08:39:51 AM
 #29

Quote
States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

On rereading this I don't agree with the second point. If not transaction based, what is the basis? I suppose this depends on the definition of transaction.

Good question.  Paying taxes and obeying laws are not transaction based activities but they are at the core of every society.

Perhaps the basis is duty?  Historically people felt a sense of duty to their tribe and would pay taxes and go and die in battle for the tribe.  It still works that way across the developing world.

Modern states seem to have stepped into the old tribe slot.  People feel a duty to support their country with taxes and they take pride in their sons going off and being killed in conflicts that have no benefit to them or their families.

Personally I think there is a "well there is no alternative" to why modern states work.  If you want to live in a society with schools, roads, army and all the benefits of modern medicine, there are no alternatives to living in a state that charges taxes to support itself. 

interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 10:56:15 AM
 #30

Quote
States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

On rereading this I don't agree with the second point. If not transaction based, what is the basis? I suppose this depends on the definition of transaction.

Good question.  Paying taxes and obeying laws are not transaction based activities but they are at the core of every society.

Perhaps the basis is duty?  Historically people felt a sense of duty to their tribe and would pay taxes and go and die in battle for the tribe.  It still works that way across the developing world.

Modern states seem to have stepped into the old tribe slot.  People feel a duty to support their country with taxes and they take pride in their sons going off and being killed in conflicts that have no benefit to them or their families.

Personally I think there is a "well there is no alternative" to why modern states work.  If you want to live in a society with schools, roads, army and all the benefits of modern medicine, there are no alternatives to living in a state that charges taxes to support itself. 

If we apply this to bitcoin community, basically everybody is equal in relation to the network, network becomes the objective and just "state" so to speak. So if enough people on the network agree that they need a school they can set up a fund to donate to it and then elect a few people to build the school and hire teachers. If another group decides that they need a new road they would do the same. Note that only people who really need the school or the road would donate, not everybody. Some people would set up a fund to hire some armed guys for their protection and so on.

So basically if the services that the state provides are so useful and so needed to the society, then the state should be able to earn money from the network the same way other people do, by providing services and doing some work. The difference from what it is now is that it's going to be voluntary and more transparent.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 28, 2012, 12:54:06 PM
 #31

...snip...

If we apply this to bitcoin community, basically everybody is equal in relation to the network, network becomes the objective and just "state" so to speak. So if enough people on the network agree that they need a school they can set up a fund to donate to it and then elect a few people to build the school and hire teachers. If another group decides that they need a new road they would do the same. Note that only people who really need the school or the road would donate, not everybody. Some people would set up a fund to hire some armed guys for their protection and so on.

So basically if the services that the state provides are so useful and so needed to the society, then the state should be able to earn money from the network the same way other people do, by providing services and doing some work. The difference from what it is now is that it's going to be voluntary and more transparent.


That is not how a state works.  Thats more like how a market works and even then would be messy.

herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 03:24:24 PM
 #32

One word: Social Contract

George essentially is in a contract with society to help out.

That he didn't have much choice in signing up or not, and that it is very difficult, if not impossible to cancel the contract by emigrating, are other questions.

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 28, 2012, 03:42:33 PM
 #33

One word: Social Contract

George essentially is in a contract with society to help out.

That he didn't have much choice in signing up or not, and that it is very difficult, if not impossible to cancel the contract by emigrating, are other questions.

Social contract seems to be a convenient fiction.  There is not even copy of the contract in existence let alone any evidence that anyone anywhere ever agreed to it :S

I prefer to see society as being based on authority.  In modern societies, democracy is a way to stop the masses rebelling.  A sensible argument for progressive taxation is that if you grind the middle class and the poor down too far, they will rebel.  George may feel that he is entitled to keep his money but if the authorities don't support hi, then George will have to pay up.

interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
January 29, 2012, 01:05:15 AM
 #34

One word: Social Contract

George essentially is in a contract with society to help out.

That he didn't have much choice in signing up or not, and that it is very difficult, if not impossible to cancel the contract by emigrating, are other questions.

Social contract seems to be a convenient fiction.  There is not even copy of the contract in existence let alone any evidence that anyone anywhere ever agreed to it :S

I prefer to see society as being based on authority.  In modern societies, democracy is a way to stop the masses rebelling.  A sensible argument for progressive taxation is that if you grind the middle class and the poor down too far, they will rebel.  George may feel that he is entitled to keep his money but if the authorities don't support hi, then George will have to pay up.

I believe authority-based societies are a thing of the past (or soon will be). It creates this feeling of separation: there are "them" and "us". And as separation grows this division becomes more evident, "they" try to become a master race turning "us" into slaves. This is the end game in every authority-based society no matter how good it starts. Everyone should become their own authority. Why should some people born on the same planet tell other people what to do? F@#k "them"!

In bitcoin society everyone is equal in front of the network. All conflicts of interest should be resolved the same way as conflicts in the blockchain are resolved! Yes by voting with your computer power. End of story.
ineededausername
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


bitcoin hundred-aire


View Profile
January 29, 2012, 01:28:07 AM
 #35

Please take a look at the following youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs


I think this is one of the most powerful videos on taxation that I have ever seen.
If you like this video,  please support the creator by making a Bitcoin donation on his website:

http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com/
His Bitcoin address is 1LqYpj6MNppH8yiKBWXDH2mkSLiMYwQMx6

If you don't like this video,  I would be curious to hear why.

I like the message, but the monotone voice and corny animations ruined it for me.  xD

(BFL)^2 < 0
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
January 29, 2012, 03:26:02 AM
 #36

Social contract, no record of it, and you (supposedly) agree when you are what 0 years old? Also, the main way to learn about it is from internet posters.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 29, 2012, 08:41:47 AM
 #37

...snip...

I believe authority-based societies are a thing of the past (or soon will be). It creates this feeling of separation: there are "them" and "us". And as separation grows this division becomes more evident, "they" try to become a master race turning "us" into slaves. This is the end game in every authority-based society no matter how good it starts. Everyone should become their own authority. Why should some people born on the same planet tell other people what to do? F@#k "them"!

In bitcoin society everyone is equal in front of the network. All conflicts of interest should be resolved the same way as conflicts in the blockchain are resolved! Yes by voting with your computer power. End of story.

The "them" and "us" thing does not affect the basis of society.  The Occupy crowd all accept that the state is legitimate as do the Tea Party.  "them" and "us" is a debate about redistribution.  What percentage of people does society have to carry in order to avoid disruption?

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 29, 2012, 05:32:45 PM
 #38

I pointed out his error on Youtube and he blocked my comments.  Pathetic.

interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
February 01, 2012, 08:18:56 PM
 #39

...snip...

I believe authority-based societies are a thing of the past (or soon will be). It creates this feeling of separation: there are "them" and "us". And as separation grows this division becomes more evident, "they" try to become a master race turning "us" into slaves. This is the end game in every authority-based society no matter how good it starts. Everyone should become their own authority. Why should some people born on the same planet tell other people what to do? F@#k "them"!

In bitcoin society everyone is equal in front of the network. All conflicts of interest should be resolved the same way as conflicts in the blockchain are resolved! Yes by voting with your computer power. End of story.

The "them" and "us" thing does not affect the basis of society.  The Occupy crowd all accept that the state is legitimate as do the Tea Party.  "them" and "us" is a debate about redistribution.  What percentage of people does society have to carry in order to avoid disruption?

Things are going to change and change a lot. The current model of society is not an exception.
Here is an excellent video, why state and the old ways will become irrelevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=mjmuPqkVwWc
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 09:10:54 PM
 #40

Videos are a waste of time.  If the person has an idea worth taking seriously, they'd have it written down somewhere.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »  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!