Universal Dividend

[kiba]

So reality is : when self ownership over-rules collective feeling of equity it is breaked. Because of Collective property is more important in term of stability and power in time.

All men are equal, but some men are more equal than others.

EQUALITY IS A REVOLT AGAINST NATURE!

[1714943166]

1714943166

[1714943166]

1714943166

[hugolp]

That's the role of democraty, and laws. Society change his point of view and change the common direction it wants to take by this way.

So you cannot separate a money system from the collectivity using it, and the laws inside that community. If collectivity decide what you are doing is against its stability, against its own volontary decision, it will stop you.

There you go. You admit it.

When you talk about the community, in reality you are talking about the majority of the people in a region, because its imposbile that everybody has the same view about something. So you are actually advocating the rule of the majority, and by violent means if necessary. I find it repulsive.

You have an example with prop8 in California. The majority decided that gay people should not marry, when is something between the two and does not affect anyone else. Yet, the majority decided they had the positive right to ban it and they did. From your point of view its fantastic and very moral. From my point of view its inmoral.

Fortunately, in the USA they still have what its left of the rule of law, and the Supreme Court decided the majority should not get its way, and the individuals had the right to associate as they will, without the majority imposing their views on them.

So Voluntary has two aspects : Your own will and the other's will, that can be contradictory. If you don't accept others will, so you might find a solution to live in other part than the collective society is established, or to develop a revolution to change collective will. But don't think it's possible to follow you own will ignoring collective's one without consequences.

Nobody is talking about going alone. He is talking about a community where self-ownership and natural rights are respected.

The fact that you talk again and again and again and again about a community does not mean you are a team player or care about the others. It just mean you like to talk about it a lot. Everybody (or almost everybody) wants to live in a community, surrounded by other people and stablish colaboration with them. But what you are advocating is going futher than collaboration and having the majority impose its will violently over the rest of the people. I find your view extremely immoral and repulsive.

[Galuel]

Bitcoins is growing.

Yes I understood that, and all the other stuffs seem to me very good and interesting !

Here money creation will halt, even if it doesn't halt it would be unfair by your rule because first comers would still have more money than later ones.

Yes. In fact you are right. It's impossible to propose a complete equality in time in front of money creation, first people in the system still have more...

However the demonstration says "generation compromise". Between infinite difference (Something for the first and zero for the last), and zero compromize the universal dividend propose a medium way thru a relative constant creation of money in time (and not A LOT at the beginning, and zero for the infinite time).

(In fact expansion of Universe work in the same way : Expansion of space, with great initial expansion, and then Hublle constant expansion thru time, which is the way to physically compensate gravitationnal concentrationnal effect respecting laws of physics).

Bitcoins doesn't know about identity, you can't know which user is new or not.

I agree, identity is the key of the problem. Universal Dividende consider Human Being as the crucial "node" of the economic system, where here it seems to be a computer connected to internet.

New or not is not a problem, universal dividend is a dividend for all. But Identity is a problem of course. But you don't solve it buy reporting money creation on a computer node. You identify a node, and so 1 single person could be running all the nodes it wants. You risk to work for 1 person owning lot of nodes, you think this is "ethic" ?

Money creation comes from CPU computations. You don't want your universal dividend ending up to whom can efficiently create bitcoins ?
Before applying some 'maths' you should see if it is even possible.

Of course Identity is the heart of the problem I agree.

It's not because this is a central point you should abandon that. In "material life" this problem exist too, including in economic problems. It's not a reason to not use a money system.

Also your dividende universelle operation just looks like a vast blogspam operation using wikipedia to promote your creationmonnetaire.info blog. Quite obvious looking at the wikipedia history.

Not at all. This idea is developped since long time. Here you have a law proposition made in Assembly, France in 2006 : http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/pdf/propositions/pion3378.pdf

Here you have the BIEN (basic income international network) : http://www.basicincome.org/bien/

Here you have the experiment made in Namibie : http://arecom-geneos.com/~fbosque/rev-exe/revenudexistence-et-namibie.pdf

Or the SCEC in Italia : http://www.arcipelagoscec.org/

And many others links on the article demonstrating it's absolutely not a new idea.

In fact you should be sensible to this development (and this is why I spend time to post here) because you beatifull project is very near that Idea.

You just think it's more justificated to create money associating it with a machine, better than with human being as a "node" of an economical collectivity.

With the problem of identitty solved, I prefer for sure exchange value with humans better than with nodes.

---------

Thanks for your contributions, I appreciated it very much, the questions are the fundamental ones.

[Galuel]

EQUALITY IS A REVOLT AGAINST NATURE!

Absolutely : Man is a total revolt against nature. He wants and succeeds in liberating itself from his natural animal condition.

[kiba]

The biggest irony is that an individual who clearly wishes to change the norm of bitcoin society against majority's wishes.

"We don't like majority rules or democracy or whatever!"

But anyway, I am not liking Galuel's anti-individualistic attitude one bit. I'll REBELL if Galuel get his way.

[kiba]

EQUALITY IS A REVOLT AGAINST NATURE!

Absolutely : Man is a total revolt against nature. He wants and succeeds in liberating itself from his natural animal condition.

Whatever. Man cannot escape from his nature of being an unequal entity in the world of men. It's impossible. In fact it would be hell if we are made equal.

[Galuel]

When you talk about the community, in reality you are talking about the majority of the people in a region, because its imposbile that everybody has the same view about something. So you are actually advocating the rule of the majority, and by violent means if necessary. I find it repulsive.

Not at all. When I talk about a community, I mean a collective association of free men, who accept to associate between them.

But a community might also understand it is often part of a bigger one, and so the rules it want to apply to itself might be be also done understanding the rules the biggest community have. If not there is a conflict.

You have an example with prop8 in California. The majority decided that gay people should not marry, when is something between the two and does not affect anyone else. Yet, the majority decided they had the positive right to ban it and they did. From your point of view its fantastic and very moral. From my point of view its inmoral.

No at that point, we must consider this community has said it's point of view. In fact this is local democracy. Can we change that ? Which system should be use ? Anyone say the rule is my rule, I don't care about democracy ?

Fortunately, in the USA they still have what its left of the rule of law, and the Supreme Court decided the majority should not get its way, and the individuals had the right to associate as they will, without the majority imposing their views on them.

In fact here, the laws of the large community of USA, in which California is, says : no your local decision doesn't feet with community laws, so, you can't do that. Those laws can be seen as "unfair" by local Calfornia people, but it they still want to stay in USA community they must apply that.

Another way to organise is like in Swizerland (and I like this), where all the rights become from the local to the global with delegation power. And a "canton" can say "no at this point I don't delegate the global the power to decide those things.


I am for the maximum of liberty, but I also understand, that my liberty depends of the collectiviy I live in, and this imposes some rules sometimes not compatible with my liberty. If this compromise is no more acceptable, so I may think about acting for changings rules, make a revolution, or quit.

[kiba]

No at that point, we must consider this community has said it's point of view. In fact this is local democracy. Can we change that ? Which system should be use ? Anyone say the rule is my rule, I don't care about democracy ?

Welcome to our community. People here are individualist anarchists, or at least the majority of them. They don't take kindly to democracy or ideas of democracy. The community has clearly spoken against your idea.

[Galuel]

Whatever. Man cannot escape from his nature of being an unequal entity in the world of men. It's impossible. In fact it would be hell if we are made equal.

Equal has many different aspect. Equal in respect of rights, can include equal in respect of the right to evaluate what is value and what it is not.

If we are not equal respecting this point, how can human be ok to consciously accept the same money ? Accepting the same money, is not aving the same point of view concerning value, it's respecting the different value anyone can produce, and a universal way to exchange it between members for the benefit of all.

[kiba]

Whatever. Man cannot escape from his nature of being an unequal entity in the world of men. It's impossible. In fact it would be hell if we are made equal.

If we are not equal respecting this point, how can human be ok to consciously accept the same money ? Accepting the same money, is not aving the same point of view concerning value, it's respecting the different value anyone can produce, and a universal way to exchange it between members for the benefit of all.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Money arise out of voluntary exchange amongst individuals. That is all. There is no need to respect whatever values, etc.

[Galuel]

Money arise out of voluntary exchange amongst individuals. That is all. There is no need to respect whatever values, etc.

Of course you need it. The money creation system you use, respect or not other's value definition. If I define the fundamental creation of value as the individual man, I can affirm it's not fair to create money for the first ones in the system, without thinking of the last ones who will enter the economical community, who will bring their own.

[kiba]

Money arise out of voluntary exchange amongst individuals. That is all. There is no need to respect whatever values, etc.

Of course you need it. The money creation system you use, respect or not other's value definition. If I define the fundamental creation of value as the individual man, I can affirm it's not fair to create money for the first ones in the system, without thinking of the last ones who will enter the economical community, who will bring their own.

I suppose you don't respect the idea of private property.

You like to strip a rich man's dignity and his pride so you can make society equal. You make the poor and the unproductive master of rich men. More over, you make even the poor who earn more than other people slaves too.

[17ujzChRb6VPQGyANVyktc1du]

Not at all. This idea is developped since long time. Here you have a law proposition made in Assembly, France in 2006 : http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/pdf/propositions/pion3378.pdf

You know i'm french so you should stop trying to impress me with that ridiculous proposition only made to get media attention

Also what you propose is different and not possible to do with bitcoin.

and stop your spamming : https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=creationmonnetaire.info+galuel

else i will just also SEO your blogspam too.

[Galuel]

You know i'm french so you should stop trying to impress me with that ridiculous proposition only made to get media attention

Impress who ? To do what ? This is nonsense.

Also what you propose is different and not possible to do with bitcoin.

Perhaps, I don't know at the moment. If it is an open source project it should be possible to make a fork.

and stop your spamming : https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=creationmonnetaire.info+galuel

What is this exactly ? I don't understand ? Is this an order ?

else i will just also SEO your blogspam too.

And this is a threat ?

Which Spam ? I don't hide my identity, it's openly written in my blog, and I always use the same pseudonyme. I have no problem to openly exchange ideas.

[kiba]

Perhaps, I don't know at the moment. If it is an open source project it should be possible to make a fork.

Yes. Make your own digital currency. Stop brothering this community.

Come back when you have proven the currency to be superior to bitcoin.

[fresno]

The OP's ideals of fairness and logic have clearly fallen short of the mark.

Seed Bitcoins are already distributed as fairly as mathematically possible among the participants. We have democratically listened to his proposal for their re-distribution, and have universally chosen against it.

Failing to improve the system as it exists, if he truly wishes to channel Bitcoins to his unfortunate friends, he will have to acquire them first, and via the same methods that we used to obtain ours.

[Red]

I think Galuel is just what this community needs. It was getting a bit self-congratulatory here.

It's nice for the libertarian to get to see that they're not just trying to separate themselves from "conservative" monetary policy. They are separating themselves from "liberal" monetary policy as well!

I have read the French website and I think the ideas probably sound good in a coffee shop. But perhaps not to the shop creator. Perhaps not either to the waitresses forced to serve the layabout philosophers. But I'm sure it sounds good among the beatniks.

Personally I think it is silly and quite obviously ill conceived. But as contrast, it's invaluable. It highlights that, quite possibly, there are ideas being discussed here that play best on the gun show circuit.

By the way, I love gun shows! :-)
 

[Red]

Seed Bitcoins are already distributed as fairly as mathematically possible among the participants.

Actually, I think most people miss his point so I'll try to clarify it.

Bitcoins are NOT "fairly" distributed yet. Some are. The vast majority are just waiting to be distributed. But the existing mechanism is presumed "fair enough" for the current community.

It bitcoins were already "fairly distributed" we could simply stop generating anymore. Since enough are already generated to last in perpetuity. The reason people want to see coins continue to generate is qualitatively for the same reason that Galuel wants increased generation. The only thing disagreement is quantitative.

What Galuel is trying to point out is that even if coins are "fairly distributed" among the bit coin users of today. They are NOT fairly distributed among next week's bitcoin users. If you look at that set of users instead of the current set of users, it is clear that some got more coins simply for showing up first. Not for putting in more effort.

Built into bitcoin is a tyranny based on time. At least that's the way he sees it.

Many will agree with him. To dismiss that out of hand is to make the same mistake Obama did with the tea party movement. Never under estimate how man, (or how strongly) other people perceive you as an idiot.

[fresno]

No. I used the term in its proper sense. The community has come together, has accepted, and is actively using the Bitcoin. That is fair.

To use "fair" in the Obama sense; "Now it the time to achieve greatness, to get your fair share of this great democracy, because I'm going to slap together something that re-distributes things to my supporters FAIRLY" is bullshit, and the people here have all smelled it.

When you can make a "fair" that works, you'll understand.

[Red]

No. I used the term in its proper sense. The community has come together, has accepted, and is actively using the Bitcoin. That is fair.

I wasn't trying to slam your definition of "fair". I really wasn't. I was simply pointed out that while we all agree that there is a fixed number of bitcoins, and a process for distributing them. The process has NOT completed. It seems inappropriate to use the past tense. In reality bitcoins are "distributing themselves" in a process that everyone is required to agree is fair. Or you don't get any.

I agree with your closed definition of fair. It is equivalent of joining a Soccer league and then complaining that it's "not fair" that the goalie gets to use his hands. The correct response is, "It's not EQUAL that the goalie gets to use his hands, but it is FAIR that the goalie gets to use his hands, because (insert your own reason here). In reality, all reasons tend to converge on, "because if we made it more (insert your complaint), the game sucks and nobody wants to play."

In American football, defensive blockers can use their hands, but offensive blockers can't. It is fair but not equal, because if it were equal the game would be boring.

But the rules are not "fair" because they are unchanging. In reality, sports rules often change to make the game *MORE* fair. Pick your sport and there will be a list of important changes. American football, "pass interference, roughing the passer/kicker". Soccer/hockey "offsides rules, blue lines." etc.

I point this out because that is the sense of the word FAIR that I was using, and I'm presuming Galuel was using. (But not Obama. :-) )

If 1,000 people want to use Bitcoin but 6,000,000,000 don't, Bitcoin is still fair.

But if you can make changes to Bitcoin so that 6,000,000,000 people want to use it but 1,000 don't, the changed system is *more fair*, and much more relevant.

This differs from Obama's definition of fair, which is "Fuck those guys who believe differently from me. They're idiots and can't hurt me. They'll get my definition of fair and they'll like it!" That definition of fair tends to cause revolutions.