You may find stealing from people necessary. You may believe you are unable to sustain yourself without stealing.
If so, you are a criminal.
How you nuance discussing distributing the proceeds of criminal acts is immaterial to how essential services are paid for by free people. Slaves whose treasure is taken by force have little to say in how those proceeds are spent by their oppressors.
Funding essential services is possible to free people, since it is also possible to thieves and the slaves they prey on. Having a discussion of what services are essential, and how to fund them, is indeed an important undertaking, but it is subsequent to freedom.
I have no interest in the bleatings of sheep, nor the howls of wolves, in discussions free men undertake to resolve their concerns and enact their wills.
Anarchy is best. Blockchain will make Anarchy possible :)
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Anarchy leads to chaos. We can agree that we need to redo a lot of the current systems in place today, but I would never agree to complete anarchy. We are better than that. To suggest the only way to redo your infrastructure is to tear it all down, is to suggest that we haven't evolved from our primate state. We are smarter and better now, we should hold ourselves to that. We are able to do things a lot better now than we ever could before. Let's not go apeshit just because we don't wanna put in the hard work.
Also, blockchain won't make anarchy possible. Anarchy is literally always possible. Blockchain is one of the ways we can "redo" while being smart, like I was talking about. We don't need to go crazy and kill bankers in order to redo our economy, we just need to develop a better, smarter system and use it. That's why crypto's are cool. We don't need to burn down google's databases, we just need to make decentralized alternatives, and use them. That's why blockchains are cool.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Anarchy is not 'chaos'.
Anarchy means no rulership. (it's weird that english only has ruling and governing as such verbs; in german we have herrschen\Herrschaft which has nothing to do with rules or gouvernment - but means the same)
Just because there is anarchy doesnt mean that there are no rules/law.
No rules/law, and your so called chaos, would be anomy.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Respectfully, I think when we talk about society, anarchy + chaos go hand-in-hand so often enough that it is fair to group them together. But you're right, they're not the same.
So allow me to reiterate. In our current world, with laws and rules, we already have chaos. I believe this chaos will be amplified ten-fold when we eliminate rulership. If there is no rulership, where do laws come from? [ note: I'm not trying to pull a bullshit "without religion, where do morals come from" here. what I mean is, if there is no central body of rulership, then laws just couldn't be held to any value ].
Rulership currently? I think isn't that great [ from a western perspective ]. Rulership in general, as an idea? Can lead to greatness.
So, sure, anarchy =/= chaos. But if we were to install anarchy, I believe chaos would follow suit.
However, perhaps we are just missing the vital words here? As you said, german has herrschen \ Herrschaft. I don't know what that means, but if it doesn't have anything to do with government bodies, than perhaps we are closer to agreement than we might think.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Perhaps you refrain from considering how much chaos is produced in extant conditions? For example, across the Middle East tens of thousands of children starve to death every year, and this does not happen because things are orderly and civilized.
Thuggery increases it's power via chaos. Littlefinger said 'Chaos is a ladder.' in GoT, and this principle is daily exercised via the extant tax based social organization and the profiteers that run it.
I am unconvinced chaos resulting from precluding the rapine profiteering present taxation produces would be substantially increased.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
While I expect we will continue to disagree, I am impressed by your thoughtful response, at least enough to respond in turn.
You misunderstand evolution, from a biological perspective. We are not evolved to more rational or intelligent state. Rather the reverse. I expect you haven't made the experiment of living on the land, in a state of nature, and this is why you grossly underestimate the superlative skills necessary to produce stuff as seemingly rudimentary as chipped rocks and pointy sticks in such conditions.
Extant civilization is producing significant evolutionary pressure against higher intelligence and autodidactic abilities.
This is exemplary of why we disagree. I have personal experience that makes it impossible for me to pretend taxation is anything other than thugs taking stuff from people by force: stealing.
I'd be happy to discuss how to effect mutual ends voluntarily, but since the extant kleptocracy precludes any functional alternatives with hyperalert vigor, such discussion would be relatively pointless.
The first requisite to freedom is the end of slavery. The illusion of freedom provided slaves to prevent them from securing their own is not a step towards freedom, but away from it. Tweaking slavery does not potentiate freedom, but fritters away such capacity to potentiate freedom as exists, so discussing how best to distribute taxes merely empowers extant kleptocracy.
We do need to just make decentralized alternative, to many things, but we can only expect to use them if we can secure them from hostile actors.
That is the essence of freedom, and such cannot abide taxation.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Just taking aim at one thing you said:
No where in my argument did I make the claim that through evolutions, simple acts like "chipped rocks" and "pointy sticks" are easy nor worthless by design. Living off the land is tough, it takes a certain type of intelligence for sure. Never made any sort of hint suggesting otherwise.
However, your claims about evolution are incorrect. We have in fact evolved to be semi-more rational [ and by some extension more intelligent / at the very least, better equipped to access higher-function logical paths ] than our ape ancestors. To suggest otherwise is to hold the current societal trend of dumbing down the customer to more easily withdraw the resources that you want from them to a higher royalship than that trend deserves.
It is true, at least in my opinion, that a lot of companies, products, and general trends are purely designed to dumb down and patronize people. It is a very common way to get what you need from them. T.V., for instance, thrives on this. Funny, relatable, stail humor -> lulls you into a close to brainwashed state where you are comfortable sitting through 15 minutes of ads for shit that you just don't need. Ads on T.V. mainly exist to instill the name brand of a certain product into your soft gooey mind so the next time you're looking for car insurance you have images of a tiny green gecko jumping around in your head.
I get it.
But, to suggest that, therefore, we are dumber as a species:
Is to suggest that those who are intelligent enough to enact smart plays like the one mentioned above, are somehow not evolved beyond monkeys. Monkeys would never have an advertisement model in their society [ insert joke about how this makes them smarter than us lol ].
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, it's not. I am not stating that there are no intelligent people, so I suggest no such thing. I am stating, as a professional experimental biologist formerly employed by a state government for the purpose, that extant environmental conditions are specifically favoring lower intelligence.
This is not something that happens on an individual basis. You cannot evolve. It's a species wide event, and occurs as non-preferred stock fails to breed successfully at higher rates.
You do not grasp my point regarding the superlative skills necessary to produce what seems to be rude implements in a state of nature, and how such environment produced a high degree of selection pressure for intelligence, particularly relative to extant conditions.
It does not require intelligence to breed successfully today. It did - and does - in the wild. See 'Idiocracy'. You may not be able to completely understand what I mean, but you will grasp the gist of my statement.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I do understand what you mean, I fully grasp your argument. It's not a difficult one. I have seen Idiocracy, it's a funny parody taking shots at what the world could turn into with our current norms and ideologies.
The difference between our opinions is your assertion that breeding in the wild takes intelligence. No, not necessarily. We have a long history of forming tribes. As long as a few in the tribe protected and provided for us, the rest were able to breed. And dumbly, at that.
Compared to today? Yes, of course it's easier to breed. It's also easier to stay alive. Hence overpopulation. But that is so far removed from the point of the original debate that I honestly can't help but feel you're not just moving the goal post, but you are burning it down and gas lighting the idea that it never existed in the first place.
This whole thing is still about taxes... no?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So, if you scroll up you will see that this segue was begun by yourself, to dispute my contention that evolutionary pressure in a state of nature selected for intelligence far more strongly than our nanny-state, which actively selects against it.
Don't wanna discuss it further? I reckon that is a good idea, since you've just agreed with the main points I have made supporting my contention, yet still refuse to acknowledge that the absurd belief that humanity is more intelligent now has been proven to depend on nothing more than faith, since the evidence is that the opposite is true.
Also, since you have zero conception of what it takes to live in a state of nature, your opinion about how difficult it is to successfully breed in those conditions has no merit whatsoever.
If you're not going to be reasonable, and change your mind when you discover you are wrong, I'd prefer if you just quit too. I've got shit to do besides beating a brick wall with facts that cannot penetrate it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Haha, woah. Calm down a little bit. I'm just stating that this was veering far off course from taxes. I did start with pointing out the evolution thing, because it was still relevant to the overall narrative.
But, I honestly can't let what you said get by, since it is wrong on most fronts.
I'm not agreeing with you on much. Don't know where you are gathering that from. Yes, I still believe humanity is more intelligent now. If you think this is due to some sort of "faith" on my part, ok... But where is your stated evidence of the opposite? You have yet to provide anything more sustainable than I have, merely repeating "Breeding was tough to do. We are stupid now." Do you have studies supporting this thesis? Do you have any numbers whatsoever? I think providing them would help your argument a lot. Thank you.
An odd opinion that you attempt to throw in as fact. Please elaborate on why you are so confident I have "zero conception" on this matter. Did you imply my past life to fit your agenda? Assumed my experiences so you can throw out my statements as being "without merit"? Or did I say something that made this implication? I'm curious where you got this notion from.
This is where my "woah calm down" vibe came in. I thought we were having a pretty healthy debate, but calling me not reasonable for simply sticking to my argument [ since you have yet to provide any factual evidence suggesting otherwise ]. And now I'm a brick wall? And you have been providing facts? What the fuck is that my dude?
Look, if this topic is getting a little too heated, that's fine. We can cool off and leave it at that. But suggesting I am not listening to you [ when I have been responding to every point you've brought up ], and suggesting that I'm just some thick-skulled retard who needs "facts" pummeled into my smooth brain [ when you have yet to actually provide any facts at all, just you're opinions and thoughts on this matter, same as me ], all seems really defensive. And out of nowhere as well.
We can continue this civilly, no? After all, we are just 1's and 0's on the web right now. No need to act like anything we say here is going to set lasting implications worldwide ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The issue is, when using intense language like "criminal acts", we tend to lose focus on what we are discussing. Drop the frightening words like "slaves" and "stealing". Let's discuss this a bit more calm & logically.
Taxes will come from the money that you have earned thanks to the society you live in. If you live in a complete shithole where you have to walk everywhere, buildings are worn down, poverty is rampant, etc. Then, yes, high-taxes can feel horrible.
However, if you're job is typing on a computer in an air-conditioned building that you get to by driving a short 15 minute drive on nice smooth roads in a comfy car, then taxes make sense.
Taxes can help you earn money, so to me it seems fair that a part of that money goes back into that system. Think of it as a business:
If I own a company that does "x", and that company is making a profit because of how well we do "x", then it is only smart of me to reinvest some of that profit back into "x" in order to continue this flow.
Sure, some people are suggesting anarchy, but remember where that leads to. We will not have roads if we do not pay for them. We will not have many free activities if they do not get funded. If you want to eliminate taxes, think about what you're giving up along with them, and determine if you're ok with paying a subscription to keep them around. If you are, congrats, we already have that subscription model, it's taxes.
[ Just to be absolutely clear, I think we need to find a better tax model than what we have now. Not to get rid of taxes completely, but to more fairly distribute and spread the givings & takings across parties who can pay for them. Lower class should not be paying as much taxes as higher class, we need to find a balance, which is obviously hard work, but extremely necessary to do. ]
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The only thing taxes are supporting right now is the rulers on top to suppress and dull people.
You cant compare beneficaries or delegations or anything here on steem to taxes because taxes are not voluntarily.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not comparing any of those things to taxes. Not sure why you said that.
And yes, as I tried to make clear in my ending statement, I believe the current tax model is flawed. Many things, in fact, in our society are [ in my opinion ]. But the idea behind what taxes could be, is good. A way to benefit us.
With people, you'll always run into scenarios where good ideas are corrupted and taken advantage of. Some just like to play dirty. That doesn't support throwing out the good idea all together though...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Were society no more than an economy, this would need little expansion. However, Mike Tyson said 'Don King would sell his momma for a dollar.' This requires consideration.
Many would - and do - trade hard freedom for soft slavery.
I don't. I have very good reasons to prefer even dying a painful death to living as a wealthy investor. I do not speak from ignorance, as I have been an accredited investor. Through my experience I have learned that money is a veil behind which actual wealth is concealed, and that much focus on money is counterproductive to the creation of real wealth.
It is this that has enabled me to grasp that the underlying principles matter far more than facile perceptions of conditions. It is rank hubris to discount our limitations and expect we can effect complex solutions to simple problems.
Let's start with the fact that anarchy is the extant condition. You actually do not have a ruler. You are actually, in real fact, an autarch that rules yourself right now, and so is everyone else. The illusion of hierarchy is both endemic and necessary to our species, but reality is producing ever stronger pressure to change that, as very strong selective pressure is being applied to decimate those individuals that do not fit the needs of our present overlords.
I strongly recommend hard work, but not to refine the extant system.
Work to craft freedom, and end the slave/master paradigm that can only survive and thrive as long as nominal anarchic mechanisms do not exist.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We are discussing taking people's wealth by force: taxation.
Let's start at first principles, and proceed reasonably therefrom. Ignoring factual bases for mutual understanding precludes rational agreement.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit