barkayb Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Hello everyone, For a while now, I've had some thoughts that mostly take off from the idea that the entire manifestation of the state, and all of the social programs rely on the participation of the working class, and the ability to freely slice purchasing power off of people -- through inflation of the currency, taxation and the like. This in some sense places all of the state's eggs in one basket. If you could form a single unit of this collective, then they would have all of the argumentative power in any discussion -- that unit could say "Nah, I'm not funding this." and that would be the end of it. We are the investors/stakeholders in this -- without our participation, there's no more juice for the state, and if we decide to invest in something else, then that something else will then become the thing in power. Obviously, I am not deluding myself into the idea that we're all going to go on strike, or stop paying taxes, or that it's even desirable that we do central planning in that regard -- that's just the thing we want to fight against. But consider this: If I write you a piece of software, and you pay me by hand-crafting me a fancy table. How can tax be derived from this? The government isn't interested in 20% of my lines of code, nor do they want one leg of that table. Obviously pro-bono work isn't a new idea, but it gets me thinking. Maybe if we can come up with a system that makes it inherently difficult to derive currency amount against value, and shift more trade to it, then we can incrementally, without asking for permission, and without the need to convince those with a conflicting interest, take power away from the state and keep it with the "makers".
RichardY Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 But consider this: If I write you a piece of software, and you pay me by hand-crafting me a fancy table. How can tax be derived from this? The government isn't interested in 20% of my lines of code, nor do they want one leg of that table. Directly derived I would say they could "requisition" items of value not particularly efficient long term on a large scale for enriching members of the government(Special Interests) temporarily or otherwise. Examples can be found from the Late Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire and Babylon. Indirectly however "Special Interests" may take wealth by exploiting the "networking effects" of money or more recently currency. I think, by issuing "currency" through a central bank, the total amount of currency issued is roughly equivalent to "shares" in that country's wealth, what's important is that it is "accepted". Special Interests make sure it is accepted by preventing alternative currencies through taxes on precious metals, requiring payment of fines, licenses, property taxes, minimum wages, health insurance, compliance costs etc. Obviously pro-bono work isn't a new idea, but it gets me thinking. Maybe if we can come up with a system that makes it inherently difficult to derive currency amount against value, and shift more trade to it, then we can incrementally, without asking for permission, and without the need to convince those with a conflicting interest, take power away from the state and keep it with the "makers". Primarily I think currency is about Networking, but it usually fails as a Store of Value. Some people seem to say Bitcoin is the way to go but as a Store of Value I'm not so sure, and Special Interests can look for ways to screw up the network. Maybe the best way to have a system that works for everybody is to have as voluntary networking as possible but also have a store of value. Not sure how effective a barter system might be given varying levels of ability, but if people could earn currency/money through a game and translate that into the real world maybe that could work. Personally in the long run allowing people to freely transact in whatever they choose on the whole is the best solution.
Iron Horse Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 But consider this: If I write you a piece of software, and you pay me by hand-crafting me a fancy table. How can tax be derived from this? The government isn't interested in 20% of my lines of code, nor do they want one leg of that table. Obviously pro-bono work isn't a new idea, but it gets me thinking. Maybe if we can come up with a system that makes it inherently difficult to derive currency amount against value, and shift more trade to it, then we can incrementally, without asking for permission, and without the need to convince those with a conflicting interest, take power away from the state and keep it with the "makers". Tax can be derived in any number of ways, it can be done by a tithe of workable materials such as steel alloys, woods, grains and other consumables or time spent labouring on communal projects. There will always be a way to levy a tax, fee or charge.
dsayers Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Why go to such elaborate measures? Help people to understand that people cannot live in different, opposing moral categories and you've defeated the State in their lives. This reframes ideas such as tax evasion to theft evasion. People are saying no to the State (including deliberately engaging in black/grey markets for example) more and more every day. Secondly, stored value is a technological advance for humanity. Consider your software for table analogy. In order for this to work, a number of variables have to align. Person A has to have the ability to write the software person B wants at the exact same time that person B has the ability to provide a table, both people have to have met, have these desires at the same time, and both consider both items to be identical in value. Finally, with things like Bitcoin, people have already started doing exactly what you're calling for. Which is in observation of my first two points. What do you think about this?
rosencrantz Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 This in some sense places all of the state's eggs in one basket. If you could form a single unit of this collective, then they would have all of the argumentative power in any discussion -- that unit could say "Nah, I'm not funding this." and that would be the end of it. We are the investors/stakeholders in this -- without our participation, there's no more juice for the state, and if we decide to invest in something else, then that something else will then become the thing in power. You just reinvented the concept of unions. Obviously pro-bono work isn't a new idea, but it gets me thinking. Maybe if we can come up with a system that makes it inherently difficult to derive currency amount against value, and shift more trade to it, then we can incrementally, without asking for permission, and without the need to convince those with a conflicting interest, take power away from the state and keep it with the "makers". Barter doesn't work in complex societies with division of labour. Say you want to pay a loaf of bread with your system. You can 'pay' the baker, but how does the baker pay his employees, rent, flour and what not?
Recommended Posts