h a l f b a k e r yNormal isn't your first language, is it?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Simple idea really - if as a nation you're really
sold on the idea of establishing punitive controls at
the border, then this policy should be applied
irrespective of wealth.
Rather than only stop border-crossings for the very
poorest of people, you should also apply the same
controls for
anyone with money as well.
This would extend to the limitation of all offshore
jiggery-pokery and the establishment of local
independently owned legal entities for any company
wishing to trade as a multinational. Any failure
to submit verifiable accounts would result in the
resident owner of that company going to prison and
seisure and national redistribution of all company
assets.
Similarly, ownership of land or property would only
be allowable by residents (and by implication, tax-payers) of that country.
The practice of non-domiciled persons conducting business and
generating income locally would be outlawed (it's
the contrapositive corollary to the "no
representation without taxation" mantra. i.e. "no
ownership without residency"). A transition period
would be applied to allow non-doms so encumbered to
relieve themselves of their assets through normal
market channels.
Much of the legal framework for this is already in
place, albeit with gray-areas here and there, it just
needs a little more formalisation and enforcement.
The benefits would be establishment of "proper"
sovereignty since you'd be ring-fencing the country's
economy, ensuring all participants are mandated to
follow local laws and taxation policies.
Currently, this is very much not the case. It's
tricky of course with the internet and all the
international infrastructure, supply lines etc - but
maybe we're not ready for all that yet.
The idea benefits from being consistent and could
encourage feelings of belonging and national
responsibility, rather than the free-for-all we have
now - and, might enable enacting useful policy
things like a UBI for example.
Yes, it would likely trigger a bit of a recession,
but since we're all buggered anyway, maybe now is the
time to go the full North Korea? (Though I suspect in
practice, North Korea's border remains
more permeable for anyone willing to pay for the
privilege)
The downside is that if any particular country goes
bad, or gets top-heavy with corrupt individuals
(heaven forfend) then that established ruling elite
would be put into a stronger and more
dominant position than before - especially where
they'd be able to flout the local laws (being in
charge of enforcing them) and operate internationally
outside of the legal impositions of the local
fiefdom...
The Borg-Lime consensus
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cydkTy6GmFA
... from The Third Man [pertinax, Oct 03 2020]
Majestic Equality
https://www.goodrea...rbids-rich-and-poor
Anatole France [8th of 7, Oct 03 2020]
She Was Poor but She Was Honest
https://en.wikipedi..._but_She_Was_Honest
It's the same the whole world over... [8th of 7, Oct 11 2020]
Like this only with slaps.
https://www.youtube...watch?v=X6oUz1v17Uo
Why? Good question. [doctorremulac3, Oct 14 2020]
The motivation of writers
https://www.brainyq...muel_johnson_170103
Samuel Johnson [8th of 7, Oct 15 2020]
[link]
|
| |
//ownership of land or property would only be
allowable by residents (and by implication, tax-
payers) of that country// - Greece used to do this,
when it was run by a military government in the 70's
- what it does is create an industry of people
'owning' property on behalf of foreigners. |
|
| |
This sounds like a nice planet to live on. Where is it ? We would like to go there - we could take it over in a matter of minutes. |
|
| |
The idea seems to be to depend on replacing standard greedy, selfish, venal, corruptible and untrustworthy human beings with some other sort of human. |
|
| |
Quite possibly [hippo], I don't doubt it, and once
you start down this road, you have to commit to it,
stamping out
any such nonsense as and when you find it. Loophole
exploitation should be the first to be investigated
under
the transparent accountancy laws, failure to
provide receipts for moneys earned and property
held, would
result in forfeiture. |
|
| |
I think that's the thrust of this idea, **if** we
must insist on keeping out poor foreigners, on the
basis of
stricter border controls, then logically (and
morally perhaps) we are also obligated to impose
equally
draconian controls on rich foreigners as well. |
|
| |
That's not easy to do, I agree, since rich folks
often have power, and power, as we know, corrupts.
But this
idea is the logical continuation of the principle
of imposing anti immigration controls on poor
people. |
|
| |
//The idea seems to be to depend on replacing standard greedy, selfish, venal, corruptible and untrustworthy human beings
with some other sort of human.// Yes 8th - it does doesn't it. It's a *modest proposal* that hinges on that very point. |
|
| |
If placing robust controls on all strata of foreigners is dependent on ~ "some other sort of human" ~ then are we saying
that we only place robust controls on poor foreigners because we are the venal, corruptible kind? |
|
| |
And, the opposite (but logically consistent) version of this idea, which would be an entirely open and internationally
law-abiding society with free movement across borders for all, irrespective of wealth; Would that be easier or harder to
take over in minutes? If it's the same, in terms of take-over-ability, then what shape society is it more difficult to
erode/conquer? |
|
| |
// are we saying that we only place robust controls on poor foreigners because we are the venal, corruptible kind? // |
|
| |
Yes. Humans are deeply unpleasant, amoral creatures, one of the very few species that systematically predate their own kind. |
|
| |
Any more easy questions ... ? |
|
| |
I wont contest that [kdf] but would be interested in
your thoughts. If you're pro immigration controls, do
you think they should be extended to wealthy people
and their means of influence? And if you're not, do
you agree that a robust set of internationally
enforceable rules and transparent accountancy are a
prerequisite to allow freedom for all, whilst
providing a means of curtailing shadowy shenanigans? |
|
| |
// Many species eat their own young. // |
|
| |
This is entirely correct, and indisputable. |
|
| |
We draw your attention to the qualifier "systematically" ... |
|
| |
//Similarly, ownership of land or property would only be
allowable by residents (and by implication, tax-payers) of
that country.// |
|
| |
I might actually be OK with this, if it could be enforced.
Which it probably can't since plenty of property is owned
by companies, all it would take is for a person to set up a
property management company and rent to themselves. |
|
| |
In the real world it's working the other way around.
Portugal offers Golden Visas, spend 350k Euros on a
property (its amazing how crappy they can be) and you're
an EU resident. |
|
| |
//The practice of non-domiciled persons conducting
business and generating income locally would be
outlawed// |
|
| |
In many cases, it is. See all tourism visas. Please generate
funds, come here with those funds and leave in the
minimum possible time frame without those funds. |
|
| |
But what happens to touring musicians for example? Or
any other specialized labor that needs to be brought in?
"Oooh, that's a hell of an oil leak, we need to start
dealing with that quick-sharp - set up some engineering
scholarships, maybe look into the idea of a field-
deployable technical college?" |
|
| |
I guess it's one of those omelette scenarios. You either live in a free and open society where people, their
money and skills are free to come and go, or you live in a more walled-garden type society where border controls
are more tightly enforced. Either way, you've got to break one bunch of eggs or another. |
|
| |
Lots of countries these days seem to have decided to go down this second route, though it seems to me, they're
only keen to impose the restrictions on regular people, leaving super-wealthy lots of loopholes to continue to
gad about as they please. I'm saying, if we're going to go along with that (and that is an unresolved *if*) then
at least let's do it properly and impose the same restrictions of freedom that the rest of us have to abide by,
on the wealthy classes as well. |
|
| |
The property management company loophole could be closed by saying anyone who's a director of a company
operating in the country had to remain resident in that country. Holidays would be allowed, but if you moved
abroad permanently, you'd have to relinquish all your property rights in your previous jurisdiction. A country
is nothing without borders, after-all. Sovereignty and all that stuff. This just finishes off what the populist
notions of nationalism have started, and brings it to it's natural conclusion. |
|
| |
//predate their own kind// and 8th bit late now, but I think your *modest proposal* allusion went completely over my head! |
|
| |
I will freely admit to reading only a sentence or two but isn't
the logic of this ultimately that private land ownership
should not exist? |
|
| |
Humans have equal inalienable rights, but a right to replace
or take away part of what other humans already own is not
one of them. |
|
| |
[tc] as you say, I think you missed a bit. |
|
| |
I guess the tl;dr could be paraphrased as "If you believe you're a citizen of the world, you're a
citizen of nowhere." |
|
| |
//isn't the logic of this ultimately that private land ownership should not exist?// No - and I
have zero idea how you could have landed so entirely off-target - weird that you'd jump to
that conclusion so quickly. |
|
| |
No, the logic of this is that if everyone must belong to a country (i.e. you agree with the idea
of having closed borders) then to protect the integrity of your country, it naturally follows that
freedom of movement of property across borders should be controlled as well. |
|
| |
If you own something in the country in which you live and pay your taxes, then your property
rights are be protected to the full extent of the law. |
|
| |
//Rather than only stop border-crossings for the very
poorest of people, you should also apply the same controls
for anyone with money as well.// |
|
| |
What rationale exists for this? Wouldn't a common sense
immigration system be a merit based one? |
|
| |
I tend to agree, personally, I'd prefer to see open borders
everywhere, but that
decision's not been mine to make, and it's also not what this idea is
about - closed
borders are fact, they've been enacted, the people have spoken,
it's all about
nationalism these days, so we kind of have to come to terms with
what that means. |
|
| |
Across the world over the last 5 years, increasingly stringent
border controls have been
put in place, counter to the benefits of any merit or open based
systems. It is generally
harder these days to move around to live and work, making the
most of the global
marketplace of countries, unless you're *extremely* wealthy. |
|
| |
I'm saying if people want to revoke the freedom of movement of
people, then logically,
they should also revoke the freedom of movement of capital
(across borders) as well,
since it is this that leads to corruption, tax avoidance and the
erosion of the rule of
law, all of which weaken the very nation that the closed borders
policy was seeking to
strengthen in the first place. |
|
| |
You get more bang for your nationalist buck. |
|
| |
// corruption, tax avoidance and the erosion of the rule of law, all of which weaken the very nation // |
|
| |
They weaken the government, not the nation per se. They're not the same thing at all. |
|
| |
Highly related, though. Weak governments create power
gaps which are filled by the first with the most. |
|
| |
I disagree with that [8th] - a nation is a place where there
is rule
of law, where you can make long-term plans and be
reasonably confident of protection from arbitrary theft
and
violence from the local gangsters. In a corrupt or
weakened
nation, that confidence is harder to come by. |
|
| |
And Yes, Rayford, gangsters will fill the gaps everywhere,
best keep them to a minimum and ensure those you elect
to govern have their actions bound very tightly by law.
Letting them flit across borders with their ill gotten gains
is a loophole. |
|
| |
I suppose [8th] is taking Harry Lime's position about the Borgias
vs. the cuckoo clock. |
|
| |
I wonder how his sideline in adulterated antibiotics is going. |
|
| |
[+] for idea, by the way. |
|
| |
//What rationale exists for this? Wouldn't a common sense immigration system be a merit based one?// |
|
| |
Who determines merit?
How do you judge the worth of one individual over another? Wealth? |
|
| |
I feel that I am a citizen of planet Earth and therefore no borders should be closed to me unless I prove myself to be unworthy of that status.
On the other hand as a citizen of Canada I feel that ownership of property should require obtaining citizenship of the country I wish to purchase a portion of. |
|
| |
Neither of those options are currently part of law... at least not here, and it's thrown a major wrench in the works as far as I can tell. |
|
| |
Should the wealthy face the same restrictions as the poor?
Oh, you betcha. |
|
| |
//Should the wealthy face the same restrictions as the poor?//
More, but it's not linear. |
|
| |
I'm of the reasoning that [2fries] shared. Coming from a
Buddhist point of view, we are all one. So if you shut your
borders, be it physical or philosophically, you only shutter out
yourself. Om... |
|
| |
I'd ask the question "What is a country and what's
its purpose?" I think the answer is, it's a collective
designated by geographic boundaries. OK, so why?
Presumably for some benefit. OK, for who? The
people within those boundaries, the people in that
collective, the members of that club. |
|
| |
Might add it would be reasonable to expect it
should
be managed in such a way as to be beneficial to
other "clubs" but if there's a conflict of interest,
the club we're managing would come first. |
|
| |
So IF that's what a country is and what it's for,
decisions about everything should be made to do
that job, benefiting the country in such a way that
negative impact to other countries is minimized as
much as possible. |
|
| |
So which members are we taking care of first? The
very
rich and powerful? They're doing fine so let's not
worry about them for now. Who's not doing fine?
The poor, the disadvantaged, those who have no
home, no healthcare, no hope. I would think any
club, group or collective should tend to those
members first. |
|
| |
So assuming those rules are agreed to by the
majority (and that's a big assumption, I know) what
immigration rules should be put in place that most
benefits the most needy members of that club? |
|
| |
I'll leave that to the smart folks in the room. I'm
just here to ask questions. |
|
| |
Large groups of people don't always do what's in their own best interest - especially when what is in the best interest is
technical or counter-intuitive. Naturally, people only form intuitive conclusions based on what they see, hear or feel - and much
of that "experience" is today delivered through mass media - and much of which is owned by exceedingly rich individuals. |
|
| |
It's not rocket science, nor do you have to be the smartest person in the room to arrive at the conclusion that much of the focus
and outlook of mass media supports the interests of their rich owners (and those with whom they do business). |
|
| |
So in a system that hands over control to whoever gets the most votes, and where voters see what someone wants them to see, those
media owners have a big part to play in framing what's important, and what isn't. The main reason immigration gets marketed as
being important, is because it creates a smoke screen and distracts from more important issues that exceedingly rich people might
have cause to worry about. |
|
| |
Can't do anything about that I'm afraid, except become astoundingly rich ourselves - but if those rules are going to be imposed,
then why not use the same arguments to pierce the smoke-screen and raise some taxes. Re-establish the rule of law and start doing
some good. Turn the tables on the clever so-and-sos who are playing the system and getting away with it, to the detriment of all
the little folks who will by-and-large remain poorer, irrespective of whether they earn 1% more or less due to some foreign
people living in their neighborhoods, compared to the immeasurable boost they'd receive if the system wasn't geared to protect
folks for whom nationality and law-adherence is optional. |
|
| |
In summary then, it's massively beneficial, morally sound, logically consistent, deliciously turn-the-tables-istic *and* respects
the will of the people. What's not to like? |
|
| |
Those points about plutocracy are fair points, but they don't
show the whole picture. There is more than one powerful class.
There is the billionaire class, but there is also the class defined
by Galbraith as "The New Class". Both of these classes have
class interests which are not necessarily well aligned with the
interests of the majority. Both of these classes have class
ideologies. |
|
| |
See also Thomas Frank on the subject of "The New Class",
except he doesn't call them that, he calls them "the ten percent",
but they seem to be substantially the same people that Galbraith
was talking about. They are also, I suggest, the same people
that populists are usually referring to when they say "élite". |
|
| |
For an example of how the class interests of the New Class
don't always align well with the general interest, consider George
Monbiot's writing on "Love Miles". |
|
| |
Let me get tribal here for a second. The tribe I come
from,
and the tribe I identify with, is the guys who start without
a lot and make something of the world they've been
given. A business, a home, a family, a tax base to support
their community, pay for roads, law enforcement,
emergency services etc. These are the folks I most want
to protect. Let them keep what they earn, be free to live
their lives and not have to be continually fighting off the
privileged class that wants to enslave them in multi-
generational debt, tell them what they can say and think,
throw them and their kids into never ending profit
generating wars that do a great job enhancing the lives of
the wealthy but destroy working families by killing their
children. |
|
| |
What border rules help these guys? That's what I support. |
|
| |
I'll check out those authors pertinax, sounds kind of
interesting. I don't read though so any of their writing will
have to be available on audiobooks. |
|
| |
Also, I don't want to give the impression I hate rich
people, I don't, some of the people I love the most are
very rich. Being rich obviously doesn't make you bad, it's
being bored of being rich such that you're driven to get
that dopamine rush out of controlling other people that
makes you bad. In my eyes anyway. |
|
| |
Galbraith's "The Affluent Society" is available as an audiobook,
but note that he doesn't talk about "The New Class" until near
the end. You can find Thomas Frank speaking on youtube,
which might get you more relevant material than audiobooks. |
|
| |
My hunch is, you're not going to like them, but Galbraith in
particular is really useful if you want actual answers to the
question "What the fuck were they thinking?", where "they" were
the framers of the social-democratic post-war consensus. |
|
| |
Actually agreed with what I heard Thomas Frank say while
trying to fast forward through all his giggling throughout
his conversation with the gal who was interviewing him. |
|
| |
I like it when people take a break from sociogenic mitosis
driven tribalism, as fun as that is, to discuss engineering
solutions to problems we face, even when it means
occasionally being critical of their team. I think he was
indulging in some of that, but it was kind of hard to tell
through all the giggles. |
|
| |
Let me see if I can find something of his where there's not
a pretty girl involved so he can get a sentence out
without twittering like he's being tickled. |
|
| |
// Being rich obviously doesn't make you bad, // |
|
| |
True; but on the other hand, being bad can often make you rich. |
|
| |
Historically, virtuous people have rarely finished up being wealthy as a direct result of their own actions and choices. |
|
| |
There's a song that begins "She was poor but she was honest... " <link> |
|
| |
//take a break from sociogenic mitosis driven tribalism// me too, hence the idea here
(and to be honest, I hope, everything I ever say) I'm too annoying to be accepted in any
particular tribe, hence my furiously independent streak. Being non-tribal is very important
to anyone not part of a tribe - and very worrying in a world that's increasingly splitting on
artificially created tribal lines. Sadly the most tribal response people have is to
immediately leap to the conclusion that anything they hear that they haven't already
rehearsed in their tribal bubbles sounds like an attack or a move from "the other side". |
|
| |
I kind of imagine most people would agree with one another, if they stopped imagining
everyone was in one tribe or another, but ironically perhaps, I blame a "side" for skewing
peoples perceptions deliberately in that direction since it benefits them the most. That
might signal to people that I'm in the liberal camp, which to some extent I probably am,
just without all the (I'd argue pretend, or at least largely amplified) authoritarian virtue
signalling that "leftists" tend to get blamed for. To others, that stance places me firmly in
the libertarian camp, which might be partially right too, only without the childish belief in
markets curing all ills and blindness to all of history, which firmly excludes me from that
particular tribe. |
|
| |
That said, as someone who doesn't really identify with any tribe, I do understand the
importance for promoting inclusion. If you're promoting fairness, freedom and the rule of
law, it's important for everyone, whatever their tribe, to believe they can participate -
when that faith is eroded, you just reduce the scale at which tribalism is measured -
which I suppose is what we're trying to avoid - when it boils down to it, it's just the size of
the tribe that people end up arguing over - is it the individual, family, community, region,
political affiliation, nation-state or something bigger? |
|
| |
I don't understand the liberal criticism that I think you're pointing out [pertinax] - much of
the post war consensus seems to have worked out quite well - at least the public
presentation of it - behind the scenes with corruption, the nepotistic and profitable
leveraging of manufactured wars, clandestine state meddling and an increasingly cavalier
attitude towards the truth seem to me to be counter to those post-war ideals. There's
nothing wrong with the ideals, it seems to me, rather a problem with sticking to them.
But maybe I've completely missed the point, as I say, I don't think I'm properly getting it.
So while it's not been a fantastic success, the failures, I'd argue are where that consensus
was subverted or ignored by more cynical forces - the type of forces who are running the
show today, protecting their hidden money channels and capability. This is the law-
transcending group of kleptocrats, criminals, terrorists and mobsters who this idea is
there to combat. |
|
| |
As [8th] points out, "It's the same the whole world over", but proper transparent
application of carefully thought out law, built on liberal principles by people with some
integrity (and yes, they do exist) is the only way to ever hope to change that. |
|
| |
I keep reading this as Fat Border Controls. This is
where people have to be able to squeeze through a
prescribed hole to get across the border. |
|
| |
That will keep quite a few Americans out... |
|
| |
That's not a bad thing, though. There should be a worldwide ban on selling Bermuda shorts and leggings in those sizes... oh, the obesity... |
|
| |
Ideally, create a portal that excludes them, but lets their money through... |
|
| |
No it's not, it's where the border is really greasy so people trying to cross slip and slide back to their own side. |
|
| |
That sounds familiar - a literal "Jeux avec frontières" ? The horror ... the horror ... |
|
| |
Immigration controls which include jumping from one wobbly padded pedestal to another, dodging enormous padded pendula, and running uphill through custard will select entirely the wrong sort of candidate. |
|
| |
No-one wants a bruised, out-of-breath athlete smeared with custard driving their taxi, mending their blocked sink, or removing their appendix. |
|
| |
Except perhaps [xen], of course. |
|
| |
if you could resist pushing your ear down the plug hole in my sink, it wouldn't be blocked in the first place. This might be common place behaviour in your gaff, but we prefer to use the plug..... you know, that rubber thing on the end of a short chain you usually run around with wedged between your teeth... |
|
| |
//...as someone who doesn't really identify with any
tribe...// <spartacus>"I'm non-tribal too!"
</spartacus> |
|
| |
//I'm too annoying to be accepted// |
|
| |
I just can't understand how you can earn or be worth large sums of money without taking a slice from someone else's hard earnings and calling it your personal hard work. Hence, I suppose, for the difference between the words income, earnings, profit. |
|
| |
Money should be able to equate someone putting mortal on bricks and the pinnacle of fine art but somehow the worlds get bubbled off >from each other< and money loses the ability to do the it's job. |
|
| |
//somehow the worlds get bubbled off// |
|
| |
Just a minor glitch in the [wjt] - human translation algorithm. The tech team are working on it. Nothing to worry about. |
|
| |
// I just can't understand how you can earn or be worth
large sums of money without taking a slice from someone
else's hard earnings and calling it your personal hard work.
// |
|
| |
Are we familiar with the concept of positive GDP? |
|
| |
A route to becoming very wealthy without grinding the faces of the poor* is to devise a product or service that very many people want, and that has a small cost to them which they are willing to pay, since they perceive they are getting "good value". |
|
| |
Something analogous to the postal or telephone service is a model to consider; the postal service is probably best. There is no "subscription", the service is open to all at a small, set, universal cost, and the function is useful and valued (It is important to note that we are not specifically talking about actual, real-world postal services - historically, state-run universal postal services frequently run at a loss and have to be subsidised from general taxation; this is accepted because the postal service is a way that the government sends out its tax bills and receives payments). |
|
| |
*Sadly, a traditional skill which seems to have largely been lost. You probably can't get the grit any more. |
|
| |
//A route to becoming very wealthy without grinding the
faces of the poor*// |
|
| |
The members of Pink Floyd did it by regularly extracting
money from a rich-ish, white, male middle-aged
demographic in a manner so specific to that group that
they'll be discovered as the modern Robin Hoods or
something. |
|
| |
// I just can't understand how you can earn or be worth large sums of money without taking a slice from someone else's hard earnings and calling it your personal hard work. Hence, I suppose, for the difference between the words income, earnings, profit.// |
|
| |
Oh it can be done, but like [8th] said, you'd 'better' have some grit. |
|
| |
1: If deep down you dislike wealthy people just because they have wealth, (even if you are unaware of this bias), you will never be able to become something you dislike.
I struggled with this one. When you're raised piss poor it easy to resent and even blame those with cash.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
2: Self employment. As long as you are selling your time to another person hourly you are on a treadmill designed to keep you just below cost of living so that life is a never ending struggle to make ends meet.
3: Property. Get the hell out of paying somebody rent. I don't care if it's a run down trailer. The payments you make go to your future-self instead of some landlords pocket. Also property appreciates in value where almost every other expense depreciates. Equity in property can be leveraged to finance other projects.
4: Passive income. Find ways to generate income where, once the ball is rolling, that income continues with a minimum of extra work.
5: Don't be afraid to get your hands dirty.
One fellow I knew who became quite well off told me; "Find what nobody else wants to do and you'll make money hand over fist."
He started his business with a mini-van, a shop vac, buckets, de-greaser, and rolls of polly.
He would clean the stainless steel in restaurant kitchens and suck out their grease traps at night. Rolled his earnings back into grabbing as many of the cities contracts as he could juggle.
Another guy here started Eddies Wholesale by paying farmers for collecting their chicken shit and selling it to retailers at a mark-up. He died not too long ago but his family is worth many millions of dollars now riding the wave of an animal shit empire. |
|
| |
My wife and I started out moving to a depressed city with two kids and three grand in our pockets because it was possible to get a mortgage there because everything was for sale.
Almost twenty years of double-time later we are well on our way to making our first million... or at least having built that much equity.
We've squashed no other people to make it this far. |
|
| |
We just work our asses off and try to make smart decisions about whether the money we spend has a chance of coming back. |
|
| |
// you can earn or be worth large sums of money without taking a slice from someone else's hard earnings and calling it your personal hard work. // |
|
| |
Only a few make it really big; but they do it by an act of intellectual creation which takes little or nothing from anyone else. |
|
| |
The Grishams, Rowlings, Kings and the like that regularly top the bestseller lists hardly fit the profile of top-hatted face-grinding mill owners. |
|
| |
Good point. Royalties. Excellent passive income if you can pull it off. |
|
| |
I had to make the choice between which would make the other possible; Royalties from inventions sustaining land ownership... or land ownership sustaining invention. |
|
| |
So much of life comes down to 50/50 decisions. I guess we'll get to see if I picked right or not. |
|
| |
//A few rules of thumb;// |
|
| |
Wow, these are absolutely brilliant and may be my
favorite post on this website EVER. |
|
| |
A testament to real world, common sense
individual empowerment. Bravo 2fries, bravo. |
|
| |
In a world of "Everything sucks, who do I blame
and when will the revolution make everything
happy?" this is like a friendly slap in the face. Like
when Kirk slaps Bones to get wake him up from the
alien love spores trance. |
|
| |
The scene where Nurse Chapel and Dr. M'Benga take turns to slap Spock is better. |
|
| |
Which one is that? Didn't somebody slap Spock causing him
to slap them back much harder. Think that was Kirk maybe? |
|
| |
OK, idea not worth posting on its own: Music video featuring
the percussion section consisting of Star Trek slaps a-la the
Picard music video. (link) |
|
| |
What, you don't know every episode off by heart yet ? |
|
| |
The Re-Education Camp is going to be mighty crowded ... |
|
| |
Art world , Financial world, labour market world. |
|
| |
If there is something that gives you money and no work or effort is given to society for that money then society is losing and the very reason of money is eroded. |
|
| |
A writer reading out aloud with all the nuances and facts or imaginings imparted in the work, in person, is something, An effort on the writer's part . A book buyer reading the 100,000th copy of the book not so much. I know the writer made effort for society in writing the book and deserves payment but should that then be a debt for my children's children. |
|
| |
Buying a book is voluntary. You don't have to spend the money if you don't want to, and by the time your grandchildren* get round to reading it, it may well be out of copyright and they can do it for free. |
|
| |
Or they can go to a library. |
|
| |
How is this "debt" generated ? |
|
| |
// the writer made effort for society in writing the book // |
|
| |
No, they made an effort for themselves, for selfish reasons (usually - some people write books and stuff because they like the subject and want to enthuse other people). <link> |
|
| |
You appear to have an over-idealistic** view of economics and human nature ... |
|
| |
*This is contingent on you having children, of course, and that means finding someone who wants to reproduce with you. We consider this highly unlikely. |
|
| |
**i.e. "idealistic in any way whatsoever". We suggest that you will benefit from a prolonged course of random, unjustified, violent beatings - to destroy your idealism and remove any faith in human nature, and instill cynicism and distrust, thus turning you into a greedy, selfish, twisted, resentful little misanthrope. |
|
| |
... or into a saint, whom suffering has ennobled and suffused
with compassion and wisdom. That is a known risk of the
proposed process. |
|
| |
Yes, but in that case the process (as we implement it) always rapidly proceeds to martyrdom, and dead people aren't usually so troublesome. |
|
| |
Sanguis martyrum semen ecclesiae, supposedly. |
|
| |
Fine, saves all that back-and-to with the watering can ... |
|
| |
I am imagining a short story describing a travelling
circus or funfair coming to town and setting up their
stalls and amusements. The tradition in this
alternate reality is that for the period of time the
funfair is in town the land that it occupies is
sovereign territory where the laws are different, and
depraved, unusual acts are permitted. To enter the
fenced-off enclosure is like entering a foreign
country, at the edge of which, of course, is a "fair
border control". |
|
| |
Actually, that sounds familiar - a plot in a sci-fi story, where a ship/fairground/circus hops from planet to planet, ostensibly selling "entertainment". Of course, it turns out to be a sinister plot. |
|
| |
It might be a Doctor Who story. |
|
| |
There's another one where passengers pay to be transported to an alien world so they can see the inhabitants. They are protected by reassuringly thick metal bars, and tough transparent panels. |
|
| |
What the passengers don't know is that the ship is also charging the aliens for peering in at these weird life-forms ... they feel safe, because thankfully they're protected by reassuringly thick metal bars, and tough transparent panels ... |
|
| |
That might be an Asimov story. |
|
| |
//That might be an Asimov story.// |
|
| |
Or just a story about someone going cage diving. |
|
| |
It's the sum of all individuals and their requirement of money that gives emergent action of the whole monetary system. Like most things we we can think short term or long term. Just moving the decimal place on minimum wage isn't that intelligent for a species. |
|
| |
As for the idea, doesn't making more fences go against trying to get humanity working together? making the chance of greater country/state differentials. Money being the epitome of universal semantic value, it could be used better. |
|
| |
Yes it could be used better, but a surprising portion of our species belongs somewhere on the sociopath scale and that type finds it extremely easy to manipulate just about any system to their advantage and screw anyone who isn't licking their boot heels.
Now that cash money is going the way of the dinosaur these sociopaths will have even more control over others but even during the barter system "they" would still take as many of your chickens, eggs, pigs, sons for their armies and daughters for their brothels as they felt like. |
|
| |
...so what exactly are folks about to be completely subjugated to do about this added pressure on their supposedly 'free' lives? |
|
| |
That there is the 64,000 dollar question. |
|
| |
For myself?.. I've done my best over the last few decades to feel out and find a place that will be insulated from the coming shit-storm. I recommend you all do the same.
Until sociopaths are screened for and actively suppressed from entering politics they will continue to win the game of monopoly because they ensure they are the banker and don't mind cheating one whit. |
|
| |
Wake me when you folks clue in to that. |
|
| |
The only fear "they" have is everyone waking the fuck up and acting in unison. No defence against that. As evidence I would point you towards looking into the Canadian gun registry debacle that didn't get a whole lot of press. (go figure)
Basically the citizens of Canada told our government to go pound salt when they implemented a gun registry with a price tag attached. |
|
| |
We ignored them... minus 20%. No media hype whatsoever. |
|
| |
They came back with an amnesty for "offenders" and spent more of our money on propaganda. |
|
| |
We ignored them minus the same 20%. |
|
| |
They proposed legal action against non-conformers and came back with another amnesty... minus fees.
The 20% of conformers lost their minds and the rest of us said; "Maybe if you had started with that... otherwise go fuck yourselves", and ignored them. |
|
| |
...and then it just magically disappeared. |
|
| |
"THAT"
Is the power of the people! |
|
| |
Unanimous decisiveness without need for media.
I've got our slogan all figured out. |
|
| |
How about that?... assholes. |
|
| |
What do you think?
Catchy? Isn't it? |
|
| |
So [2fries] you don't want the government to know who is lives next to you and your loved ones, in your village,witth a Heckler & Koch MP5 and its ammunition in the basement? Peace of mind does have a cost. when nuttiness is a continuum. |
|
| |
Peace of mind comes from having your own G3 and ammunition, not from trusting the government with any information whatsoever. |
|
| |
// Peace of mind does have a cost. when nuttiness is a continuum.// |
|
| |
I just know that our government has the stupidity to dare try and tell us that none of us were allowed to defend ourselves in the bush without purchasing their permission.
We're on the edge of the great white north. We've got cougars, brown bears, black bears, grizzly bears, really ornery moose... even the badgers here will tear you a new one, and they had the balls to try and monetize our safety when heading into the back country.
Silly pencil pushers.
I believe in Minarchy. A government should have the absolute minimum authority over it's people. Their job is to maintain infrastructure, provide health care, be prepared to defend against attack to our country and the basic rights of those within it, and ensure that our kids receive a decent education on our dime.
That's it.
Finding novel ways to regulate and tax us to death is not in the job description. |
|
| |
What we have instead are some of the highest taxes of any country, a failing health care system with wait times of years for some tests, the longest unprotected coastline on the planet, one of the weakest military forces, actively participating in the dumbing-down of north america and giving away billions of dollars in foreign aid. |
|
| |
Apparently we've all had quite enough of that and are learning how to say no en masse to any further stupidity.
So I still have my right to defend myself in the bush without their little scrap of paper allowing me to do so. |
|
| |
Don't get me wrong, I understanding some guns are a needed tool in certain environments but guns have been made by a collective of human minds which have put a lot of resources into the engineering. We owe society as a whole for the knowledge and supply of these tools. |
|
| |
Some of these tools are even more highly engineered and have only one primary purpose, to kill humans. These are the type of guns individuals owe society the most for. Supply and privilege of use, at the very least should be paid through registration. |
|
| |
Why are there license plates on vehicles? |
|
| |
Yes, if you live in the wilderness and your house
is occasionally attacked by packs of wolves,
there's probably a need to have a gun. If you live
in the suburbs and have a collection of shiny guns
best suited for killing other people then you're
just living out a dream, nicely expressed in a
quote
I picked up somewhere: "That’s the real fantasy of
the gun – that you will someday be in a situation
of complete moral clarity, rather than stuck in
this muddy welter of decisions otherwise known as
everyday life. There will be bad guys and good guys
and you will know the difference". |
|
| |
// someday be in a situation of complete moral clarity // |
|
| |
Every day is like that, shrley ? |
|
| |
// Why are there license plates on vehicles? // |
|
| |
Primarily, tax collection. |
|
| |
//some guns are a needed tool in certain environments// |
|
| |
Such as dangerous environments, the woods/
ice/mountains of NW USA/ most of Canada /All of Alaska
carry dangerous predators such as wolves and the bigger
varieties of bear. |
|
| |
//Some of these tools are even more highly engineered
and have only one primary purpose, to kill humans.// |
|
| |
Since humans are the all-time world-champions of being
dangerous predators, living around high densities of them
carries the same logic as the first example. |
|
| |
Except that it doesn't. People might be bastards sometimes, but the least
sensible thing to do when dealing with bastards, is give them guns. People
forget that when you give everyone guns, you're handing them out to bastards
too, raising the stakes, and additionally to bastards, you're making idiots
far more lethal than they might otherwise have been. The thing with bastards,
is they're fairly easy to spot. Meanwhile, idiots are everywhere, and to be
honest, I'd much prefer to imagine the idiots I meet in the course of any
given day not to be armed idiots. It's enough to drive anyone to gun
ownership, no wonder the gun companies are so keen to preserve their
ludicrous rhetoric out there in the public discourse. Sensibly, if you live
in the country, by all means, carry something that carries a magazine of 5
tops - that would cover most situations - even allow bolt-action rifles. But
anywhere urban, where the idiot ratio is likely to be higher, only allow
black powder weapons, flintlocks, matchlocks etc - anything that takes a
degree of prowess to charge, load and fire. Pistols should only ever be of
this type, in both town and country, and sold either within intricately
detailed marquetry boxes, or as is traditional for the seafaring community,
in braces, subject to the recipient ending their every utterance in the
phrase "me-hearties" or "yarrr". |
|
| |
What we could have is all the unregistered, heavy weapon welding people* living around the borders and, whether your rich or poor, if you make it through to a central registry with a standard government issue weapon**, your in. |
|
| |
*largely bastards and idiots.
**Then again, money buys cheats. |
|
| |
//The thing with bastards, is they're fairly easy to spot// |
|
| |
I beg to differ. It is obvious to any given in-group that the
out-group are the bastards, but equally vice versa. |
|
| |
I think my use of the word bastards was in the context of [bs0u0155]'s //humans are the
all-time world-champions of being dangerous predators// where rather than flatly ascribe
the feature of dangerous predation to the entire human race, I make the assumption that the
predation trait is distributed across the human population with a spectrum of intensity,
the top nth percentile of which, you could safely label as "bastards". I think that's a
very different thing to labeling in-groups and out-groups - but I suppose people do that
also. And if people are apt to apply those kinds of labels, then there's even more reason
to avoid handing out guns, you never know who's going to place you in their out-group and
arbitrarily assign you a "bastard" - that may happen anyway, but it's less easy to graciously accept differences of opinion when the
person
doing the assigning is armed and sees you as the enemy. |
|
| |
Now idiots, that's an entirely different matter - and to be fair, is more than likely to overlap with in-group and out-group
definitions. |
|
| |
Whether they will will admit to it or not, ALL humans divide the world into "ME" and "everyone else". |
|
| |
They may claim they don't, but subconsciously they always do. It's a necessary function of self-awareness and consciousness. |
|
| |
People who are insufficiently autistic are more likely to report a
different experience. Simone de Beauvoir, for example, would
have probably have been happier if she had been somewhat
more autistic than she was: as it was, she implied* that,
subjectively, she seemed not to exist if other people were not
paying attention to her - contrary to [8th]'s assertion. |
|
| |
*somewhere near the end of Les Mandarins |
|
| |
//"Tautologies 'r Us."// - the full name of this
organisation is "Tautologies 'R' Us, and We
'R' Tautologies" |
|
| |
Fatherlessness, more than almost any other social trait, makes a person less likely to succeed. Therefore the people with the most success are least likely to be bastards.* |
|
| |
*this statement is largely true but the person who points out the fallacy will win 1 (one) internet.** |
|
| |
**This statement is entirely true, and the person who points out the fallacy that would fallaciously be ascribed to it will also win an internet. |
|
| |