“benevolent” - at least you were consistent with your error . .
Many of the sentences from posters above are unintelligible English . .
Warren is mostly right - the current “system” has started the world on its Sixth Mass Extinction - from which Homo sapiens is very unlikely to survive. Sir Martin Rees is being optimistic when he says that humans have a 50% chance of surviving this century. Unless something dramatic happens, it will be a miserable end to a species that held such promise. People like Warren may have some of the ideas that could produce a better outcome . .
You’re simply arguing might makes right and arbitrary power should rule. I used to hold those opinions but then I realized they simply don’t work in practice especially where there is scarcity. Beyond a certian baseline gain must match real contribution.
As for the money changing example I think its telling that Earth’s current dominant religion resulted from a man opposing bankers and theur refusing to forgive the poor their debts on already illegal interest and subsequently being murdered by the bankers. The bankers broke the law of no interest and then even refused to follow the Jubilee remedy meant to let them off easy. And then killed a person attempting to call attention to it. So no, the conversion of money into direct political power is unacceptable and limits on money like limits on dynamite are crucial. It is not a luck of the draw finder keepers casino market world. We do limit gambling and the lower the limit on usury the better.
A meditation on bankers and debt might go: if people have enough, they don’t need debt.
Sorry about the spelling errors I’ll fix in a bit.
How am I arguing might makes right? I’m arguing against coercively taking assets from another against their will. And I’m not arguing ANY power should rule. But I’m also saying one shouldn’t take power, regardless of the form, from another coercively because that is the act of ruling another. Accumulating wealth and power is not the same as exercising power and coercion over another. If owned owned a piece of land, the same size as my neighbour and grew a bountiful crop on it with lots and lots of food but my neighbour didn’t, is that food not mine to use or sell? And if I sell it should that profit not be mine as well? And if I use that profit to buy more land again am I at fault because my neighbor didn’t use his land to grow food or grow it well? And through all this have I at ANY POINT coerced or tried to rule over anyone? No.
You want things search based. But search is based on keywords and placing ads essentially. As for your objection to fiat currency I share it however there is a simple remedy and that is to sell fiat currency in favor of crypto or precious metals. The less people hold or use fiat the less value it holds. This is true of any currency.
SAFE will allow anonymous communication and money transfer for all. Including politicians and high rollers like corporations. Let that sink in. It will effectively mean that democracy means nothing because people will be buying votes left right and center once they cotton on. Having a party with a transparent account ledger will ALSO mean nothing because again you can just set up a private account and get donations. So you can do one of two things. Get rid of political parties and crowdfund independents. Or you can have political parties that kick out anyone that deviates from the party line and that are completely fiscally transparent. Why was this not immediately obvious to you? Law means nothing if you can’t enforce it.
Search need not be based on ads, and I don’t think ad based search can be useful for long because its an overwhelming conflict of interest.
“Accumulating wealth and power is not the same as exercising power and coercion over another.”
Again not where there is scarcity and only to a limited degree in general.
and
“SAFE will allow anonymous communication and money transfer for all. Including politicians and high rollers like corporations. Let that sink in. It will effectively mean that democracy means nothing because people will be buying votes left right and center once they cotton on.”
I just don’t see it. And and more and more I hate the term ‘political capital’ what nonsense
And as for elections you eliminate the money. You simply make pos media firms cover it for free or yank their charter. Exactly the way we used to do it in the US. And you make sponsored media illegal because its nothing but paid for censorship. Remember commercial speech for me has almost no importance in comparison to political speech. I am a business last kind of guy even if I recognize business can be a lot of fun.
What the hell is a media charter? There is no such thing.
You just keep on making stuff up.
Any “YOU” you invent is evil tyrants. Able to be even more corrupt than the status quo without any chance of being punished because they control everything that supposedly needs to be contolled.
Its all made up. Spewing imagination. Useless drivel. There is no “You”. And prayerfully there never will be…
Why? Already we’ve got political lobbying and vote buying. Why do you think it would be any different under SAFE?
What charter? Who is to say who will or will not cover an election in the media or what constitutes as media?
Making something legal or illegal implies presence of a government. There is no government by default on SAFE so what are you talking about? On SAFE unless you opt into using a particular app and system of some kind there are no rules. So again where are you getting this idea of some kind of governing body making it legal or illegal to sponsor politicians or media? How would you prevent it or monitor it with anonymous communications or money transfer even if it was illegal?
You’re welcome to your values but I very much doubt you’ll get everyone agreeing with you.
We had this conversation a while back. I don’t ethical people sell votes, not even ordinary people. I also think we’ve had graft and blackmail but we’ve never had the public ledger coupled to stronger anonymity. I see stuff like Slur countering by far any bribe and blackmail business with transparency. I don’t think doing transactions in a black box makes them invisible to states in the real world. States simply watch what goes in and comes out and shift taxation to more tangible items plus they get people by looking backwards at what comes to light and putting two and two together. I do think states become realtime transparent.
You don’t think ethical people sell votes, not even ordinary people? Well how very naive and unobservant of you. And what’s to stop someone from acting “unethically” and accepting campaign contributions like pretty much every politician in the known western world does? In fact Bernie Sanders is probably one of the first that DOESN’T have some special interests backing him and influencing his agenda which is kind of the point as to what sets him apart as he isn’t “playing the game” as it were. The whole political scene is about bribery and sponsorship. It’s all about trading favors and backroom deals. Seriously you think that those who pursue power are going to be stopped by your particular code of ethics?
That’s IF people opt to use a public ledger. Again you are talking about using an app of some kind. But people don’t HAVE to use it and can still donate directly to one another.
I have no idea what that is and more to the point it isn’t in the common venacular so most people probably wouldn’t know what it is either. Just because you know about it doesn’t mean everyone else does.
How are they going to tax what they can’t monitor? You can only tax the sale of tangible goods if you can monitor the sale of tangible goods. And if you decentralize the sale of tangible goods and services and keep all that information private on SAFE how can the gov’t monitor it in order to tax it? And why do you think a state would become realtime transparent? It wouldn’t be all that effective for waging a war now would it?
The fact that broadcasting was licensed at all as an act of corporate tyranny oligopoly and regulatory capture. In the beginning most anyone could set up a broadcasting station.
Happily Censorship and the like will be dead with SAFE. All of the people Warren wants to ban will need no permission to broadcast whatever they choose on SAFE.
You never said who the “You” is that you expect to implement your utopia. I suspect you want “a man like Putin”
[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:49, topic:5186”]
Seriously you think that those who pursue power are going to be stopped by your particular code of ethics?
[/quote] What’s the point if not. I’d say David Irvine’s ethics are pretty close to my own, and I think its ethics as much as passionate interest in the tech that drives him. I would have have lost interest if it weren’t. Secure Access for Everyone is the commons, neither of us believe in lock out, anti lock out or neutrality was the heart of the net SAFE will hopefully replace. Its a common wealth mentality.
And yes I like Bernie.
If anyone one uses it the data and the analysis will spread really go viral and we will have equation altering results. I am counting on it.
Ok check out Slur.io and I hope to see it on SAFE.
OMG, there were whole long threads, I was pretty sure you were here during that time. And Iam and just parroting the reasoned consensus from those threads on this issue. I think HappyBeing was persuasive in those threads. .
But this is far off topic no? MaidSafe itself is an organization that mirrors the structure of SAFE. It is cooperative of sorts with the values I admire. You could put something like iCEO on top of the SAFE core crew’s work process and extended contributors and practically have the distributed automated cooperative I’d like to see become the heart of work and organizations of every sort everywhere. Not surprising that people who are trying to change the heart of how we achieve almost everything would have come up with a pretty great way of getting their own work done. This forum is piece of the magic.
So lets turn the critical tone around and focus on organizations that themselves mirror the ant like structure of SAFE.
I just cold emailed economist Richard D. Wolff and asked him to consider the DACO type arrangement and then also Devin Fidler at the Future of Work Project that is doing iCEO. In both cases I laid out the stripped down vision that most appeals to me with a minimum of words. Maybe is the Sanders campaign next. I’d like see people get into solid life long arrangements as easily as they can get into Uber now. For the cooperative member it should be as easy and natural as social media but without the sponsorship and privacy violation. If only the SAFE phone running SAFE on a global SAFE mesh were here now.
I think you’re missing the EVERYONE part of SAFE. Everyone does not just mean those who agree with you or who ascribe to your particular ethos. It means EVERYONE. Which brings me back to my original question: Do you think that just because you believe something that will mean squat to someone who fundamentally disagrees with you and believes something completely differently but has access to the same tech as you, ie SAFE? And the point is to give Security, Access and Freedom to EVERYBODY; even people that do not agree with you, believe the same as you do or have the same ethics as you do.
Yes but why would they use it or what stops them from just making another account or persona and using the app on one and receiving donations via the other?
So you’ve got a secret selling service. Okay. But this only works if the subject in question knows the data about the target or has motive to sell said data.
Feel free to throw down a link and point out any particular posts that are relevant.
No. As your proposals do not make sense and I am rebutting them.
Say what? I think your grammar needs work.
Yes that’s true but that’s an app people would opt to use. That’s not the same as talking about law or what would be legal or illegal as what you were suggesting earlier as a means to compel people to comply with your ethos.
Might want to check the definition of ethics, its not a cultural construct. The aims I support seem to be wired into the system and I participated in this forum for a while now in the hope that this would be the case, but in retrospect it was the case long before I knew anything about it. I do think there is a developmental hierarchy and SAFE is hopefully part of the next rung on the ladder.
Slur is meant to shot circuit psychopathy especially the corporate type. But I am sure it will have or evolve a more direct public service route that may not entail payment. And I think payment free services like the a SAFE Wikileaks will ultimately have much greater impact.
No they don’t make sense to you.
I meant MaidSafe is an organization that itself models SAFE at least to a degree.
Actually that’s EXACTLY what ethics are: A cultural construct.
From wikipedia:
Ethics (also moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, “custom”). The branch of philosophy axiology comprises the sub-branches of Ethics and aesthetics, each concerned with concepts of value.[2]
As a branch of philosophy, ethics investigates the questions “What is the best way for people to live?” and “What actions
are right or wrong in particular circumstances?” In practice, ethics
seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such
as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
Actually if you read their website it’s more intended to harness psychopathy.
It’s
estimated that 5% of the general population are psychopaths.
Introducing financial incentive in an anonymous framework will produce a
greater yield of leaked information than from say the ideology that
drove patriots like Edward Snowden. For every idealist willing to > selflessly sacrifice their freedom, assets and even risk their lives for > a greater good, there are 1000 psychopaths willing to anonymously sell > out their peers for material gain. - See more at: slur.io is available for purchase - Sedo.com
Well aren’t we being condescending. No they don’t make sense to me nor do they make sense to others as evidenced by the fact I’m not the only one questioning them.
Despite your quote your thinking of morals not ethics. Ethics are thought to be invariant more transcedental, morals vary with culture. This is why situational ethics is a term of derision .
And its psychopaths undercutting the psychopathic systems that support them and selling out other psychopaths.
Thought by whom? And since when and by whom is it a term of derision? You are making claims without citing examples, sources or quotes.
Actually no. Slur would accept any kind of data not just data from “psychopathic” systems. You could submit personal or compromising data on Slur as much as you could activism or corporate data and use Slur for revenge or as a tool for blackmail as much as you could for whistle blowing. As much as you like to take the moral high ground with such apps they are just tools and not moral or immoral in and of themselves. You can use a knife to prepare a feast or slaughter a neighborhood but the tool you use remains morally neutral; it’s your intentions and actions that change moral alignment.
Isn´t that obvious? Thought by Warren, of course. That´s why he doesn´t need quotes
Actually, no, it IS a cultural construct and I don´t think you´ll find someone else but yourself to quote an alternate opinion. Ethics and moral are both cultural codes. Even empathy is culturally coded and it´s quite easy to proof. Might want to check some definitions…
No, in the language ethics isn’t a scientific question or one fit for an appeal to scientism or contemporary consensus or even deconstruction. A theory of ethics has fallen out of favor a bit but you can find somewhat scienfific attempts with Kolberg’s stuff or the more current Integral approach, but in the search for the good, ethics always referred to an unchanging universal basis for the higher good in human behavior. Its there reflexivly in the heat of the moment in both good and bad forms in human behavior. So once again ethics and morals don’t refer to the same thing but psychopaths would prefer that we reduce ethical conceptions to mere optional moral conceptions. But even mere systems of moral sentiment can be ranked as people like Alasdair MacIntyre have tried.
You’re rehashing stuff that has been discussed at length in previous threads. Type in Slur. We’ve had the bad stuff but never the good. I am not impressed even remotely as much by its potential for bad.
