I suspect the government will like SAFE.
They have more secrets than the rest of us and with SAFE, unless you acknowledge that a file exists, it doesn’t exist.
They would prefer to keep it to themselves, but they didn’t invent it, so too bad for them.
If my rights are granted to me by others, who gives them the right to grant them? 
Rights frameworks and assertions have problems but terms like “inalienable” show up in the language to help out.
I think you are describing communism rather than socialism. It may that this is US v non-US culture, but socialism is very different from communism in Europe. I think people in the US have very polarised views about “the left” while in the EU we perhaps polarise “the right” to some extent. As for neo-liberalism, well it seems to be one pretending to be the other, or perhaps the bastard child of both 
Please make an effort to moderate your language. I did a quick search and find that your posts turn up quite frequently with this kind of language. I know its not every week, but it still too much IMO, so I’m minded to flag all posts containing this kind of language from now on.
I’d like you to make a serious effort to post without using language that some will find offensive. I realise it is not intended to offend, but hope that you will appreciate there are other, effective, ways to convey the strength of feeling you have on an issue, which no-one would have reason to complain about.
I’m also conscious there are teenage MaidSafe fans out there, so this is I guess a family friendly forum. Maybe we need to be stricter about this? I’ll be happy to hear your views, and maybe discuss it more widely.
Could you clarify what period this Golden Age of Human flourishing was, so I know how to respond - ie pre-Colonial or later? How far back are you going? I take it you are now advocating private armies etc btw?
Not for the 1% it doesn’t, but he other 99% would appear to disagree with you. So the problem now is “restricting what people can use as currency” - I would maintain this basic assertion itself is wrong - you can use whatever you want…however taxes have to be paid in the fiat currency of the Nation.
So, they would be correct in their assertion according to your own words?
OK, so the problem is no longer “Socialism”, but the Govt making matters worse? OK…how so, just so I can follow you?
Those of you bashing on capitalism ought to provide an example of a country where capitalism is actually practiced.
Not in the US. We have Oligarchies using government regulation to prevent competition from entering nearly all markets that matter. That is the problem, not capitalism.
Lol…love the bomb…let me defuse it for you… 
It’s actually a really good question, but basically what it boils down to is that they are not “granted” in the way say “Civil Rights” are - ie by Govts and pertaining to members of each Civil Society as “laws of the Land” kind of thing.
They are something that apply to every man, woman and child everywhere and are based on the idea of basic Human dignity, which have been historically expressed in the idea of “Natural Law” - as @Blindsite2k mentioned. Throughout history these basic concepts have been expressed in many philosophies, religious texts - Hindu Vedas, Confucius etc.
These basic principles have been recognised in pretty much every culture and have been codified as “Human Rights.” They are in the main treated as self-evident… or “inalienable” as @Blindsite2k stated and are therefore not “granted” by any Earthly or “Divine” entity.
How about you give me an example of where your own definition of Capitalism works? What is your model Society?:
People ought not need permission to sell their good and services. Places where they do are not truely free… And in many cases the barriers to entry are used to protect incumbent businesses…
They don’t as far as I know. How is that an answer to the question btw?
Edit:
I can agree with a lot of what the guy says, however I disagree that regulation prevents this cuddlier definition of Capitalism. My main issue is people saying we don’t need a tax system and to “leave it to the markets”. This will necessarily mean we are reliant on Charity and Philanthropy, which would give us the same results as in Victorian England, work- houses, no welfare etc.
Most places require all kinds of licensing and paperwork to conduct business on any significant scale… Often times these burdens are supported by the incumbent businesses to keep competition out… Regulators are usually industry insiders or rely on industry insiders to decide what to regulate… As such, you have regulatory capture that makes the government a pawn of industry…
Try to open a bank out of your garage… It isn’t going to happen unless you have millions to start with.
You can put certain tax burdens on business without interfering with the market significantly… So it isn’t an either/or proposition here…
I take your points…I think (reading between the lines) that we both see problems with big business Corporations basically ring-fencing markets and using regulations to their own ends using the “revolving doors” of business/Govt and I totally agree the Govts have to a large extent become the pawns of Industry…in fact it’s something I harp on about quite a bit - Govt functions/powers being subsumed by Corporations.
I would then say that the problem is not so much with the ideas of Govt or regulation (reining in the excesses aspect) - but the way in which these things have been hijacked.
I agree about the Banks and the whole Finance Industry really, but I would also say that even without any restrictions you’d need millions to open one, to cover customers etc.
In regard to taxing business - again I agree…the problem is that Corporations can just register in tax havens etc - there would necessarily have to be some form of regulation at an International level somehow I think.
Anyway, what’s going on here with all this agreeing mullarkey…
Just to try and get back to the OP - this has gotta be good news:
Probably need to move to something like a FAIR tax in the long run to circumvent tax havens etc…
Corporations don’t pay taxes unless they want to-- there are just too many ways to ‘lose’ money if you have the choice… Tax optimization and minimization is big business that only big businesses can afford…
All in all, I think Cryptocurrency is going to bring tax evasion to the masses – (Not just to big guys with lawyers) and as such the governments will have to change their revenue model to something more square…
But the problem is not capitalism it is government cronyism and oligarchies… Oligarchy is not capitalism, its oligarchy…
This is a big concern for me really, I’d rather everyone just paid a fair amount in tax to provide for infra-structure/welfare, rather than create a way for everyone to avoid it. I suggested some vague outline of how to overcome this issue in the Safecoin/tax thread - the idea went down about as well as a fart in a lift though.
As to whether the blame lies with Capitalism itself, then I would probably amend my position to “How Capitalism currently operates” or similar. I probably use the word “Capitalism” as a catch all for whatever systems we are using that ends up with 1 % having all the wealth. It’s difficult to find the right terminology with these things - I mean it’s also not strictly a Corporate Oligarchy either really.
I would concede that strictly speaking blaming everything on Capitalism would be incorrect, but its also the same catch all term that pretty much everyone uses when complaining of Banks/Austerity and all that goes with it
I will concede the point, rather than argue terminology is what I’m saying.
“Down with Oligarchical Cronyism” doesn’t really work on a banner…
Yah, You use the term “Capitalism” incorrectly, thus my correction. 1% having all the wealth is oligarchy. Capitalism insures no such thing, while that is the definition of the word oligarchy. Capitalism is rarely practiced. It is just a cool term you can pretend to be while you are actually doing something entirely different.
The problem really is that Governments are inherently a central point of corruption and thus they will become corrupted without fail…
The Cryptocurrency revolution has the potential to replace most functions of Government – as it provides a transparent and incorruptible, core… That is a good thing. Businesses ought to be willing to contribute to their schools, communities and infrastructure, those that do ought to be patronized and those that don’t ought not… That can be made crystal clear with cryptocurrencies – yet it will eliminate the one shop stop for bribery that we have now.
I agree, but am thinking that it is misleading to phrase it this way. As with your point about capitalism being wrongly identified as the culprit, here I think government - rather than centralisation of power - is being labelled the culprit.
This is why I see decentralisation as the way to reform governance - though those who read that as government and not surprisingly mistake even that for centralised government tend to think the answer is no governance = no government.
It is not a lack of it that’s needed, but decentralised, open, accountable: governance, commerce, etc.
No actually, 1% having all the power would be Oligarchy.
So the answer is to de-centralise the functions and powers as much as is feasible, as we’ve both suggested.
There should not be a possibility for them not to, I would say.
The problem with government is that it has a bias of mission in that it thinks it needs to govern.
Just because it can doesn’t mean it should… But it you a a policeman, you tend to police, if you are a prosecuter you tend to prosecute, if you are a legislator you tend to legislate, Militaries bomb, etc etc etc… They don’t get much leeway to not do their jobs, Moreover, who defines the scope? The government does — and It tends to grow and grow…
The debate is never “Budget cuts” although some may label it as such… It is always “How much smaller increase can we have this year compared to last year”
I would argue that in large, Governments need to go the way of the AT&T, Sprint, and MCI long distance companies. If we can get most of the same jobs done cheaper, faster, with less corruption, we ought to make that happen.
Transparency doesn’t help too much because most of what is regulated is such menushia that the public doesn’t know or care about it one way or another. The only folks who care are the industries involved – and their voice is the voice that leads to regulatory capture…
There is a place for governments, but they do need to be on a very short leash…
You’ve ignored most of what I wrote and just rolled out your rather narrow conception of what government (or as I prefer) governance can be like. You’ve pretty much followed the template response that I described too.
Ok, let’s not call it government. Now re-read my post and for government substitute some other word that doesn’t create a pavlovian drivel response (kidding - just couldn’t help that one). Please don’t take me as uncivil, I’m just kidding around and want to avoid getting into another of the endless tennis matches that most of these threads seem to be.
Let me focus on the point I think you miss, and want to turn into an attack on what you see as the problem, but which I think is both correct (the problem being humans compulsion to corrupt any centralised system), and missing the target (seeing it as government/governance) when the “free market” is just a lack of government that doesn’t address the needs that government was set up for either.
As @al_kafir points out, you don’t magically get a better system by removing government. You only get a system without government.
What he and I, and perhaps you, would like is a system that does provide useful stuff efficiently, with places where resources are pooled (and not embezzled etc.) and applied to allow joint enterprise to deliver things that require scale, or are simply better, more effcient etc. when done at scale.
We all see that government often messes this up. Al and I do not see free market capitalism as likely to do any better at it - isn’t that why people started hiring a town sheriff, electing a council, mayor etc etc?
So, if we can perhaps agree neither are really the solution, and that the real problem is centralisation of power (whether in government or business), then the solution is to apply the principles of decentralisation to both (and part of that is transparency). For it is scale that makes it impossible for accountability to keep centralised entities in check, and that is because transparency is lost. In small communities we could do this naturally, because everyone knew everyone, and they had to live together (little travel) for their whole lives. Therefore, what I think we need is to re invigorate this kind of self-regulating relationship accountability, but on a larger scale.