Subnostr

Taking capital from person A in order to give that capital to person B without consent is force, and we should try to avoid that as much as possible. Even voluntary isn't sufficient, because it introduces uncertainty.

Nothing is free, there is always a cost. We have to come to agreement on how those costs will be paid. If a local municipal government set up a bitcoin miner to generate a revenue stream, they could distribute that revenue stream to all citizens of that municipality. No force needed, just a steady income stream.

LpLiberto 1y ago

How would that municipal government fund the mining infrastructure if not by coercive taxation? That, of course, sets the precedent for further coercion for the common good. It’s right where we’re at.

Also let’s assume Municipality A somehow manages to introduce a UBI whereas Municipality B does not. Let’s also assume some generous people in Municipality A donate bitcoin to redistribute as UBI. What if people from Municipality B move to A? Suddenly those generous donors either have to give more to fund everyone’s UBI, or equal UBI is no longer possible, or lower for everyone.

I just don’t see it possible or sustainable based on voluntary donations, and coercive extraction brings us back where we are now.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Chad Lupkes 1y ago

Sounds like you are saying it wouldn't work either way. Because you object to every possible path that has been described. So, what path can you come up with that would get us to the end goal? Any?

LpLiberto 1y ago

I’m by no means trying to destroy the argument or being cynical, just thinking as the discussion moves along. This is all in good faith!

I don’t see a path to UBI without centralisation of resources and redistribution by a central authority. If force is deemed unacceptable, then it must rely on generous donations. If force is deemed acceptable, well…

Of course any group could decide to organise in such a centralised way and to voluntarily give up capital for the common good, but what about the next generation, or any free rider that wouldn’t want to contribute?

Anyway I can stop, I really don’t mean to harass you! My focus and priority is on voluntaryism and individual freedom, so I’m always curious to see what works and not in such a framework.

Chad Lupkes 1y ago

I get it, no worries. This is not a zero point comparison to me. We can't have ALL FREEDOM or ALL SECURITY without a complete change of perspective. Realizing that those are two separate measurement sticks and we want to maximize both is really important. I love Benjamin Franklin, he was actually a distant cousin of mine, but his statement is too simplistic. We don't have to choose one at the expense of the other, we need to maximize both.

If all centralization is bad, then any and all pools of resources and capital are bad. All groups of people that are not borg hive minds. Any democracy where there is a single opposing vote. It can get silly, and it just derails the conversation thread.

A voluntary pooling of capital to buy a bitcoin miner and distribute the rewards has not been tried. Well, it has but it turned out to be a ponzi scheme that I gave up on in the summer of 2018. The current publicly traded companies that are bitcoin miners don't pay dividends, and their stock value sucks. Municipal governments in the US are too scared to try new things, or their afraid to even talk about it. The biggest question is how we get the ball rolling. If I had the capital, I might try, but I don't.

LpLiberto 1y ago

In any case, beyond philosophical or ideological differences I just love to see everyone in the Bitcoin space thinking creatively and wanting to build. It’s a nice change from the fiat mindset.

We’re still very early so I’m eager to see what emerges over the next few years!