5 ms·

> Money laundering is an absurd concept. People should be free to transfer money to whoever they like, without permission. This ignores that taxes are a thing

by BobbyJo 1mo ago

> Money laundering is an absurd concept. People should be free to transfer money to whoever they like, without permission. This ignores that taxes are a thing that need enforcement. Its like saying basic necessities should be free, the world should be without pollution, or cancer shouldn't exist.

OutOfHere 1mo ago
Well of course they should be. You have been brainwashed so much that you can't even conceive of a different world. For taxes, I favor land value tax. Basic necessities can absolutely be free under it, as the super rich hold plenty of land. We can have a world without much pollution if we switch away from fossil fuels, and if we take the lifecycle of chemicals into account. Note that excesss carbon dioxide is pollution too. Regarding cancer, medical science is working toward it.
- BobbyJo 1mo ago
  > Well of course they should be. You have been brainwashed so much that you can't even conceive of a different world. Assuming you are talking about free basic necessities: I can conceive it fine, I just also understand that conceiving doesn't mean it will work, and history has shown it won't. Me making the statement was itself conception no? I can conceive of a million different economic systems, but I also understand most of them are infeasible, and the risk of running the experiment is extremely high, with little to gain in a my country, where obesity is a much larger problem than starving.
  - OutOfHere 1mo ago
    Everything I noted is entirely feasible. It is not pie in the sky. In fact, history has shown that it works. The risk is more pronounced with inaction than with action. If you have a decent imagination and a fuller appreciation for history, you would see it.
    - BobbyJo 1mo ago
      > It is not pie in the sky Define "pie in the sky", because you have described the utopia that every eco-socialist has been chasing for 100 years... The problem that makes it infeasible isn't the math, or the technology, it's people. Communism would work beautifully... if everyone in the world was different.
      - OutOfHere 1mo ago
        Huh. I did not ask for communism, nor do I believe in it. I do believe that people need to be rewarded for their effort. Democratic socialism and social democracy are sufficiently different from communism. When people's basic survival needs are met, which is the goal, they can be more free to pursue entrepreneurial and creative endeavors, otherwise they stay stuck in a minimum-wage job as under the current system. In the decades to come, minimum wage jobs need to be replaced by AI anyway, even physical robotic AI. It doesn't make sense to do by hand what can be automated. A system where the population's wealth disparity keeps getting worse is nothing to be proud of. There have been systems of government in history where the system's total wealth made everyone more equal while preserving the reward for effort.

by BobbyJo 1mo ago

OutOfHere 1mo ago

Well of course they should be. You have been brainwashed so much that you can't even conceive of a different world. For taxes, I favor land value tax. Basic necessities can absolutely be free under it, as the super rich hold plenty of land. We can have a world without much pollution if we switch away from fossil fuels, and if we take the lifecycle of chemicals into account. Note that excesss carbon dioxide is pollution too. Regarding cancer, medical science is working toward it.

BobbyJo 1mo ago
> Well of course they should be. You have been brainwashed so much that you can't even conceive of a different world. Assuming you are talking about free basic necessities: I can conceive it fine, I just also understand that conceiving doesn't mean it will work, and history has shown it won't. Me making the statement was itself conception no? I can conceive of a million different economic systems, but I also understand most of them are infeasible, and the risk of running the experiment is extremely high, with little to gain in a my country, where obesity is a much larger problem than starving.
- OutOfHere 1mo ago
  Everything I noted is entirely feasible. It is not pie in the sky. In fact, history has shown that it works. The risk is more pronounced with inaction than with action. If you have a decent imagination and a fuller appreciation for history, you would see it.
  - BobbyJo 1mo ago
    > It is not pie in the sky Define "pie in the sky", because you have described the utopia that every eco-socialist has been chasing for 100 years... The problem that makes it infeasible isn't the math, or the technology, it's people. Communism would work beautifully... if everyone in the world was different.
    - OutOfHere 1mo ago
      Huh. I did not ask for communism, nor do I believe in it. I do believe that people need to be rewarded for their effort. Democratic socialism and social democracy are sufficiently different from communism. When people's basic survival needs are met, which is the goal, they can be more free to pursue entrepreneurial and creative endeavors, otherwise they stay stuck in a minimum-wage job as under the current system. In the decades to come, minimum wage jobs need to be replaced by AI anyway, even physical robotic AI. It doesn't make sense to do by hand what can be automated. A system where the population's wealth disparity keeps getting worse is nothing to be proud of. There have been systems of government in history where the system's total wealth made everyone more equal while preserving the reward for effort.