In Eternity you have all the time to build a paradise, and then live in it for an eternity, without any need of money.
But do you have the limited land property to build it in a crowded universe (let’s add this hypothesis) ? Again, this is a theoretical model don’t be a…
Yet, ( C ) is always observed in a libre currency.
I agree (and never argued the contrary if you read me correctly), but you would have other ways to hide it. By buying a finite asset, like land property or gold for example (Denis acknowledged this point, and was arguing for the end of property in the long run, you can read his post above).
And (A), is observed an “infinitesimal” relative amount of time.
In Eternity you have all the time to build a comet, go to Mars, Terraforming it, and build your paradise on it. You have also all necessary time to join any planet anywhere in the Universe, since you live forever. You don’t need a money then to realize whatever you would like to.
A monk is not assured to transform it’s own spirit to decide this, because he has a limited life expectancy. So for people with limited life expectancy, money is usefull to realise in a finite time, what would be without difficulties realised with infinite time.
So your hypothesis isn’t correct. You should reconsider it.
@Galuel
You are one kind of a goblin aren’t you ? You know what a proof really is isn’t it ? In a formal system, programmed on a Turing machine (coq, agda, idris…etc) with the Curry Howard correspondence… We can discuss about it if you want I was trained as an applied mathematician. Here we are just exchanging philosophical informal arguments. And we can define a formal framework that is distinct of this physical world. And you know what, these arguments distinct from reality and can nevertheless be really useful in practice. I know you know this because you wrote a whole book full of such arguments. So I don’t see your point here besides annoying me (if this is your aim, I must admit you have succeeded).
Bad faith = 3 likes.
@cgeek
You know I am both a C++ coder (this is my job now yay !) and a math lover and I loved the discussion we had back in 2014 (as “plop” in the chat) since we where estimating issues with large WoT diameter, the “difficulty” adjustment, or the Eve-il bot story. ^^ I would have loved to participate both on the code and on the theoretical part (as the devil advocate). But Galuel is just too much of a pain in the neck… He was as such back then and seems to have graduated since. I wish you luck and courage for the future of your project, but I don’t think I will be reappearing here. Thanks.
PS: Feel free to remove this post, if you don’t like it.
No you don’t, you deny experimental measures, like human is not eternal, every physician know that first is experiment results, not philosophy “out of thin air”.
In religion yes you can, not in science. So you are not following scientific fundamentals.
I’m not sure you know what you really want in that case.
About the “flat tax” analogy, I have already shown that it is skewed at the inception of the currency. But it is not the only case. Other cases such as “how do you collect your flat tax on dead people”? You may want to collect “inheritance taxes”, but this is significantly different than the UD in that case. So again, although the “flat tax” analogy may depict some of the characteristics of the UD, it is not the UD. And trying to prove otherwise is bound to fail.
No you don’t, you deny experimental measures, like human is not eternal, every physician know that first is experiment results, not philosophy “out of thin air”.
No you don’t, you deny experimental measures, like human is not eternal, every physician know that first is experiment results, not philosophy “out of thin air”.
I was talking mathematics, where you can always consider chicken to be spheroids. Although I am not sure it this is physically reasonable. (and we would never use this completely erroneous Newtonian mechanic isn’t it ? Everybody know it’s garbage since Einstein !)
I’m not sure you know what you really want in that case.
Psychological, is not a synonym of political. But you are right I am not clear. I would guess I am more interested into what would be the benefits in terms of economical incentives, or inequality reduction/creation.
About the “flat tax” analogy, I have already shown that it is skewed at the inception of the currency.
I agreed to that.
But it is not the only case. Other cases such as “how do you collect your flat tax on dead people”?
Well you do indirectly in this system, but this is not the case in a “conventional” taxation mechanism. I agree here too.
So again, although the “flat tax” analogy may depict some of the characteristics of the UD, it is not the UD
It depends what you mean by flat tax. Yes, if you intend, “conventional” flat tax with all its attributes, we agree and @cgeek with us as well, this in not UD.
And trying to prove otherwise is bound to fail.
This is not what I am trying to do or what I am interested in.
It doesn’t matter you have ways to hide your money in a libre currency, it does not affect (C) precisely because it is not a tax in the end.
It doesn’t matter either. (A) demonstrates (B) is wrong on libre currency’s integral. That’s why if someone says that a libre currency is just like (B), he will have to face contradictions like (A), (C) or even (D): « if all the money gets destroyed at t, (C) would still hold true ».
See, (B) is just true locally and doesn’t have all the properties of a libre currency. So this assertion is correct:
And so you can use the “tax” analogy, but we should always precise “but in reality it is creation”.
Yes I remember, I think your first name is Camille.
Well I had this feeling on my first days with OpenUDC, but the desire to see the libre currency becoming a reality made me pass over it. And now I see Galuel as a funny guy, which has understood many things, is able to demonstrate it and spends a lot of energy to share it. If you are ready for it, you can learn a lot of things from him. It is not just bad faith what he tells you
Enjoy it !
Be a monk.