On this page, you can see discussions of visitors of portal.
Views: 3581
SK
new, more effective way of organizing human relations
SK
new, more effective way of organizing human relations
On this page, you can see discussions of visitors of portal.
Views: 3581
“We can eliminate 90% of humanity’s problems”
the last time i saw a statement like that made, the solution involved wiping out 100% of humanity
a) crypto currency does this
and b) this is actually a horrible idea
great in theory when you apply it only to say public gov spending, etc
If everyone knew everything about everybody’s money situation, there would be an uprising in your country and on your planet, the likes of which you have never seen. And in the aftermath of that there would be fairness and equity, honesty and true forthe-good-of-all priority in the conduct of human affairs.
a) more or less everybody sort of knows what everybodys money is
elon musk is rich as hell
and you are poor as hell
and if you’re somewhere in between the rich want you to not have more money than the poor so they’re the richest people in the world :-p
Yes, but cryptocurrency is not fully transparent. I believe that theory of transparent money should be applied to all money – even the private one. Because the way how you earn and spend your money affects seriously the environment we all live in.
In one sentence you say that there would be uprising and in another you say that more or less everybody knows what everybody money is. Little bit contradictory, don’t you think? So has this kind of project some added value or not?
The change to fully transparent society won’t happen overnight. Firstly, only people that have nothing to hide would be in. I’m planning to create an exclusive group of fully transparent people. I believe that after some time, other people would notice, that visible money users are really better candidates for politics, etc.
That would create more pressure for rest of society to opt-in.
Lets say its successful. Seems like intermediate to Utopia. But somehow some people would always find ways to cheat the system and then those “cheaters” would know exactly who is dangerous to them and whom to eliminate. Because if everyone’s transactions are known to anyone then one who can hide will gain crucial advantage. I can see this society having no stable state. It would become either authoritarian regime dominated by people whose transactions are hidden or fall back to old ways
The proposed change would fail in case it would be done earlier in history for example I think. Humanity is only currently getting into state, that fight for resources is not so crucial for everybody. Growth of human knowledge is doubling every like 3 years or so. What I’m trying to say is, that currently is time for such a change. Thanks to science, there is or will be soon enough resources to manage society much more freely than it was in past. That is why I think your comment is not right – when I consider current unprecedent situation in human history.
To better explain my comment – I for example believe, that when humanity gets better organized, it could reach such a level of comfort for everyone, that would have better quality than life of king in 18th century. In 18th century where no dentists, water toilets, showers etc. So now, when you would have to pick whether be a king in 18th century or regular person nowadays, second would be a better option. (Unless you are superegoistic person) And I think that this construct can be applied to state, which would rise up when humans would have really developed society. (That is one, in which no one desires anything at expense of another) Life in such society could be for example eternal – I’m explaining way how to achieve it in this post: https://visiblemoney.org/2021/06/01/3-fundamental-challenges-of-todays-humanity-and-my-answers-to-them/ So long story short: It is better even for those who are misusing current system to switch to visible money – because God possibilities would appear for everyone.
For me personally, the possibility of financial privacy and non-disclosure of my finances is a fundamental issue. So fundamental that in defending it I would be willing to give all means and all my abilities and even my life to preserve my privacy. The way I handle my money is MY BUSINESS ONLY. You will not force me to take the opposite position even under threat of death, you would have to kill me, but then you would only have my corpse and not a unit in your twisted system. But I will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER submit to the “visible money” system. I expect that many other people will have a similar attitude.
“My money is none of your business.” – This is not a “mantra of capitalism” and something you could consider or debate, but IT IS A WARNING.
If you give examples from the US, then in the US the sentence: “You have no business here – this is private property!” does not mean that the person is bragging or that you can start arguing about property rights… But it means that if you do not leave this private property immediately, the shotgun that the owner of the property is holding in his hands will fire in your direction.
We understand it only as “such talk”, but in the US it is a warning of attack and defense of property. I know the case of a Czech who entered a garden in the US at night with two Americans and received such a warning. The Americans stopped, the Czech went on, ended up with a bullet in his head.
So if someone tells you “My money is none of your business”, it is not an invitation to discussion, but it is a simple warning and WARNING.
The article’s goal was to capture the spectrum of reactions to the idea. In that sense, it was at least successful.
The argument that how you spend your money is no one’s business because it’s different if you’re paying employees or drug dealers is flawed. No one can convince me that a system like that is acceptable.
I perceive your reaction as a childish refusal to understand something that seems obvious at first glance. However, at least I’m aware that such reactions exist.
How I handle my money is my business, as long as I have enough power to fend off anyone who wants to get their hands on it.
When it comes to drugs, our society has agreed on their illegality, so it has the power to enforce it, but only here… On the other hand, there are countries, such as in South America, where drug cartels have such widespread public support that any attempt to crack down on them is met with such a brutal wave of aggression from the entire population that drug illegality practically doesn’t exist there.
So it doesn’t matter at all whether you think you’re right or whether something is “right” or “wrong”, but whether or not you have the power to enforce it. And luckily, you will never have the power to enforce this stupidity
Whether something is considered “right” and aligned with certain ideals is usually determined because behaving according to those ideals ensures long-term sustainability – because the logistics of that idea works. I argue that the way society functions now is not sustainable in the long term – I see the biggest threat in the excessive pressure for technological progress, which no one controls and has no way to control in the current system.
However, I understand that until there is a major disaster (if COVID is not already one), people will not perceive this risk vividly enough. I sense a certain hint of respect for the correctness of the idea in your response.
As for my ability to enforce something, I have a significant health handicap compared to the average person. So in fact, maybe I’ll be happy if I can last a few more years in a state that resembles a somewhat normal life. However, I think it would take a miracle to get something like this enforced. And not a small one.
I believe that the entire universe is governed by a style where there really is an entity at the top that takes care to prevent irreversible damage and to keep life going in a more or less optimal mode. I think this could be an opportunity for such an intervention. Just as a farmer takes care of his fields and makes interventions that allow him to maximize the benefit from them, I believe such an entity takes care of humanity. And those are the “ideals” – principles that allow such an entity to maximize the benefit of the entire human race.
Digital euro and your ultra-communism are two different things. Digital payments do not automatically mean their full transparency, and this does not apply to other property.
You don’t mind the existence of a background database of all financial flows, and you haven’t even addressed the issue of securing such a system against abuse. But you do mind if your surroundings have an overview of what you do with your money. It’s easy to guess where the wind is blowing from.
You don’t care about the principles you were waving around when you described how you would defend the sentence “My money is none of your business” with your life. You simply have a problem with the fact that you would be restricted in the new system compared to the current one.
If something like this is ever implemented, it won’t happen overnight. People like you will be considered. Moreover, technologies will bring unheard-of possibilities in the meantime, which will solve many things of this kind. But I understand that from your point of view, these are just empty words at the moment.
I can’t imagine anything worse. Every thief would know what I own. The state would have the ability to spy on every transaction and monitor and punish me for it. Zero privacy. This is a hell I wouldn’t want to live in.
Orwell was the last one to come up with such a totalitarian vision. But at least he meant it as a warning.
We can’t avoid the fact that the state will know about every transaction, for example after the introduction of the digital euro and the abolition of cash. I propose a solution in which anyone – every member of society – can obtain equally powerful information. By giving the same power to everyone, you make everyone equal. It is a way to keep such powerful technologies in check, without anyone being able to usurp power from them and make others suffer.
I don’t see any other way to move forward with technologies and make them unassailable. But I see that explaining this will be much harder than I thought. I simply believe that people can live together without any problems. However, there must be some source of truth that anyone can turn to, with which every economic problem can be solved. Perhaps my ideas will become relevant when the digital euro is actually introduced or the situation develops in some other way.
Just to clarify – the system would of course have built-in mechanisms so that if someone abuses it, they can be defended against. A convicted thief would automatically lose the right to view other people’s property. A corrupt official would lose the authority to decide on further contracts and would go on a list of shame. Gradually, there would be a relatively high degree of certainty that those who have full rights in the system and a clean slate are honest people who can be trusted. The whole thing should have a strong educational effect.
What they are building in China is exactly the world you described. This is the exact opposite – technologically based on similar modern principles, but with individual freedom at the completely opposite end of the spectrum from China.
Collectivization wrapped in flowery phrases. Any state official can destroy me with one click, because they can cut me off from money. All that’s missing for perfection is a ban on cash, but you comrades are well aware of that. Right? The very fact that the envy of the vile, stupid, uneducated mob is the driving force of their existence. When a wretch, eternally drunk like the Greek fleet, sees how well a surgeon earns, he will demand a reduction in the doctor’s salary, because he himself will not earn as much in a year as a doctor earns in a month.
Wouldn’t it be better to simply abolish money and run society on the principle of universal love and respect? (that was sarcasm). The state currently takes 2/3 of my income. Economic mummies, who have never earned a cent in their lives but have only lived from spending the money of taxpayers, still have the morbid audacity to talk about the need to increase taxes. With your proposal, you are essentially legitimizing dictatorship and advocating for 100% taxation.
Yes, it is true that if an attempt to introduce something like this were not done wisely, it would lead to such an accumulation of power that it would likely end in disaster. Therefore, it is very important if this is ever done to be extremely careful about how it is done.
The first thing that comes to mind in this context is that such a system would have to be the first banking system that would have to be secured by blockchain. Once a transaction is made, it is added to the blockchain, which is immediately copied to thousands of other computers that check that the blockchain records have not changed since day zero.
As for the appetite of officials to tax, I think that by making them also transparent, motives like “let’s introduce a tax on all Volkswagens because Kia bribed us” could be ruled out. Today, most sensible people have similar views on taxation as you do – this is also evident from this discussion. If I legitimize dictatorship, then it is a dictatorship of transparency ergo a system that is transparent to the bone and therefore there are mechanisms to squeeze out things that will be considered undesirable, because they will be visible in the bud.
If there is a single source of truth in society that anyone can turn to at any time, then, for example, improvements in the collective decision-making system will be a piece of cake.
I see a fundamental and irremovable flaw in this. In order for information about all property to be accessible to all people, absolutely everything would have to be registered. This means not only money, real estate and objects, but literally everything, almost down to the last molecule (government bonds should be a clue why).
No one has ever been able to do this in reality, and (thank God) probably never will (although, that God, such a supreme accountant of the universe… an amusing idea ).
But even if (for example in some virtual reality) everything material and everything valuable was registered, we still have a huge amount of completely intangible things. For example, various sensory experiences that do not necessarily require any property to achieve. To vulgarize it a bit, what about ordinary sex? Do you think it can’t be a kind of currency? And would you also like to register it all nicely so that there is an overview? That would be a “brave new world”, wouldn’t it?
In my opinion, humanity is on the verge of transforming into new forms of being that will be extensions of our physical capabilities. For example, immortality is just a few decades away thanks to advances in medicine. Life in such an era will become so valuable that the possibility of losing it will be out of the question, because such a person will literally be a God with Godlike abilities.
However, in order for this to be realized, it is necessary to create a framework on the primary physical level of life in which there are no risks and such a person will be able to safely and securely consume experiences from their own abilities. Life on the primary physical level should be safe, monotonous and predictable, without any surprises.
Such “entertainments” as prostitution, or any things that are considered gray areas will simply cease to have a reason for being. Because there will be thousands of times better variants in the virtual space. And they will cost nothing. An ordinary thought will evoke an experience. The only thing that will have meaning and irreplaceable value will be the basic provision of life on the primary physical level. Everything else will be in the power of such a God-man.
Visible money is a way to get to such a transformation with less losses. I don’t know where that American author got the idea that money is transparent in developed societies, but it seems highly probable to me. I don’t know what is so difficult about accepting the idea that people can see into each other’s pots and live in harmony despite or even because of it. It is said that it takes a maximum of 6 intermediate steps to connect any two people on Earth. We are all essentially cousins. Accepting transparency as a principle of society may prove to be key, for example, in technological progress and its pitfalls.
How will the system protect itself from extortion (including legal extortion by the state)? Mafia groups will know who to extort and how much, and the state itself (with its wastefulness) will be able to extort additional taxes, because it will have a perfect overview and will set the laws… We know how it goes… Otherwise, a good article, but so far (because of human nature, I don’t believe it will ever be realized, we have our nature in our genes) utopian…
However, everyone will have that perfect overview, not just the state. And also about the state. This will put pressure on the state to behave responsibly and fairly.
In such discussions, it is important to distinguish between two things. One is the state when the system is already in place and everyone is using it. This is when the positive effects would be most evident. However, it is unrealistic to expect that something like this will happen in the near future. People will first have to be convinced that something like this is really good. And the second is the state where part of society runs on visible money and part does not. I think it is possible – even though it would probably be a small marketing miracle – to organize a pilot group of people who would gradually start using the system on a small scale and verify the expected positive effects.
What we have here now is deeply below the potential of humanity. It is even possible that something like visible money will become a necessary condition for 8 billion people to coexist on the planet without devouring each other. Capitalism is pushing technological development to such an extent that it can be dangerously fast. In my opinion, change is needed.
How would this ensure fair treatment by the state? Let’s say it eliminates corruption and personal gain in decision-making by officials.
But what if a 60% majority votes to tax or even enslave the remaining 40% minority? How exactly would these visible finances prevent that? Whenever people were forced to use something like camp coupons instead of money, they always resorted to using another currency or commodity as real money. Examples include using US dollars in Zimbabwe or cigarettes in prison. As soon as your system is established, there surely will be a normal alternative until the whole system collapses.
If a 60% majority votes to enslave the remaining 40%, then we’re screwed, to be honest. I rely on the fact that the average person is fundamentally good. If they have support in facts – which visible money will provide them with – they will behave rationally. Yes, at first there will probably be a million ways to cheat the system. But gradually, the possibilities of doing something illegitimate will diminish. I think that humanity today has the potential for all of us to be decently well-off without having to come up with nonsense. Someone just needs to stand up and say – people, from now on we’re not going to be stupid. And suddenly we’ll find that we’re all much better off. Visible money is about providing a learning moment – bad things are not done because 1) they will be exposed thanks to the record in the source of truth 2) they don’t pay off – Pellegriny took a bribe of 150 thousand euros? We will deduct 165 from his assets. If everything is in one system, he won’t be able to hide a single euro. Just one such act of justice would be enough to end political corruption.
But we are in this mess precisely because of the system where everyone decides about everyone else, so it is possible to legally steal money from others by simply raising your hand. How will transparency change that? Employees will want more vacation, retirees will want higher pensions, athletes will want more subsidies, employers will want lower corporate taxes, and only numbers and populism decide who gets what, because in our system it is possible to grab from others. And incorruptible transparent politicians will put it into legislative form. And those at whose expense it will be and who will be in the minority will have no way to escape from this hell. No more islands of positive deviation, just ubiquitous totalitarianism and surveillance of the last citizen. Thank you very much, I would rather continue to support the gray economy and hide everything I can from the state. I didn’t steal it from anyone, so I don’t have to share it with cops, politicians, officials, and totalitarian dreamers.
We probably can’t change the fact that we all have to live together on one planet. There has to be some kind of order, there’s nothing we can do about that.
You are right that life after the introduction of visible money will be a form of totalitarianism. But that can also be desirable if it is a totalitarianism of justice. In my opinion, the current state is the Wild West, where anything can happen to you if you’re unlucky enough. Visible money will bring monotony into our lives. But that’s exactly what the world needs today – predictability, no surprises at the level of primary physical life – because physical life is about survival. We will seek excitement and adventure on other levels of life, which are opening up to us thanks to technology.
In 50 years, my day will look like this: I will wake up in the morning, have breakfast, chat with my partner and immerse myself in virtual reality where I will experience things from the world of imagination, designed by people who will make a living from it. I won’t care if I die in one of those worlds, because it will only mean that I will wake up on a physical level and be able to immerse myself in another world. At the primary physical level, the cowboy life simply has to stop, because it is too painful and unpredictable. It prevents further acceleration of development.
Taxes are not planned in such a way that economists sit down, calculate how much needs to be collected, and set taxes accordingly. They collect as much as they can get away with, and only then do they think about what to do with it. The state collects more and then spends more. I don’t know of any example in history where taxes have been lowered because they are not needed.
The things you want to calculate can already be calculated to the last cent today, but politicians and voters don’t care. This will not change with any transparency, it is a property of the system.
Given that the state’s only income comes from taxing people, the state income is a false equation because I give to those from whom I also take.
From the original article, I was afraid that it was some kind of EU bullshit, but now I can safely put it in the category of harmless intellectual dreaming.
An example of when taxes were reduced and paradoxically led to higher tax collection was the reforms of the Dzurinda government – the introduction of a flat tax in Slovakia, I think in the period 2002-2007. The total collection increased despite the reduction in the rate. I even remember one video in which Ivan Mikloš criticizes Ľuboš Blaha in parliament for being in favor of progressive taxation, despite the fact that the flat tax, together with the introduction of deductible items, led to a significant reduction in the tax burden, for example, in the group with the lowest incomes.
If something like VP were introduced, it would lead to much better economic hygiene for every ordinary person. For example, people often give me the example that everyone knows that Putin is incredibly rich and they don’t need any transparent system for that. If there were a system with which the ordinary person would have the experience that when it rings here, there will be a feast, and if they saw that in that system, Putin had just received huge sums of money from some dubious company, they would not let it go. VisibleMoney would be a game changer in this area.
Perfectly described vision of hell.
What’s hellish about it? That everyone will have an overview of their surroundings and will be able to see with their own eyes that the system is treating them and others fairly?
I think the current state is a kind of purgatory. Politicians talk populist nonsense without any thought. People are willing to believe that a plane shot down over Ukraine is part of a Western power play, even though the investigation says otherwise.
Something like visible money is deeply needed – because society needs an unassailable source of truth that anyone can turn to at any time. Making money transparent is a great way to achieve this. Anyone who says something that is not in line with their financial flows is simply lying.
The end of dictators, populists and fools. Show me your financial flows and I’ll tell you who you are.
In this way, you will be at the mercy of the state. It will be able to effectively rob you of your savings, tax anything it wants, because there will be no way to be at least partially outside the system.
The idea that democracy will be different when money is visible? Will people suddenly become wise overnight and politicians stop making destructive decisions? What good will it do me to know who has what property, when the majority decides to, for example, tax extra some group that I belong to and I don’t agree with it? From a citizen’s point of view, I don’t really care whether I’m robbed by a state run by a dictator or a state run by a parliamentary majority.
What about resistance to tyranny when every payment you make is visible to the regime? The end of resistance, the end of freedom, total surveillance of everyone, Orwell’s world.
If you lack an unassailable source of truth, ask in church or a similar place. They will be happy to provide it there.
If money is transparent and people can see what politicians are doing, the majority will simply not allow things to be done that are not well-justified and do not have a real economic basis in some urgent need. The state would simply not be able to tax, for example, some commodity without having a good reason that would stand up.
I actually think that people will become wiser when you give them enough information backed by financial flows. And so will politicians. Thanks to technology, humanity today has what it takes to live here like in paradise. We just need to organize it a little better.
The unassailable source of truth is not a myth. I really think it can be achieved. In fact, it is perhaps a necessary condition for further development. In a few decades, people will live forever. How would you want, for example, under the current state of affairs, to forbid someone from having another child because the planet couldn’t handle it? In facing such challenges, humanity will need to be able to unite without problems and behave as one. This will not be possible without an unassailable source of truth.