Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 142 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12175
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Ellmer where did you study sociology? The University of Truthiness located in your gut?

    Altaica wrote:

    Take Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper’s advice “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission”

    I fear it will not be a question of choice to apply or not to the existing rule sets.

    When you ask for a permit you create basicly a administrative dilemma – you ask for something that does not exist – the only administrative feasible way to process your request is a negative.

    So IF you ask for a permit NEVER ask for a permit for something that is not mentioned in the rule book – especially don´t ask for a “floating festival” – ask for a boating event. Do not ask for a permit for a seastead ask for a permit for a floating dock or a barge.

    Most of all have a proyect implementation plan that turns the “natural flow of things on the permit front” in your favour – not against you.

    [/quote]

    Wow it almost as if you skimmed the first chaptor of a textbook of deviance. Why don’t you try reading the whole thing?

    I suggest Delos H. Kelly’s Deviant Behavior: A Text-Reader in the Sociology of Deviance

    I fear it will not be a question of choice to apply or not to the existing rule sets.

    New things always have a tendency to enter in friction with existing rules and frames – which are made for the existing things. It would not have been possible to establish paypal within the existing banking rules, it is not possible to apply publishing rules to internet hyperlinks and websites, it will not be possible to apply rule sets made for ships and peaceful come along of land nations and their transport sistem to sea nations.

    Some of us have problems bigger than trying something new.

    Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei(NSDAP) didn’t outlaw Judaism because it was new thing. Would you tells the jews “Well you deserve to be sent to the Konzentrationslager, if you didn’t wont to go there you shouldn’t have violated the laws forbiting Judaism”

    The NSDAP were real equette nazis they didn’t do anything “except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”

    Are you thinking of says, “That’s not a fair comparision. NSDAP was persocuting people for being born of the jewish race. Sure we inflect punishment on people, but only retaliation for injuries or wrongs, and for deterrence. And yes we may deprived people of their liberty with detention, even excution for the most serious cases, but we do it not getred of those people we do it only to protect our society from their deviant behaviors

    As Heinsohn stated that NSDAP wanted to destroy “the hardware – Jewish men, women and children – to destroy the software – the Jewish code of ethics.” Indeed, several years before the publication of Mein Kampf, the author stated that: “the influence of Judaism will never fade as long as its agent, the Jew, has not been removed from our midst.”

    So you see they too were only “protecting society from deviant behaviors”

    Tit for tat less tit tit, ax

    #12168
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:
    Are you seriously suggesting that a national currency obstructs trade more from it’s lack of availability than it conducts it via simplifying the barter system?

    Of course not.

    I’m suggesting that a national currency obstructs trade more by complicating the barter system than it conducts it via it’s greater of availability

    If Money simplifyed barter then why has the economic value of a good or service has puzzled economists since the beginning of the discipline?

    Now what does science say of this expression “value” ?
    Those who wish to know should read Gottl’s work: “The Idea of ‘Value,’ a Veiled Dogma of Political Economy.” Out of deference to his colleagues the professor does not openly express what his book so clearly proves, that “value” is a hallucination, a mere product of the imagination.

    tusavision wrote:

    …Interesting quote. Very telling about your opinion of me that is how you interpretted what I said.

    That you are a compleate idiot that can’t tell the diffrance between direct and indirect exchange; and that you have failed to realize the fundamental problem involved in the methods of your economic calculation? Unaware of the fact that interpersonal exchange, and consequently market exchange effected by the intermediary of a common medium of exchange–money, and therefore prices, are special features of a certain state of society’s economic organization which did not exist in primitive civilizations and could possibly disappear in the further course of historical change[1]. That you do not comprehend that money prices are the only vehicle of economic calculation?

    the wrote:
    Indivisibility of certain goods: If a person wants to buy a certain amount of another’s goods, but only has for payment one indivisible unit of another good which is worth more than what the person wants to obtain, a barter transaction cannot occur.

    That serious blunder owes its origin and its tenacity to a misinterpretation of this imaginary construction was the assumption that the medium of exchange is a neutral factor only. According to this opinion the only difference between direct and indirect exchange was that only in the latter was a medium of exchange used.

    Direct exchange barter, by its vary diffinition “Barter is a method of exchange by which goods or services are directly exchanged for other goods or services without using a medium of exchange, such as money.”, you are begging the question since there is no money there is no money price. and since in the scenario no one exhanges his “indivisible unit of another good” for anything the value of his “indivisible unit of another good” is nothing. or to be more grammericaly correct. His “indivisible unit of another good” does not have any value.

    Since you obivously aren’t interested in Silvio Gesell’s or Henry George’s explination. Let me.

    If person-A wants to exchange a certain amount of person-B’s goods-C, but is only willing to give an indivisible unit of good-D which is worth more to person-B than what the certain amount of goods-C is worth to person-B, a barter transaction cannot occur.

    If Alice wants to exchange one of her ducks for 4 of Bob’s Chickens and Bob is willing to exchange one of Alice’s Ducks for 5 Chickens.

    One wouldn’t say the Bob is unwill to trade with Alice! One would say Bob is a thief.

    You could take it as meaning “If Alice wants to exchange one of her ducks for 4 of Bob’s Chickens and Bob is willing to exchange 1 Duck for 5 Chickens.”

    certently not prohibiting the trade there.

    4 Chickens are worth 4 Chickens. 1 Duck is worth 5 Chickens to Bob. He 4 chickens worth of goods for 5 chickens worth of goods. unless you are going to claim a unit of chickens isn’t worth a unit of Chickens

    How about

    If person-A wants to exchange a certain amount of person-B’s goods-C, but is only willing to give an indivisible unit of good-D which is worth more to person-B than what the certain amount of goods-C is worth to person-A, a barter transaction cannot occur.

    If Alice wants to exchange one of her Ducks for 4 of Bob’s Chickens and Bob is willing to exhange one of Alice’s Ducks for 5 Chickens.

    … and yet Bob is unwilling to give her only 4? and Alice is unwilling to take the 5th Chicken?

    How about

    If person-A wants to exchange a certain amount of person-B’s goods-C, but is only willing to give an indivisible unit of good-D which is worth more to person-A than what the certain amount of goods-C is worth to person-A, a barter transaction cannot occur.

    If Alice wants to exchange one of her Ducks for 4 of Bob’s Chickens and Alice is willing to exhange one of Alice’s Ducks for 5 Chickens

    So here it’s excited state that She will accept ether 4 or 5 Chinkens nothing there says Bob will or will not accept ether offer.

    If person-A wants to exchange a certain amount of person-B’s goods-C, but is only willing to give an indivisible unit of good-D which is worth more to person-A than what the certain amount of goods-C is worth to person-B, a barter transaction cannot occur.

    A Duck is worth more to Alice than 4 Chickens is Worth to Bob. Now in your indirect exchange based market economy you would have a problem Alice tring to trade a $10 Duck for $8 worth of Chickens. and it has nothing to do with some ‘indivisibility’ of the duck unit. it

    If person-A wants to buy a certain amount of person-B’s goods with a certain amount of another good which is worth more than what the person wants to obtain, a market transaction cannot occur. Even if person-B also wants to sell the certain amount of his goods for the certain amount of person-A’s another good a market transaction cannot occur Why? becouse even thou person-A and person-B feel that the certain amount of goods is a fair price for the certain amount of another good . But the issuer says “That’s not fair! you need to pay another $2.” Of course the issuer may assess the value to be what ever he chooses. Like wise the issuer may compulse you to sell your goods and services, as as he pays you what he says is the value. Thanks your money he can get you to do what ever he wants and keep you from doing what ever he want.

    You meantioned Gresham’s Law(“Where legal tender laws exist, bad money drives out good money.”) more precise definition is this: “A currency that is artificially overvalued by law will drive out of circulation a currency that is artificially undervalued by that law.” It just as it is inevitable that the bad money proffered, good money retained so to is it inevitable that bad services are preformed and good services advoided. bad goods will flood the markets, good goods will be unavalible.

    Why shouldn’t this person that can decide what you will and will not do be called your owner?

    But in dirict exhance the only time the transaction cannot occur is when Alice’s value for 4 Chickens is less-than her value for a Duck, which would go against the premise that She wanted to exchange her duck for the 4 chickens, or Bob’s value for a Duck is less-than his value for 4 Chickens.

    Or to reverse it

    in dirict exhance the only time the transaction may occur is when Alice’s value for 4 Chickens is greater-than-or-equal to her value for a Duck or Bob’s value for a Duck is greater-than-or-equal to his value for 4 Chickens.

    Now I’m sure someone will object, we said “has for payment” not “wanting to exchange as payment” but in Direct exchange “has for payment” means “willing to include as part of what they will give in the exchange”

    tusavision wrote:
    I was saying that political revolution doesn’t occur among a well fed electorate. I wasn’t proposing that we break labor. I was proposing the opposite, that labor will eventually realize that it’s in their interest to demand a 30 hour work week.

    I was says that you are the type of idiot that thinks that when ‘labor will eventually, beleifing that it’s in their interest to, demand a 30 hour work week.’ it will be a good thing for the laborers..

    tusavision wrote:

    Wow! Really? A single Slave owner with a 1000 slaves is just as productive as 1000 workers?

    That’s not even remotely what I said so I hesitate to agree but if the slave owner enslaves them and motivates them to produce: the equation seems to balance to me. [/quote]

    By sides the fact that a single Slave owner with a 1000 slaves is 1001 persons and 1000 workers is only 1000 persons argo it is better to have 1001 free workers that 1 slave owner and 1000 slaves…..

    tusavision wrote:
    In any case I still don’t know where the slave owner part comes from as I was refering to the massive advances in manufacturing productivity driven by mechanization among other things.

    the slave owner part comes from the Pope.

    Pope wrote:
    It is surely undeniable that, when a man en-gages in remunerative labor, the very reasonand motive of his work is to obtain property,and to hold it as his own private possession. If one man hires out to another his strength orhis industry, he does this for the purpose ofreceiving in return what is necessary for foodand living; he thereby expressly proposes toacquire a full and legal right, not only to theremuneration, but also to the disposal of thatremuneration as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, andinvests his savings, for greater security, in aslave, the slave in such a case is only his wagesin another form; and consequently, a working-man’s slave thus purchased should be as com-pletely at his own disposal as the wages he re-ceives for his labor.

    let me remind you what you said

    tusavision wrote:
    1 man with access to capital is 1000 times more productive today than a worker was in the 1800s, and we don’t have sufficient financial or mental capital to turn those 999 men in to enterpeneurs. We can either let them starve until they burn down the factory, start a war to keep them busy/dead, or we can pass on the 1000x increase in profits to all partys in the form of a reduced work week.

    What is that ‘capital’ that you spoke of?

    Money? maybe you could say that before we removed the gold base and switched to fiat money. But the fact is we have switched to fiat money and the resoan for that switch was specificaly so we would never run.

    Proudhon asked: Why are we short of houses, machinery and ships ? And he also gave the correct answer: Because money limits the building of them. Or, to use his own words: “Because money is a sentinel posted at the entrance to the markets, with orders to let no one pass. Money, you imagine, is the key that opens the gates of the market (by which term is meant the exchange of products), that is not true-money is the bolt that bars them.”

    Money simply will not suffer another house to be built in addition to every existing house. As soon as capital ceases to yield the traditional interest, money strikes and brings work to a standstill. Money, therefore, acts like a serum against the “building-plague” and the “working fury”. It renders capital (houses, industrial plant, ships) immune from the menace of its own increase.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12151
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Farmer wrote:

    In general I think the mindset that our parents worked so hard to instill in us: be a good citizen, will not serve us here.

    to be a good citizen of a totalitarian state.

    Take Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper’s advice “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission”

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12148
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    Altaica wrote:

    Convention on the High Seas
    Done at Geneva on 29 April 1958. Entered into force on 30 September 1962

    You are right, that image does show “international waters” up to the 12nm limit. While that might be technically correct, it doesn’t change anything. You cannot setup a seastead in the EEZ. As long as we are quoting UNCLOS:

    [/quote]

    Any State’s purported sovereignty to any part of International waters is noy valid according to Customary international law.

    Not only is it a against Customary international law. it’s against treaty law.

    The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place from 1973 through 1982.

    Convention on the High Seas entered into force on 30 September 1962. That’s over 10 years befor the UNCLOS was even concived of.

    UNCLOS;s limits on activities outside the teritorial waters is clear only aplicitable against members of the International Seabed Authority .

    UNCLOS wrote:
    Affirming that matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law,

    2. (1) “States Parties” means States which have consented to be bound by this Convention and for which this Convention is in force.

    UNCLOS wrote:
    Desiring by this Convention to develop the principles embodied in resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970 in which the General Assembly of the United Nations solemnly declared inter alia that the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States,

    clearly

    resolution wrote:
    1.The sea-bed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (hereinafter referred to as the area), as well as the resources of the area, are the common heritage of mankind.

    2.The area shall not be subject to appropriation by any means by States or persons, natural or juridical, and no State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part thereof.

    13.Nothing herein shall affect:
    (a). The legal status of the waters superjacent to the area or that of the air space above those waters;
    (b). The rights of coastal States with respect to measures to prevent, mitigate or eliminate grave and imminent danger to their coastline or related interests from pollution or threat thereof or from other hazardous occurrences resulting from or caused by any activities in the area. subject to the international régime to be established.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12147
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    I’m not even sure if we’re in disagreement.

    You say the the problem with money is that it’s ‘Fiat Money’ and if we go back to the gold stadured them our plroblems will be solved.

    I say that the problem with money is that it is ‘legal tender’

    tusavision wrote:
    My argument was that inflation in the form of bread and circusses is a way of deflecting hostility towards the ruling elite. Inflation may be a necessary evil, but Zimbabwe is proof that the gift of the Midas touch is too tempting to be trusted in good faith to the conscience of benevolent public servents.

    The Wörgl experiment that was conducted from July 1932 to November 1933 is a classic example of the potential efficacy of local currencies. Wörgl, a small town in Austria with 4000 inhabitants, introduced a local scrip during the Great Depression. On the initiative of the town’s mayor, Michael Unterguggenberger, the local government printed 32,000 in labor certificates which carried a negative 1% monthly interest rate and could be converted into schillings at 98% of face value.

    According to you the perpose of inflation is to “Debase the currency, grafting away money from all holders of government currency by financing public relations stunts.” so a negative 1% monthly interest rate is the same as a 1% monthly inflation rate. but clearly they are the opposite of each other.

    tusavision wrote:
    If inflation is a necessary lubricant to class mobility then so be it, but I reject the notion that bread and circusses are the appropriate way to deliver that lubrication when there are much more impartial and fair approaches which are not so tempting to corruption.

    Inflation is necessary to stop class mobility. Actually Inflation only stops upward class mobility but still allows them to fall to a lowwer class.

    tusavision wrote:
    1 man with access to capital is 1000 times more productive today than a worker was in the 1800s, and we don’t have sufficient financial or mental capital to turn those 999 men in to enterpeneurs. We can either let them starve until they burn down the factory, start a war to keep them busy/dead, or we can pass on the 1000x increase in profits to all partys in the form of a reduced work week.

    Wow! Really? A single Slave owner with a 1000 slaves is just as productive as 1000 workers?

    In the so-called free-economy or capitalist economy, money has acquired a privileged status over all other commodities. By the definition arbitrarily given to it, it has become superior to man himself, it implies some qualifications that are not supposed to be within its jurisdiction and which have evolved and become as if they were really genuine, despite the fact that they have no physical existence. What Hicks did not say was expressed by Prudhon when he was asked:

    “Why are we short of houses, machinery and ships? He answered: Because money is a sentinel posted at the entrance to the markets with , orders to let no one pass. Money you imagine, is the key that opens the gates of the market (by which term is meant the exchange of products); that is not true – money is the bolt that bars them.”

    And in fact one would ask: Why is it that money supply is on the increase while recession is besetting the markets ? The answer is that a great part of that supply is not used to meet the “transactional demand” in the Keynesian sense. By holding the greater part of money supply for precautionary and speculative purposes, people are checking the main function of exchange and are rather incapacitating the role of money.

    tusavision wrote:
    The only thing keeping these problems from being solved is a sufficient level of discomfort to cut through the political machines marketing smokescreen.

    I’ve heard that before.

    “We civilize the savage by increasing his wants, by cultivating his fancy, his appetites, his desires. He is then willing to work to satisfy these new wants.” Robert Green Ingersoll

    Many economists write, as assuming that it is a step forward in civilization when a barbarous people learns artificial wants. If a New Zealander, instead of being satisfied with a mat for his back, which, made by himself, will last him for years, betakes himself to an English coat, which he must buy with a price,—which indeed less effectually shields him from wet, and sooner wears out,—he does that which is convenient to the English trader, but to him is a very doubtful gain : perhaps rather he brings on himself colds, cough, and consumption. If a thousand Maoris did the same, the commerce might figure in a Maori budget, and a Maori economist might point to the new trade as a step forward in national prosperity. The Zulus, as described by Englishmen who have travelled in Zululand or lived in the midst of them in Natal, arc an upright, generous, faithful, honest race ; and strange to say, Englishmen, who have such experience of them, are found to corroborate the utterance of Cetewayo, ” A Zulu trained by a missionary is a Zulu spoiled”—that is, when trained in our habits they lose their national virtues. How can this be ? why should it be ? Apparently, because from us they learn artificial wants. While an apron suffices a Zulu fur clothing, and a very simple hut fox shelter, he can in many ways afford to be hospitable and generous. /A man with very few wants has all the feelings of superfluity and wealth while surrounded by possession* so slender that we count him very poor: and when with an amount of toil which to his hardihood is not at all severe, he can always calculate on providing for himself and family all that their simple habits need, he is not deterred from present generosity by studying for his own future. But if he learn to covet and count necessary a number of articles which requircfrom him threefold labour, he feels himself no longer rich, but poor ; then, instead of giving small favours gratuitously, he claims to be paid for everything; instead of being princely, he becomes mercenary and stingy. If he imitate the dress, he is liable to envy the wealth of the Englishman, and in schemes of laying up for the future he easily becomes avaricious, perhaps fraudulent. Such are the steps by which one may justly calculate that some or many barbarians degenerate from the normal goodness of their fellows. The artificial wants which they learn when housed with our missionaries, or imbibe from the crafty allurements of traders, are not (primd facie) a benefit at all, do not conduce to independence, to the sense of wealth, nor to the practice of virtue. They are simply a convenience to the European trader. If a Maori or Zulu chief frown upon such trade, which judgment does he deserve—to be scolded as barbarous, or to be praised as sagacious ? “With them, perhaps also with us, to account but few things necessary is a foundation for many virtues. Our economists often reverse the picture.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12134
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Peregrinus wrote:

    Has anyone from this organization considered working with Tuvalu on seasteading projects. This could be a politically beneficial action as well as beneficial to advancing the project. Tuvalu will be underwater eventually, by helping them form a seastead the UN has to acknowlege seasteads as legitimate nations. I see that as one of the biggest problems with seasteading. Even working out all the technical issues there will still be political issues that need to be dealt with. Having a nation already recognized and be a seastead would prove beneficial to future seasteads in being recognized as nations.

    UN acknowlegement? UN will acknowlege any state that proclaims itself independent. ask State of Palestine or the Republic of Iraq what good that is.

    Anyways how to get UN to acknowledge your state? Get them to acknowledge the creation of your state.

    step 1. Greate your organization

    Step 2 Geting yourself acknowledge that you are not a state. If you can’t get yourself officaily denationalited

    “There are an estimated 12 million stateless people in dozens of countries around the world.” Go find some to join your group.

    Step 3. Now your group of de jure and de facto Stateless Persons declears itself an independant state. Remember to cite 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. and the Universal Declaration of Human RightsArticle 15.(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

    And while your at it might as well do a Isreal and claim UN territory as your capitol. I suggest the University for Peace as your capitol. Just like the last time it was tooken over by armed force. It’s compleatly Terra nullius and there is nothing the UN or the host contry can do about it.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12132
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    If it were truly about stabilizing the population growth/currency relationship then they would give away a trust fund with every birth certificate. Fill it with government bonds and use the money to pay off their student loans.

    Chagnon: “At first they give away tools, machetes, cooking pots, and begin providing the Yanomamo with food, things like rice and sugar. And eventually, particularly the younger men, who don’t like to make gardens to begin with, become very highly dependent on mining camps that are located near their villages. So they stop planting. When the miners stop giving them food and other goodies after enough miners get there and they can resist Yanomamo demands, then that puts the Yanomamo into a very unfavorable kind of relationship with the miners. They no longer are given the handouts that they originally got when the Yanomamo outnumbered the miners, and they have failed to plant their crops, so they become destitute.”

    Translator: “Before the miners arrived here, the Indians lived their normal life. They lived in the jungle but now they have more comfort, they have more food, and the gold miners bring them progress. They bring them food, clothes, all the things that they need. And the Indians adore the miners.

    The impression that people have on the outside is that the miners fight with the Indians. This is not true. The Indians love the miners, and the miners like the Indians.”

    Narr: Anthropologists fear that with their subsistence base destroyed and with their new dependency on trade goods brought by the miners, the Yanomamo will someday join the millions of dispossessed people who congregate in urban slums throughout the world. And some Yanomamo, themselves, believe the miners have brought death to the human race.

    Translator: “Many people ask for the White man’s things. I say to them, “Don’t ask for those things. The miners are only going to lie to you. They’ve already killed some of our people. They’re very fierce. When there are enough of them, they are going to kill us. That is what I say, but no one hears me.”

    Or for a fuller explination read

    The_Natural_Economic_Order By Silvio Gesell

    or

    Progress and Poverty by Henry George

    or

    Studies in Islamic Economics By Professor Dr. Mahmud Abu Saud

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12131
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    Totally incorrect. Even the image you supplied shows “International Waters” starting outside the 200nm EEZ.

    Notice that arrow right next to “International waters”? It the caption that says “outside territorial waters”?

    Convention on the High Seas
    Done at Geneva on 29 April 1958. Entered into force on 30 September 1962

    Article 1
    The term “high seas” means all parts of the sea that are not included in the territorial sea or in the internal
    waters of a State.
    Article 2
    The high seas being open to all nations, no State may validly purport to subject any part of them to its
    sovereignty. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by these articles and by the
    other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and non-coastal States:
    (1) Freedom of navigation;
    (2) Freedom of fishing;
    (3) Freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines;
    (4) Freedom to fly over the high seas.
    These freedoms, and others which are recognized by the general principles of international law, shall be
    exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of
    the high seas

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12129
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    My third proposal? Debase the currency, grafting away money from all holders of government currency by financing public relations stunts.

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

    Inflation is a trailing indicator of low approval ratings…

    The value of a dollor has a vary secific curve it has to follow.

    Devalue it to fast and people will stop using it. not devalue it fast enough and… well that would be like only enslave 45% of the people.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12125
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    It’s international waters or nothing…

    My point exactly

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    There is a HUGE difference between 200nm and 12nm. The Minervans would have been well within their rights to defend themselves on the reef. They would have no such option if they were 12nm off the Tongan coast.

    Make up your mind already. 12+ nm is just as much International Waters as 200+ nm so what is there “HUGE difference between” International Waters next to some State and International Waters way out in the middle of nowhere?

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12117
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Alan wrote:
    However, while I like the idea of Restitution it is not always sufficient. If a thief knows that if he steals $100 he will only be required to pay back $100, what is his incentive not to steal? At worst, he will have to pay back what he took – and he will be no worse off than if he did not steal at all. However, if he is required to pay back $400 he will know that he could end up losing a lot of money from his crimes.

    Your Immutable laws (b)”no theft or fraud” You community can’t steal $300 from him.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12114
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    I can also build breakwaters at a cost of 331 Euro/ton/squaremeter and the cost development is linear … same cost per squaremeter – no matter how many squaremeters you put together.

    40,224,311.40 USD per 1km of your breakwater. For the same 200 yard waves as my 1,150,000 USD per 1km quote

    that only leaves me $39,074,311.40 for labour and toolup.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12113
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    If that is so i am not sure if the TSI strategic team is operating with the right asumptions here.

    What do you expect from the people that decided that the Clubstead was a good idea? “It’s just like a island resort. but without those pesky beaches and forests.”

    ellmer - http://yook3.com wrote:
    Can we re-discuss it and dig out the reasons how they came to those conclusions.

    Frankly I’m not intrested in Peter Thiel’s ventures. Do you remember his alteritive currancy project?

    Elon wrote:
    Confinity was started in Dec 1998 as a Palm pilot cryptography company (crypto is one of Max’s many skills) and Max came up with an application for the crypto that involved beaming money tokens from one Palm Pilot to another via the infrared port. The website where those payments could be reconciled and transferred to your bank account, which only went live to the public in Nov 1999, was paypal.com, but it was a far cry from the system you are familiar with today.

    PayPal wrote:
    The bill for lunch arrives, but you’ve left your wallet in the car. Your lunchmate doesn’t want to pick up the tab.
    So she pulls out her Palm III, beams you a little program called PayPal, and suggests you beam back your share of the bill. Later that day, the cash comes out of your account and drops into hers.

    That scenario should be a reality by September, when Confinity, a Palo Alto, California software start-up, launches PayPal, an application that will allow individuals to “beam” sums of money between handheld devices such as mobile phones, Palm Pilots, and pagers.

    “All these devices will become one day just like your wallet,” said Confinity CEO Peter Thiel. “Every one of your friends will become like a virtual, miniature ATM.”

    'Digital wrote:
    “The thing that is so overwhelming about all this is that money touches just about everything,” said Peter Thiel, PayPal’s chairman and co-founder. “There are so many other payment points that we can go after. Wouldn’t it be great if we could all interface with a single payment system like ours?”

    Before PayPal tries to replace the dollar bill, the company has to figure out how to turn a profit while also finding a new executive team to help manage breakneck growth. Its payroll swelled from 24 workers last October to 500 this year.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12110
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    I am all for a breakwater design…I think a large breakwater surrounding the seastead is critical. But we haven’t seen any real-world examples of large floating breakwaters working in the depths that we will be looking at for seasteading (300m to 2000m).

    TLPs are PERMANENTLY anchored. Name one permenatly achored deep water(out other wise middle of no where) platform that doesn’t have a nationality?

    the only successful eastead I know of, Conch shell Island, isn’t even 5 miles off the coast of Gonâve Island

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    The issue, as I said before, is that anchoring a large breakwater in those depths might be prohibitively expensive)

    The Republic of Minerva has shown that being hounders of miles off shore gives you no more advantage than beting just over the horizion. these is lots of shallow water 12 naughts off the coast it should be easy to find some that over the horizion from sea traffic.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12103
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Why was the breakwater idea abandoned ?

    1: Build floating breakwater

    2: ???

    3: Profit!

    No one could think of step two.

    Area = Circumference^2/(4π)

    so the bigger the floating marina is the cheaper per sqft.

    If I remember corectly TSI desided that unless it’s over a mile across It’s better to save the money until you can make one that big (use it on some other project.)

    A floating break water the size of Palm Jebel Ali would cost(for materials only, my design is to made with unskilled labor only so it is DIY friendly) only $14,028,084 USD

    Once the breakwater construction seastead is made it should only cost 1,150,000 USD per 1km of basic floating break water.

    2,970,658.36 USD per km for the 237 meter wide tidal wetlands version.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 142 total)