Re: Workers Paradise. /Political rant.

At 5:06 PM 9/13/96, Asgaard wrote:
>From a
>pure egotistical viewpoint I really should join the present calls
>for, as the debate goes here in Sweden, transforming the enemployed
>into 'maids and servants'. But I don't. I think it would backlash;
>the 'lower classes' would come back at us and cut our throats
>eventually (say, when 70% are serving the remaining 30%).

The 70% already _are_ cutting the throats of the other 30%. It's called a
60%+ tax rate. This is the sum of: federal income tax, state income tax,
city tax, sales tax, gas tax, energy tax, property tax, entertainment tax,
special excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc., and miscellaneous other
taxes tacked on...not to mention the "double taxation" of certain forms of
income--every dollar Intel earns is taxed first at 48% by the Feds and the
State of California, then what's left is taxed at 35-40% when it reaches
the owners of the company. (Oh, and buyers of PCs containing Intel chips
pay 8.25% for the privilege of buying the PC.)

The masses have realized, as De Tocqueville predicted 150 years ago, that
they can use the democratic process to pick the pockets of others. This is
why I have no faith in "democracy," and consider crypto anarchy to be the
best way to undermine this flawed system.

>With the present rate of increase in world population the planet
>will go to hell anyway. But suppose the population problem could
>be fixed. Then, with technology escalating towards singularity,

Cf. what sociologists call "the demographic transition." Countries that
value learning and wealth are _not_ facing a population problem. In fact,
many such countries are now at "below replacement" birth levels.

>machines doing almost all labor, there could certainly exist a
>system where the 'dumb' and 'lazy' could be fed and housed properly
>without anybody complaining. Those who want to become maids and
>servants for some extra pocket money, well, good luck to them.

One need not wait for this fanciful "singularity"--by any reasonable
standards of providing minimal food and minimal shelter, the unemployed
poor of today are receiving this. Ask a peasant of, say, 18th century
Europe if he'd consider himself sheltered and fed if he could have an
apartment in a building, a microwave oven, a television, a MacDonald's
nearby, and enough extra spending money for some beer.

I predict that "the masses fed by the nanotechnological singularity" will
be just as likely to riot and burn down their own neighborhoods as the
"masses fed by industrialization and distribution" are prone to do today.
(The point being that people want more than "basic food and shelter," but
are often unwilling to make the commitments and sacrifices in their lives
to gain the wherewithal to earn significant salaries.)

>But to force people into menial service jobs just to literally
>survive is not to my taste. No, give them minimal shelter for
>nothing and from there on let the market anarcho-capitalistic
>struggle begin, for obtaining a higher than minimum material
>standard or reputational standing.

There is a basic error here, one that I see often. Who says that the
"anarcho-capitalists" will freely give away, say, some vast fraction of
their profits so as to subsidize the overall society? Any more so than the
owners of flour mills and computer chip companies give away 99% of their
profits.

And crypto anarchy means it will not be clear who is making what, who is
generating what income, and where it is located. And the producers of
wealth will be able to move accounts, resources, and even factories around
the world. If one jurisdiction socks them with exorbitant taxes (which may
be anything more than a nearly ignorable 10% overall tax), they can move.
Regulatory arbitrage strikes again.

Ask your fellow Swedes about the drain of talent out of Sweden in the 60s
and 70s...the flight of Bergmann, actors and actresses, corporations, and
even ABBA. (Though I understand most of ABBA moved back to Sweden and is
now chummy with the Queen.)

--Tim May

We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> The 70% already _are_ cutting the throats of the other 30%. It's called a
> 60%+ tax rate. This is the sum of: federal income tax, state income tax,
> city tax, sales tax, gas tax, energy tax, property tax, entertainment tax,
> special excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc., and miscellaneous other

I'm not sure how you get to 60%; I assume you're talking average tax 
rate, not marginal; whenever I've tried to figure out my average rate, 
even in California, it never went above ~31%. This included a pack of 
fags a day, which is the most heavily indirect taxed item in your list.

If you're smoking enough to get up to 60%, you've got worse problems than 
taxes :)

Simon
  p.s. 

   Is anyone on cpunks working at Harry Browne's hq in DC?  Some friends in
Carolina asked me to pick up some bumper stickers and stuff before I 
leave the District.


---
Cause maybe  (maybe)		      | In my mind I'm going to Carolina
you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th.
And after all			      | Email address remains unchanged
You're my firewall -    	      | ........First in Usenet.........

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

>The 70% already _are_ cutting the throats of the other 30%. It's called a
>60%+ tax rate. This is the sum of: federal income tax, state income tax,

Most of these taxes are not used for feeding the poor but to support
the Nomenclatura of the Bureaucracy and we all want to get rid of that.
The beauty of a simple tax on production of goods for transfer to a
few necessary institutions is it's simplicity - no need for millions of
clerks to implement the System like now. And the Basic_Needs_Refund
should, as I suggested, be payed to ALL citizens, for ease of
administration. The idea of production tax, as opposed to the present
system of income tax, has been investigated by economic theorists
for years and some of them believe in it. I can't go into details
because my knowledge is lacking and my interest in the academic
subject of economy is moderate, but such taxation seems to fit with
crypto-anarchy in that physical goods in any but the most insignificant
scale can't be hidden by cryptography.

And I rather pay some taxes (but optimally much less than now)
then have my throat literally cut by a revolting 'mob of servants'.

>The masses have realized, as De Tocqueville predicted 150 years ago, that
>they can use the democratic process to pick the pockets of others. This is
>why I have no faith in "democracy," and consider crypto anarchy to be the
>best way to undermine this flawed system.

I agree with most of this. As some kind of an anarchist (but not a
pure anarcho-capitalist) I can of course not accept the basic rule
of democracy: that a majority (big or slight) should be able
to decide for the minority; or decide for the individual in any
but the most obvious ways (imprisoning killers and thieves etc).
But I believe that most people really want to work to some extent,
to be part of the economic process and gain a standing above
the minimal one - hence there is no danger in a Basic-Feed-Refund
system.

>Cf. what sociologists call "the demographic transition." Countries that
>value learning and wealth are _not_ facing a population problem. In fact,
>many such countries are now at "below replacement" birth levels.

And that's good. The world population really should go back to around
1 billion for achieving a stabile ecology (with singing birds for
the peace of minds). The former (?) US system of encouraging young
standalone women to make babies to get benefits was very bad. The
Chinese system - less benefits the more children you have - is the
way to go.

>poor of today are receiving this. Ask a peasant of, say, 18th century
>Europe if he'd consider himself sheltered and fed if he could have an
>apartment in a building, a microwave oven, a television, a MacDonald's
>nearby, and enough extra spending money for some beer.

That's about exactly what I see as a minimal standard. The microwave
oven is the cheapest of ovens. Untaxed beer is the cheapest of drugs.
The television could go, though (but it will never do so in the present
system - it's needed for indoctrination).

>(The point being that people want more than "basic food and shelter," but
>are often unwilling to make the commitments and sacrifices in their lives
>to gain the wherewithal to earn significant salaries.)

This is where we disagree. The real lazy ones are satisfied with a roof
over there heads, a microwave oven for cooking pizza, a six-pack and
a soap opera. Most people really do want to achieve something more in
their lives.

>There is a basic error here, one that I see often. Who says that the
>"anarcho-capitalists" will freely give away, say, some vast fraction of
>their profits so as to subsidize the overall society? Any more so than the

Not a vast portion, if the above_basics capitalistic economy blooms.
Probably 10% would suffice - what was once paid to the church, the
institution that traditionally has supported the ill and poor.

The problem with the 100% market economy approach is what to do
with those who just can't get it together, i.e. who buy beer for the
money that should go to health insurance and then fall ill. It's
against basic human instincts to just let them stay in agony.
A system with only voluntary charities might possibly become enough
when we have reached the resemblence of an ecology-balanced singularity,
but this is not the historical time for suddenly ending ALL welfare -
in a situation with unemployment (not accepting making maids and
servants of those loosing their jobs) mainly due to robotics. 

>And crypto anarchy means it will not be clear who is making what, who is
>generating what income, and where it is located. And the producers of
>wealth will be able to move accounts, resources, and even factories around

It will always be comparatively easy to locate production plants
and farms, and tax them 10% of their production, without even
caring who owns them. This would call for a minimum of government
clerks. Crypto anarchy will inhibit taxation of all other kinds
of businesses, speculations and information transfers - the great
bulk of the present economy.

>Ask your fellow Swedes about the drain of talent out of Sweden in the 60s
>and 70s...the flight of Bergmann, actors and actresses, corporations, and
>even ABBA. (Though I understand most of ABBA moved back to Sweden and is
>now chummy with the Queen.)

This is a myth.
I don't have to ask, I was there! I was happy to get rid of Bergman,
a much overrated director of boring movies. That actors and actresses
left for Hollywood is not surprising, that's where the real movies
are made (good and 'bad'). The Swedish film industry - heavily subsidized
with tax money! - is mostly producing boring movies, with people just
talking, that only intellectual snobs pretend to like. The country
is to small for the accumulation of high-risk investment capital that
real movies need nowadays. The likes of ABBA's and Bjorn Borg (a
tennis player who got very rich) move to tax-friendly places like
Monaco, invest their millions and then come back to live off their
accumulated wealth. Nothing wrong with that. Had there been crypto
anarchy already in the investment markets they could have stayed
all along, of course, but who cares about where they live. And since
you mentioned the Queen of Sweden (born in South America, of
suspicious post WWII German descent): she is presently the front
celebrity for the anti-pedophile movement here - after being shown
some kiddie-porn at an 'official' demonstration.

Seriously... The big Swedish corporations (Volvo, Eriksson, ASEA etc)
have not moved out of the country. Why should they? Swedish wages
and taxes are not very different from anywhere else in the Western
World.

Asgaard

Asgaard wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> The 70% already _are_ cutting the throats of the other 30%. It's
> called a 60%+ tax rate. This is the sum of: federal income tax, state 
> income tax, Most of these taxes are not used for feeding the poor but 
> to support the Nomenclatura of the Bureaucracy and we all want to get 
> rid of that.
>
> Cf. what sociologists call "the demographic transition." Countries
> that value learning and wealth are _not_ facing a population problem. 
> In fact, many such countries are now at "below replacement" birth 
> levels.
> And that's good. The world population really should go back to around
> 1 billion for achieving a stabile ecology (with singing birds for
> the peace of minds). The former (?) US system of encouraging young
> standalone women to make babies to get benefits was very bad. The
> Chinese system - less benefits the more children you have - is the
> way to go.

Just a comment: "The world population really should go back to around 
one billion", etc. And how could we achieve that without severe govt. 
oppression, one wonders? Now, I've heard of "education" being used to 
help the masses learn to be responsible citizens ad nauseam, but since 
education is pretty much just propaganda in the massively-capitalist 
system now taking over even the P.R. of China, how the heck is education 
going to work?

On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> Just a comment: "The world population really should go back to around 
> one billion", etc. And how could we achieve that without severe govt. 
> oppression, one wonders? Now, I've heard of "education" being used to 
> help the masses learn to be responsible citizens ad nauseam, but since 
> education is pretty much just propaganda in the massively-capitalist 
> system now taking over even the P.R. of China, how the heck is education 
> going to work?

Quite simple. End all food and medical aid to developing countries paid 
for with money stolen at gunpoint from our citizens. Or make Norplant 
implants the condition for financial/in kind aid. Both US and 
abroad.

--Lucky

In article <Pine.3.89.9609152124.A20702-0100000@netcom9>,
Lucky Green  <shamrock@netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Just a comment: "The world population really should go back to around 
> > one billion", etc. And how could we achieve that without severe govt. 
> > oppression, one wonders?
> 
> Quite simple. End all food and medical aid to developing countries paid 
> for with money stolen at gunpoint from our citizens. Or make Norplant 
> implants the condition for financial/in kind aid. Both US and 
> abroad.

Why stop there?

Make biometric ID implants the condition for welfare and financial aid, so
we can track them in case they spend it on (gasp!) donations to the Libertarian
party.

Government scholarships for education and research?  Better wiretap their
phones & emails, in case the recipients use the scholarships to work on strong
non-GAKed cryptography.

Hell, folks are also taking advantage of government money every time they
step foot on a park or government road: might as well require citizen-units
to escrow their identity and confiscate their guns as a condition of usage.

``Buckle your thought-escrow-unit, it's the law!''

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, David Wagner wrote:

> In article <Pine.3.89.9609152124.A20702-0100000@netcom9>,
> Lucky Green  <shamrock@netcom.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > Just a comment: "The world population really should go back to around 
> > > one billion", etc. And how could we achieve that without severe govt. 
> > > oppression, one wonders?
> > 
> > Quite simple. End all food and medical aid to developing countries paid 
> > for with money stolen at gunpoint from our citizens. Or make Norplant 
> > implants the condition for financial/in kind aid. Both US and 
> > abroad.
> 
> Why stop there?
> 
> Make biometric ID implants the condition for welfare and financial aid, so
> we can track them in case they spend it on (gasp!) donations to the Libertarian
> party.
> 
> Government scholarships for education and research?  Better wiretap their
> phones & emails, in case the recipients use the scholarships to work on strong
> non-GAKed cryptography.

What, pray tell, does the above have to do with Mr. Green's point?

> 
> Hell, folks are also taking advantage of government money every time they
> step foot on a park or government road: might as well require citizen-units
> to escrow their identity and confiscate their guns as a condition of usage.
>

And this?  Mr. Green hardly advocated an authortarian regime, quite the
contrary, he simply advocated one which refused to hand out money to every
outstretched hand.

> ``Buckle your thought-escrow-unit, it's the law!''

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li