@crunklord420@alex@reclaimthenet@lain the worst part of all this is that the marketplace has already spoken on thisfreicoin existed back in the very early days of cryptocurrency, and was competitive with bitcoin for a time. and afaik it still existsif people were serious about wanting to use expiring money, they should try to use #freicoinhttp://freico.in/ but usually they aren't - they just want everyone *else* to have expiring money
I remember when I first heard about freicoin, back near the end of 2013, I was still fresh to Bitcoin and finally grokked it, and deeply appreciated the hard money aspect of it.
Then there was freicoin… seemingly throwing all of that away… ????
@ademan@alex@reclaimthenet@crunklord420@lainhttps://youtu.be/ccTA2J1QcBM?t=1826 here's why this is a contentious thingThere are some of us who think that government should exist, and should have a role to play in the management of the economy - keynes would have included 'preventing the great depression, increasing net happiness and productivity' in this but you don't have to even go that far -- just having some degree of trade going, a degree that's set communally throughout the economy so that capital accumulation doesn't just result in a couple of oligarchs who have 99.9999% of the money and control of what is produced (and uses it to always profit) - one of the means of doing this is demurrage. Demurrage isn't the *only* way of lowering the gini coefficient or making democratic input into the economy happen but it is one.What government, and money should do are politically contentious questions - and whether or not you use bitcoin/freicoin is a choice you can do to implement your ideas of how the broader human relationships writ large should be and each choice has consequences
@ademan@alex@reclaimthenet@crunklord420@lain@jeffcliff *company name* does not care about you or mehaving more to invest can reduce process impact, but it won't be invested without incentive to do soand there is not always natural incentive to do soyou can't own the sky or river or ocean or atmosphere or water table or entire ecosystem
That completely misattributes improvements in environmental quality due to increased wealth. We can afford cleaner industry because we are rich. But I know the simplistic view is attractive (and taught uncritically to many people)
@ademan@alex@reclaimthenet@crunklord420@lain@jeffcliff "they'll own the entire river and all the land around it and tell people who can and can't drink from it, but that's not government though"there will be organisations set up to hold companies accountable for their misbehaviour, but that's not government though"subject to the collective will of the people, but that's not government though
yes, if you harm people with your pollution, you are liable. You also have social pressure (ever heard of ESG?)
you can’t own the sky or river or ocean or atmosphere or water table or entire ecosystem
Of course you can own parts of those things, how silly. Water rights for instance are well established and understood. You don’t really even need strict property rights to establish damages in these cases.
@ademan@alex@reclaimthenet@crunklord420@lain@jeffcliff it's fair to talk about collective will in cases like "people living in this x by x kilometre region would rather not all be poisoned to deathand the pretense of most modern governments is that they can enforce things little people can't (settlements between individuals and companies do not work at all). that they usually act self-interestedly makes me wonder why you'd think any other organisation, made with the same pretense, could ever be different, when it's composed from the same humans with the same incentivesand when people need to do what you say or die because you own the river, why does that not qualify as government? when the current system which does just that already is itself considered governmentdo the same thing but even worse and expect different outcomes this time, like