3 ms·

Yet the world itself worked rather well. That must either mean that taxing working well is not necessary for the world to work well or that it worked better tha

Yet the world itself worked rather well. That must either mean that taxing working well is not necessary for the world to work well or that it worked better than you are implying.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
You're aware that depending on where you are in the world you can sample a vast range of development levels, so where exactly do you wish to move to have this well functioning society where people are taxed on trust alone?
- feanaro 7y ago
  I never implied taxing on trust alone, I'm simply arguing against total financial surveillance. Taxing in the mid-20th century did not rely on trust alone and it was a nice mix of trust and manual investigation in suspicious cases. I think such a mix is optimal for a predominant number of human activities and total surveillance should (almost?) never be reached for. You can apply the same style of reasoning to end-to-end encryption. Various actors are aiming for total surveillance in that area too, it is most likely a terrible idea and we have precedent that the world works reasonably well without it.
  - shakna 7y ago
    > How else do you propose taxation is assured? Blind trust? > Sure, why not? It has worked for many years before. Taxing on trust alone is exactly where this little thread started.
    - feanaro 7y ago
      I know, but based on context, I estimated that quip to be somewhat reactionary. The alternative is obviously not to leave out any kind of enforcement. The alternative is to go back to the kind of enforcement that was used and worked fine several decades ago.
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
What does 'worked well' mean? If you measure anything, infant mortality, poverty, murder rates, diseases, nutrition, education, which of them fit any sensible definition of 'well'?
- feanaro 7y ago
  This question works both ways. If a radical change is being argued for, such as total financial surveillance without possibility of anonymous transactions, then I would expect the person making the argument to put forward a benchmark showing that total financial surveillance is making the world better. In my case, "worked well" meant something like a mix of: a) the world did not end, and b) everyday life in developed societies (which previously did not have total financial surveillance, but are now eager to achieve it) was more or less the same then as it is today. In fact, to expand on b), it seems to me (admittedly from a completely intuitive and unquantified perspective) that we are quickly losing civil liberties today and that this aspect was better in the past.

Yet the world itself worked rather well. That must either mean that taxing working well is not necessary for the world to work well or that it worked better than you are implying.

SiempreViernes 7y ago

You're aware that depending on where you are in the world you can sample a vast range of development levels, so where exactly do you wish to move to have this well functioning society where people are taxed on trust alone?

feanaro 7y ago
I never implied taxing on trust alone, I'm simply arguing against total financial surveillance. Taxing in the mid-20th century did not rely on trust alone and it was a nice mix of trust and manual investigation in suspicious cases. I think such a mix is optimal for a predominant number of human activities and total surveillance should (almost?) never be reached for. You can apply the same style of reasoning to end-to-end encryption. Various actors are aiming for total surveillance in that area too, it is most likely a terrible idea and we have precedent that the world works reasonably well without it.
- shakna 7y ago
  > How else do you propose taxation is assured? Blind trust? > Sure, why not? It has worked for many years before. Taxing on trust alone is exactly where this little thread started.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    I know, but based on context, I estimated that quip to be somewhat reactionary. The alternative is obviously not to leave out any kind of enforcement. The alternative is to go back to the kind of enforcement that was used and worked fine several decades ago.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

What does 'worked well' mean? If you measure anything, infant mortality, poverty, murder rates, diseases, nutrition, education, which of them fit any sensible definition of 'well'?

feanaro 7y ago
This question works both ways. If a radical change is being argued for, such as total financial surveillance without possibility of anonymous transactions, then I would expect the person making the argument to put forward a benchmark showing that total financial surveillance is making the world better. In my case, "worked well" meant something like a mix of: a) the world did not end, and b) everyday life in developed societies (which previously did not have total financial surveillance, but are now eager to achieve it) was more or less the same then as it is today. In fact, to expand on b), it seems to me (admittedly from a completely intuitive and unquantified perspective) that we are quickly losing civil liberties today and that this aspect was better in the past.