Agree, that's key. I'd expand that to say (unless we're all speaking
lojban, god I wish) that we're gonna have to be exceedingly careful to
ensure our words don't "drift" and that we're working under the same
assumptions about words.

In the case of my model, I think consensus is just enough that it all
works. I speak of spontaneous consensus. I imagine this would happen along
the same vectors that viral knowledge spreads, with the critical point
around ~10% or something being the "seed" required to spread. There's a
study somewhere, but I'm mobile right now.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:

> that's really cool, I had an interesting realisation about the consensus
> when talking with a friend (caedes) a few days ago.
> Basically democracy is the will of the majority whereas consensus is
> about agreement between everybody. If people disagree then it isn't
> consensus.
> Therefore it's important in our governance model that we are clear what
> purpose the consensus forming mechanisms serve such that they don't
> become abused (i.e like in our current 'democracies' where there's a lot
> of moralising at the expense of liberty), and that we strive for agreed
> compromise rather than rule by majority.
> I don't want to explain too much here but I think the goal of consensus
> should always be about maximising positive liberty:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
>
> Also check this:
>
> https://wiki.unsystem.net/index.php/UnSYSTEM/Opensource_city
>
> On 10/07/2014 08:16 PM, Kyle Torpey wrote:
> > Tried to write a basic outline for a new startup country a year or two
> > ago as a thought experiment. This ended up being the only "tax"
> > involved. Didn't know this was a real thing. I'll have to find the old
> > doc, but I think a yearly auction for the land tax attached to each
> > piece of land was involved. It's actually quite similar to how a
> > decentralized DNS should work.
> >
> > Not sure if there could be an issue with creating a "higher class" of
> > landowners vs everyone else, but it seems to be the best way to handle
> > land ownership.
> >
> > Josh's points on local ostracization are important when it comes to
> > dealing with people who break consensus. Although, I don't think it
> > would be incorrect to say that being on someone's else's land without
> > their permission is breaking the NAP.
> >
> > -@kyletorpey <http://twitter.com/kyletorpey>
> >
> > On 10/07/2014 01:22 PM, Josh Walker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ​ Not sure how I feel about land tax, except that it seems
> >>> eminently
> >
> >> more logical than the other forms of tax.
> >>>
> >
> >> ​In my conversations with our like-minded brethren, I've found it's
> >> best understood when described as this:
> >
> >
> >> - ​It's not really a tax, because it's entirely optional -- else
> >> it would violate the NAP. - ​ You ​are actually trading for
> >> community consensus that the property is *yours and yours alone. *
> >> *​*Therefore, you might say this is the cost of that service. - The
> >> cost is the equilibrium point ​at which you ​r desire to ​keep the
> >> property exceeds what someone ​someone else would offer.
> >
> >
> >> ​If you're actively listening, you might notice price discovery is
> >> the only tricky part here. This also isn't to replace the cost of
> >> selling developed property; this is just the cost of retaining
> >> consensus ownership of the underlying land.
> >
> >> If you are actively contributing the cost of consensus to the
> >> community in an acceptable form (I see no reason a community would
> >> always demand *only *raw currency, necessarily), the following
> >> happens.
> >
> >> - Someone disregarding the community consensus would face censure
> >> in all local markets. In almost all cases, knowledge of this alone
> >> is expected to keep folks in like. - If a squatter arrives and
> >> refuses to leave, and is not dissuaded by being unable to interact,
> >> buy, or sell with the community, you may remove the squatter. With
> >> the minimum force required, of course. This means, for example, you
> >> could physically push the squatter off the land, as gently as
> >> possible, and if the squatter escalated the altercation, the
> >> community would not view the squatter's escalation as an act of
> >> self-defense (unless you began with excessive force).
> >
> >> If you aren't contributing, it still isn't permissible for folks to
> >> come and steal or break things, but don't expect the community to
> >> object to a camper on your lawn using your well or something.
> >> (Local community standards will vary, I'm sure.) And as above, I'd
> >> definitely expect you to struggle to interact, buy, or sell with
> >> the local market.
> >
> >> The key being it's all voluntary and the only weapon is the
> >> *removal of consent to associate.* Also notable is, there's clearly
> >> room for compassion and exceptions, or for communities to accept
> >> payment in the way of labor, etc.
> >
> >> -J
> >
> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Adam Gibson <ekaggata@???>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> It's not quite the same. The blockchain is literally created by
> >> the miners (the part that actually is useful, the new blocks). The
> >> land was always there.
> >
> >> Not sure how I feel about land tax, except that it seems eminently
> >> more logical than the other forms of tax.
> >
> >> On 10/07/2014 07:19 PM, Thomas Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> In some sense, couldn't the same argument be made for owning
> >>>>> chunks of a blockchain, if bitcoin or something like it
> >>>>> becomes a natural monopoly on transactional economic
> >>>>> activity?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Force address registration on as many people as you can, and
> >>>>> then tax. Sometimes simple obvious plans work best.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Amir Taaki
> >>>>> <genjix@???> wrote:
> >>>>>> Geolibertarians hold that all natural resources – most
> >>>>>> importantly land – are common assets to which all
> >>>>>> individuals have an equal right to access; therefore,
> >>>>>> individuals must pay rent to the community if they claim
> >>>>>> land as their private property. Rent need not be paid for
> >>>>>> the mere use of land, but only for the right to exclude
> >>>>>> others from that land, and for the protection of one's
> >>>>>> title by government.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Geolibertarians view the Land Value Tax as a single tax to
> >>>>>> replace all other methods of taxation, which are deemed
> >>>>>> unjust violations of the non-aggression principle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A land value tax (or site valuation tax) is a levy on the
> >>>>>> unimproved value of land only. A land value tax (LVT) is
> >>>>>> different from other property taxes, which are taxes on
> >>>>>> the whole value of real estate: the combination of land,
> >>>>>> buildings, and improvements to the site.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
> >>>>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> >>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
> >>>>> list: http://unsystem.net
> >>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> >>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> >>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
> >> list: http://unsystem.net
> >> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>