I looked into sales tax software for my business several years ago, but they said I didn't need it. It had over 9000 taxing jurisdictions in the USA alone.
There you go, off the shelf solutions are already available for this problem.
You can't avoid monopolies by substituting government monopolies.
But how can you avoid them without government monopolies enforcing antitrust laws? How did the byzantine generals/ technology do it?
I don't know where the right and left have anything to do with the basic problem of our bureaucracy which is the unsustainable paradigm I described, I have not heard any politicians on either side ever discuss it or display an understanding of it. Only non politicians, Donald Trump and the professor of Public Administration who explained it on the first day of class. I am all for locking her up. ;)
Anything involving enough humans for a long enough period of time will eventually come to the spilling of blood. So then the question is how much, what we see over the last 100 years is war death rates and famine death rates hitting all time lows.
Which will be subject to price gouging because they are now legally required. It was about $50 / month last time I looked (which was over 10 years ago). I suspect that it's much higher now.
This will be the most punishing for small businesses (Amazon can easily afford such software and an army of lawyers to boot). Because the cost of such software can put many small businesses out of business, this legislation actually favors big business. But anything to satisfy the great God of Trump right? Fuck them all.
You don't seem to get what I'm saying about voluntary associations. The whole point of voluntarism is to not spill blood. It is the state that commits the most violence of all. As an apparent statist, why are you even reading @dollarvigilante?
I bet the same software 10 years later is a lot cheaper or free by now. I think if the cost of the software was very great it would bankrupt some marginal businesses but I suspect it will be very small. I am sure I didn't say anything about "the great God of Trump", this has little to do with Trump. This change was the result of a Supreme Court decision.
I get the theory and how it is supposed to work about voluntary associations, but I see many flaws and unproven and false premises that are not addressed by its proponents, instead they often get mad when asked to discuss them.
Democide was the leading cause of unnatural death in the last century but the definition should probably be refined, it was not every state on earth killing their own people en masse that drove that number, it was a handful of authoritarian socialist states that killed huge numbers of their own people. It's not really fair to blame all states for the actions of a few. That would be like judging all gun owners by the ones that go on shooting sprees. I see a lot of parallels between a lot of the argument and rhetoric I get from anti gun people as I get from anarchists.
They will say "without guns we could eliminate gun violence" just as "without the state we could eliminate state violence", its simplistic and sophomoric, for starters they offer no means to get rid of these things and secondly then there would still be every other kind of violence, perhaps more. Just like anti gun people never look at how many lives guns save anti government people don't look at the lives saved by government they only look at the bad things and then generalize. If the American government did something bad then somehow all governments must do whatever it is. somehow that becomes an immutable feature of government in general.
I think it's funny to hear a Canadian living in Mexico rail against America, don't you?
It means America or most Americans don't know how much American policies affect many other countries. China and America are 2 very influential countries, especially in this tech age (no dissing Russia and India and their tech proficiency). Tech policies emanating from them rarely do not affect other countries in one way or another, in the end.
Oh we know, we just don't give a shit. That's not our problem. Anyhow what effect do you expect to see in your country from some online retailers no longer being able to dodge state sales taxes in the US?
Ok. Things are surely changing extremely quickly. You are free to act without care or caution.
what's changing?
Then you don't really understand what has happened recently in the tech world. Until recently I didn't think anarchy could be a practical solution which is why I was torn between the lesser of two evils. Since reading and understanding the Nakamoto white paper in early 2017, I now know that anarchy actually has a practical solution in DApps, DAO's, etc (aka decentralized governance).
Read up on EOS, Ethereum and decentralized governance such as Cicada. These models reduce or completely eliminate the need for representatives by turning politicians into code and using consensus via district. Localization gets rid of the parasitic model of governance where the few scrape the largesse of the masses without providing any benefit under the guise of "globalization". Using the ethics of "opt in" rather than "opt out" one can reduce the violence of state and gain legitimacy again. A government that you cannot opt out of is a violent government because it forces coercion at gunpoint by its armed enforcers wearing a badge.
The old models of governance are no longer needed. Technology has replaced lower level manufacturing jobs starting several decades ago and has been climbing the professional ladder ever since. Now the banking system is being disintermediated by cryptocurrencies and DAO's are doing the same to the legal system. Pretty soon lawyers will also need to be coders or they will be out of work.
I have heard of the idea that blockchain can do that but that sounds like a democracy, I would never want to live in a democracy and have my rights and such be subject to the will of a mob, especially not one voting online.
that seems like one problem I don't hear a good solution to, lets say the alternative protection agencies have not yet formed a monopoly and that there are those who opt out, what's to stop me from enslaving or killing an opt out?
Yeah that is one of those false premises that the whole argument seems to be based on, no they won't kill you if you don't pay your taxes. Tax evasion is just not a capital crime in the US. If you don't pay your taxes and then attack a cop the cop might shoot you in self defense but you were killed in self defense by a cop not executed by the state for a failure to pay your taxes. This is one of those things that seems like almost a religious belief, at least that is the only way I can explain it because it totally is bizarre.
Nope, what we see is that technology enhances those professions rather than replacing them or else we would be seeing massive unemployment instead of record low unemployment.
I didn't say they would kill you. It's no less violent if through a gun one is intimidated or coerced into compliance. This is extremely unethical and immoral. A state that so governs will lose moral authority (and ultimately the consent of the governed).
The natural law of self defense. There are no guarantees in life. Everyone needs to step up and assume responsibility rather than asking the state to do this. When the state does this, it magnifies death and destruction and terrorism is the result because it's a byproduct of that authority. Minimize the authority and you minimize the power of death and destruction. The goal of such downsizing technology is to localize distribution of wealth in such a way as to minimize honeypots that allow such things as nukes to come into existence (because they are expensive).
These monstrosities exist because of globalization. For those that already exist, a multisig contract for detonation involving secured hashes will prevent nuclear accidents caused by political miscalculation. Once this is in place dismantling will be incentivized because a multisig expansion beyond the few who are war mongers would never allow enough consensus to detonate. Then it becomes an unnecessary cost to maintain with no real use case.
That's not always the case. Some jobs have not come back. Everyone thought that ATM's would put bank tellers out of business, but they just changed duties. However, the changes coming in the future are much more extreme; politicians may instead become "witnesses" similar to what you see on the Steem blockchain and have far less power (if we have any sense). Those who take on new training will adapt such as lawyers writing Dapp code. As for democracy, I just pointed out Cicada as an example of what is possible, but republics could just hard code their constitution (similar to what EOS is doing right now).
I'm not saying that we couldn't go the other way. I've been writing about this on my blog for almost a year now. We could be in for a digital panopticon if IoT/AI is successful in enslaving humanity. If that's the case, then we could have an extended Orwellian period and this will be the result...
The real choice isn't democrat or republican (that's about fighting over the crumbs that fall off the table). It's whether we have liberty or slavery on steroids.
once I have enough slaves working for me I will be able to afford a second hand nuke in no time! Before the modern era most people were actual slaves to some degree, whether they be indentured servants, serfs or chattel, so blaming globalization for slavery does not make a lot of sense. People who live in stone age tribes seem to all practice slavery. Slavery is almost essential in a society without fossil fuels to do all the hard work. Whose consensus would I need to detonate my nuke?
who said the real choice was democrat or republican?
Nuclear weapons have lead to an end to massive global conflicts that took millions of lives, a world without them would be one in which the price of aggression was cheap.
(sorry, I can't watch 52 minutes of someone with no neck giving a lecture)
To be more precise, globalization makes slavery worse. The actual cause is the human condition that hasn't understood the moral / ethical considerations of natural law in that no act of coercion is without some form of violence. Many times that violence is concealed by the stroke of a pen, yet does far more damage than a riot in Los Angeles.
And yet governments have still claimed millions of lives around the world without nuclear weapons.
The scientific community is becoming wise to the stupidity of allowing central authority dictate the fate of humanity on the whims of political psychopaths. Extinction is only a matter of time if we don't intervene. We've been discussing how to reign in nukes when governments start to fail and can no longer control their stockpiles through their inherent instability and irresponsibility.