The cons of an online govt would be it's reliance on the internet and electricity and also the fact it would be easily cheated because it is online and could be manipulated by who ever is in control of it. Also most people are dumb and shouldn't be making decisions that will affect others.
The pros would be that the majority of people would love the idea and vote for it
Inflation can not be controlled by the number of babies born
The people in control of the online government would be the people, plain and simple.
I believe inflation could be controlled by the amount of babies, or people, born/alive because there would always be X amount of dollars in circulation per person.
if there was no force there would be anarchy? You are inside out. Force exists when you have a central authority (government) that issues edicts backed with a "do this or else" threat. Anarchy is not good or bad, it simply represents the absence of a central controlling authority, opening up possibilities for better ways for people to interact. I suggest that within anarchy there is room for people to interact consensually..
I'm not sure how anarchy would do as a replacement for government but when I said anarchy I meant that there would be chaos. I used to be an anarchist as a teenager. I still believe there should be the least amount of government as possible.
Maybe the online government would be as close to anarchy as possible according to your definition. I just don't know.
I'm glad you want the world to be a better place. There is no place where everyone is content and happy. A good part of that is because some people think it is okay to intervene in other peoples lives. These tend to be the same kind of people that gravitate to and support a central authority. .
Right.
Police rarely keep the peace theses days, they are more interested in enforcing victimless "crimes". Plus they have low I.Q.'s.
Police suck balls. But what would the world be like without them?
I fond the main problem with your theory.
Whats that?
Dictators, another problem with the theory.
Yeah, the people would be the dictators. But maybe a better word to use would be to say that "the people would be the decision makers".
I also believe that the majority rules should not be 51% to 49% but rather a 2/3rds majority would rule. In other words, it would take 66% of the majority to pass a law.
If everyone is rich, who is doing the work?
People will still have jobs. There would be incentive to work. Less qualified people will do the dirty work but they will still make a much bigger paycheck. That's how I believe it should work, anyways.
This would work for about 1 week before failing miserably. Democracy? Democracy is a mob with pitchforks and torches.
Domocracy has NEVER worked as a form of government and will NEVER work as a form of government. I don't think a real democracy has actually lasted for more than a few milliseconds before a revolution happened.
Ok?
What happens to children born secretly? Still borns? Late third trimester abortions? Reduced money?
I'm not saying it has to work this way, but maybe it should. If a baby is born than X dollars will be added into circulation and if a person dies than that same X dollars would be taken out of circulation. But I'm going to guess and say that there would be more babies being born than people dying so it should equal out.
I believe the money being added into circulation should be deposited into productive infrastructure. For example the new money could be put towards communal construction, schools and things that would benefit the community.
Their job was never to keep the peace. Police duty is to investigate crimes that have already happened and arrest those responsible. More than likely cops want you to commit more crimes, the more the better and the more recognition the cop gets for busting you afterwards.
All cops are criminals.
If you create all the money at once and then simultaneously put a cap on everyone`s wealth, how are you ever going to have commerce?
Example:
Person 1 is born. X dollars created. Bank tries to funnel money into economy. Bank or person or institution cannot as every person is at their cap already (because why wouldn`t they be?). This is actually a bit more complicated, but the basic premise is true.
Putting a cap on it will res ult in a failure non functional system.
Maybe putting a cap on people wealth is a bad idea? I thought it would keep things fair. But how much more money do you need more than 900 million dollars or so?
The richer the rich are than the less the lesser fortunate have. The idea of putting a cap on wealth is to let the rich be extremely rich but not have huge monopolies.
When a baby dies, you take 100,000 out of the economy? That solves all the problems right then and there.
What happens if the online government decides that everyone should be a trillionaire and that to do that they should enslave all the Black people?
Democracy rules. Blacks are a minority so they have no voice in a democracy, in the USA 80% of the people are white and I would assume they would vote for their own well being at the cost of another's. Just a guess.
I was saying that a baby should bring maybe 100 million dollars into circulation, and conversely if a person dies than take 100 million dollars out of circulation.
I don't believe that the black people will be enslaved ever again. I don't believe slavery would be permitted in the online government. The closest thing to slavery would be working for an employer. But in the free society you would be able to change jobs just like now and you could get hired by anyone that wants to hire you. You are like a slave to any employer, they own you for your time.
You cant stop racism because you cant change peoples beliefs, but as long as people aren't breaking the laws than let them believe what they want to.
You would have to or you would have inflation still (actually, no, not with the cap, without the cap though, yes, inflation still). And then who do you take that money from if the baby dies and has less than they are supposedly worth in a scenario where there is no cap?
It still wouldn`t function (well anyway) with a cap on an individuals wealth. It would create an economy of the unmotivated at best be completely non functional to the point where trade is impossible at worst (implementation details are important here).
It`s much more important to use currency as a tool to measure commodities. Yes, people are I guess in a sense a commodity, but the reality is we`re only part of the equation. You need to consider much more than just the number of people when considering whether you want your economy to thrive or to be stagnant. Who is the governing body for this newly created resource also? How is the system implemented?
I just think the cap would create a situation not that dissimilar from what happens in communist states economically. And no cap would create other problems. There would still be inflation. It might be more manageable.
It would have the plus in that deaths would become really economically disadvantageous.
You wouldn't take the money from anyone. There would have to be surplus money that the online government holds on to just as an insurance plan.
People would still be motivated to reach the goal of reaching the pinnacle of wealth because it would be such a high number that only a small percentage of people could reach that 900 million dollar goal. And once they get to that pinnacle of wealth they can retire or still work.
There still would be money in this type of government and the money could be backed by gold, silver, precious metals and resources. But as the population increases the limited supply of gold would increase in value. So this system of government could still be on the gold standard. The money would not inflate but the gold and precious metals might, but gold and precious metals are only a very small percentage of the resources available. The other resources are more important than gold anyways, you cant eat gold.
I definitely do not believe in democracy either. I do not really believe much in government at all.
The less government the better, in My opinion.
This thread is so fucking FULL of fail its not even funny.
You'd cap the amount of money someone could own, yet print €100 million dollars when they're born...so where does the excess go?
And you'd cause hyper inflation with your stupid plan, no curtail it.
-100 stars, and may God have mercy on your retarded soul.
I'm not saying it would have to be these set amounts of money, I'm saying $100 million dollars per baby born as an example. Do you have a better number in mind? And I'm saying the cap on wealth could be $900 million dollars just as an example. It could be a much higher number than this. Id say you would have it all if you owned $900 million dollars.
The money could go into a trust fund for the child, and a portion of the money could go into building the communities infrastructure and schools too. So some of the money could be dedicated towards the childs upbringing for school and health insurance, and the rest could go towards building and educating the community.
I don't believe it would cause hyper inflation because there would always be X dollars per person in circulation. So if there was only one person alive than there would be $100 million dollars in circulation. If there were 10 people alive than there would be a billion dollars in circulation or $100 million per person. If there was 20 people alive than there would be $2 billion dollars in circulation or $100 million per person. There would always be X amount of dollars in circulation per person, but some people would be richer than others! This is the best way I can think of to get rid of inflation.
~PEACE~
