DarylZero

Whatever you want to call it, you need coercion to enforce the exclusivity.

That's a difference between physical objects and trading pure labor itself (like the trading foot massages example).

It's very unrealistic, one might say childishly naive, to assume that this is how income is distributed.

Equating people's income with "the fruits of their labor" is ridiculous.

(Might as well claim that the government's income collected through taxes is the fruits of the government's labor.)

Enacting property rights over those natural resources is the initial act of coercion that makes trade possible.

Merely using resources isn't coercion but it doesn't "result in property" unless you also apply coercion to exclude others from them.

(Seems like a pointless word game you're trying to play here.)

No, the code that uses the library is a derivative work of the library, whether or not it modifies the library.

GPL still allows commercial use in any case, it just requires you release your code under GPL.

You still have to build it out of something.

An economy of pure traded labor, like trading foot massages or whatever, wouldn't actually have property.

> psychology is based in neurology

It isn't though. It's not like math, built on axiomatic foundations. Psychology predates the discovery of neurons.

(Math isn't really like that either.)

There still needs to be an initial act of taking by force to set up the initial ownership, creating the possibility of trade.

I've heard BoomerBook

This is the real question.

How can the ether rot? Is it not eternal?

Yeah we need to use a good mocking nickname for that company.

Blackmail is a specific type of extortion, but people often use the word "blackmail" when they mean extortion in general.

There's an established word for it: "framing" (or "frame-up").

All very good points. I'd like to add that several of the advantages you list also apply to the old-school mouse vs. the touchscreen & touchpad.

> For example, advances in DIY biohacking tools might make it easy for anybody with basic training in biology to kill mil- lions; novel military technologies could trigger arms races in which whoever strikes first has a decisive advantage; or some economically advantageous process may be invented that produces disastrous negative global externalities that are hard to regulate

More realistic example maybe is unstable billionaires buying their way to power in democracies through mind control of the public via disinformation media.

(One could view this as a technology problem either of the technology of mind control or the social technology of wealth capture that creates billionaires.)

The filesystem provides its own ACID guarantees too. Well, some filesystems.

Not clear how long your "sessions" are but they have poker tournaments where the same people regularly make it to the top.

Just make all the benefits universal, so they never go down no matter your income. This is the right solution mathematically. Politically though it's divisive because it also makes the programs harder to repeal in the future.

Well if you only have $2.5k and no income it's probably going to housing costs.

(Am I here to answer stupid questions...)

In practice you can just keep your savings in cash and not disclose it.

Well your previous logic is refuted and now you're just moving on to some other shit like you never said it. Not a good look.

Yeah it's a dumb idea. Making people spend down their savings when they have no income to pay for food.

That's a good example of the kind of practical thing that people in poverty are more likely to know. Of course it's an example of a strategy for coping with poverty, rather than a step out of poverty.

(A common misconception is that by avoiding spending, one can escape poverty, but this is not the case, because poverty is a lack of income.)

Well, it's not a simulation.

Yes poverty is caused by people not knowing certain strategies, and those strategies are of course known by people who are not poor... come on.

Seems silly, this isn't going to be like poverty at all. Poverty isn't just low levels of routine spending.

A better poverty simulator is, maybe, go ahead and keep your high level of consumption, but cancel all your insurance policies for a year. Including car insurance. That'll have a chance at provoking some poverty-like stress levels.

Not sure if you're aware of this, but it's just a lie, and the goal of telling that lie is political conservatism.

Or here's an interesting fact: SNAP (food stamps) have cost-of-living adjustments. When food prices go up, SNAP benefits go up.

But SSI benefits count SNAP as income and there is a dollar-for-dollar downward adjustment for every increase in SNAP.

So if you have SNAP, your SSI benefits will _decrease_ with an _increase_ in cost-of-living!

Making the benefits universal would increase everyone's personal budgets to compensate.

It has a convoluted mess of programs, often mutually exclusive, that each have separate requirements and "churn" people off their benefits regularly with complicated and recurring bureaucratic burdens.

It's not actually "large" in the sense of total spending relative to other counties.