Create account

Replying to DashCunning-banned's post

Yeah but all those things can be done in a fairly decentralized way. To have a sewer system you have to have some organization build and upkeep that system. Usually we call it a city.

too lazy to change it to pipes but its the same argument.
Roads are a completely different story. Sewage treatment requires a large central facility, so whoever runs that is going to have a lot of power. Makes more sense to do a co-op.
Let's decentralize the sewage industry! New consensus algorithm: POP proof of poop! Instead of satoshis we will use malarkeys. Mr hanky will be the mascot on the coin. Keep it going
can be distributed to single house level (septic tank) or neighborhood level or city level. no reason it has to be a state granted monopoly.
So it's either you pay into the neighborhood coffer for poop removal or you live in a single family home and pay for the tolls to get to work. Or you live in Wyoming. Death and taxes.
Not saying you shouldn’t have to pay for the service (I’m not a socialist). saying we should pay one company (of many) directly w/o going through gov.
or there are multiple pipes leading to your house/apartment & you choose who removes your poop. no reason one company should have city wide contracts.
I am not part of the discussion, just wanted to chime in and say that I appreciate that you use literal shit as the metaphor for freedom of choice, pipes filled to the brim with turds.
Capitalism is supposed to make things more efficient. This proposal seems a lot less efficient(and messy) than doing some sort of housing association.
Also depends on how you define efficient. Using least amount of pipe? less efficient. ease of switching between competitors? More efficient.
LightRider
replied to post · 1 day ago
This is the ridiculous mindset of the capitalist. Market efficiency is the only thing they care about and it's going to get us all killed.
nice to see you again LR ;) the resource based economy eschews efficiency?
Frank: capitalism is too efficient!
Also Frank: We're using up all the earths resources, we need a more efficient system!
bingo 😜
Not to mention, Socialism suddenly won't make our resource needs disappear.
Unless we revert back to a less technological time, which Frank denies and claims people will live under a higher standard of living under Socialism, which requires more resources...
Socialism sucks! My friend from Russia formerly known as Crimea is the greediest person I know. Why u ask? Because she had absolutely nothing growing up! Now she is like a hoarder
At least we will be killed in the most cost-efficiently way possible, and capitalism will make sure that there is the absolute maximum amount of worker units (humans) to see it happen.
It might be more or less efficient. But we currently have multiple companies making every product. people generally dont say it is inefficient.
All I'm arguing here is that anarchy has a max population density. As you squeeze more human/mile it gets cheaper to pay for some centralized services/give up some freedoms for others.
quite likely & i'm saying the more competition (in everything) the better (lower prices higher quality). Applies to roles gov has traditionally taken (defense, courts, infrastructure).
We're talking about cities here. The infrastructure problems compound as the density gets higher. Could be solved with neighborhood co-ops I guess but that's basically a government.