Create account

replied 2086d
Sk8eM dUb
I also eat every day, use my phone every day, drive my car every day, all of which are more complex than pipes.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2086d
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.
replied 2085d
too lazy to change it to pipes but its the same argument.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2085d
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.
EnigoMontoya
replied 2085d
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
replied 2084d
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.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2084d
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.
replied 2080d
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.
replied 2080d
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.
replied 2080d
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.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2080d
Capitalism is supposed to make things more efficient. This proposal seems a lot less efficient(and messy) than doing some sort of housing association.
replied 2080d
Also depends on how you define efficient. Using least amount of pipe? less efficient. ease of switching between competitors? More efficient.
replied 2080d
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.
replied 2080d
nice to see you again LR ;) the resource based economy eschews efficiency?
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2080d
Frank: capitalism is too efficient!
Also Frank: We're using up all the earths resources, we need a more efficient system!
replied 2079d
bingo 😜
replied 2079d
Not to mention, Socialism suddenly won't make our resource needs disappear.
replied 2079d
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...
replied 2079d
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
replied 2080d
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.
replied 2080d
It might be more or less efficient. But we currently have multiple companies making every product. people generally dont say it is inefficient.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2080d
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.
replied 2079d
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).
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2084d
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.
replied 2085d
Super decentralized. Apple only organizes 2M people and 9000 US suppliers and manufacturers (for all their products) https://www.apple.com/job-creation/