Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (8111)	12/28/2005 3:07:52 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542036

You keep confusing the market mechanism of trading an economic legacy with external mechanisms (lawsuits, whatever) which impact the value of the legacy. What I want is: 1) A complete history of all economic transactions, stored and maintained. 2) Elimination of negative number barriers in economic ownership 3) Full economic inheritance, as much as possible, both positive and negative. 4) Temporal decay: I'm willing to allow decay rates based on say transaction class or type vs time, but on the other hand why not just track it all indefinitely. If the decay rates are based on reality, tracking the full history does not change anything, while enforcing an incorrect decay rate amounts to a distortion. So from a theoretical basis, no decay rate would appear the better approach, since the future can always assign effective temporal factors, while the data remains complete. 5) Free market trading of all economic legacies. 6) Assignment of risk/reward ownership based strictly on a) fractional ownership, b) responsibility, c) reasonable compensation, and d) using best available science. 7) Elimination of most regulation, since it has been replaced with the above consequences of all actions. This is just a stab at how one might implement a workable version of Ayn's Objectivism (I will not use Libertarianism anymore for this). It would work because it places equal (or more nearly equal) value on responsibility as it does on reward. Ayn's view was fantasy IMO, because it failed to correctly understand self-interest in an environment which lacks mechanisms for responsibility. Her failure in that regards was just as fundamental as Marx's failure to understand self-interest. I know that 6) above is your hangup, but IMO, those are goals which this system could enable, they are not needed to start with, as the current mechanisms such as lawsuits are already in place. It should be noted that lawsuits themselves are not symmetric, since they are used to recover for damages, rather than to share the results of beneficial actions. I'd like to see mechanisms for both aside from lawsuits. I think such are possible, but that is a secondary step to simply tracking behavior, which is the enabling item.