Quote from: brush242 on March 03, 2014, 08:43:26 PM

This is just cost/benefit analysis, which is what humans do with every single decision they make, no matter how small.

If humans were all rational all the time you would be correct but this is a bit far fetched. Still it's an ideal that we can say humans strive for.

Quote from: brush242 on March 03, 2014, 08:43:26 PM

Your paper sounds nice, just like Social Security sounds nice: "we're just asking everyone to pay their fair share to help those less-fortunate."

My paper makes no mention of wealth redistribution. In fact the concept my paper promotes is called universal basic capital. My paper presents a plan which would make everyone a capitalist by giving everyone a share in capitalism itself. If you keep excluding people from the rise of capitalism then you cannot expect people to believe in the system. Remove the barriers to entry to that as a community improves it's productivity, and profits rise, the dividend goes to the community who also are the shareholders.

Quote from: brush242 on March 03, 2014, 08:43:26 PM

Except, well, in practice it has been almost the dead worst investment ever; it takes an enormous amount of personal income, thus acts as a disincentive to productive work; and it has given the government a further tool to mislead the populace and devalue money.

This is a straw man argument. I said nothing about social security or socialism. You're debating a straw man and it makes me question whether you really read my paper. My paper is based on the work of James Albus and his book a path to a better world. The difference is my idea is decentralized, global, and doesn't require a government permission. All it would require is that the SEC and government does not persecute future generations of capitalists who want to believe in capitalism.

Quote from: brush242 on March 03, 2014, 08:43:26 PM

Beyond that? Well, I'll just mention one here. If you actually create some sort of non-owned autonomous entity, someone else is going to take it away from you.

A decentralized autonomous corporation can either be owned by a community (like Bitcointalk) or it could be self owned. If it's self owned then the shares don't exist or they exist but only allow humans to vote. It would mean the machine or autonomous entity would profit for it's own sake and pay humans and machines alike to repair / replicate it.

So it is theoretically possible to have unowned machines. If the SEC for example were to persecute people then we could go with the unowned model. Just as we could say no one owns Bitcoin but it still exists.