Most political arguments center on economics.

That’s because we live and breathe and function by Economics. An undiscovered tribe of people living deep in the jungle have an economy. They may even have their own system of Finance, but we *know* they have an economy.

They also have the concept of “profit.” Is it more “profitable” to kill a small swine every three days or a large one every week? What kind of bird is most “profitable” to kill and cook?

I suspect they also have a concept of “price” or “value” as it pertains to one-another and to their specialization of labor. It would make no sense to send someone who is a really good shot with a bow and arrow off on a three day journey to kill a hog if he can’t carry it home.

Our political discussions aren’t about what would be “nice.” It would be “nice” if a hog would wander into the village and kill itself, for instance.
Since that doesn’t happen, we probably want to give the guy who killed the hog and brought it back to the rest of us a disproportionate share of his kill, or to exchange a disproportionate number of fruits and nuts for his meats.

It’s really very simple, and this is what is known as the “free market.” People blame the free market for bad things, but it is really incapable of even allowing bad things to happen – a trade I make with you is something we both want.

The breakdown only happens when a trade is coerced. You go kill the hog and when you get back to the village I take more of the hog from you than you are willing to give me and I hold a knife to your throat until you do.

Would there be hog-hogs who would not want to share, or to trade, and would rather see the hog rot? Well, I’m not going to be willing to trade him much in exchange for his going to hunt then, am I?

But all of this gets very vague and abstract unless you are the one with the knife at your throat.

It has been shown that college students are all for heavy progressive taxation right up until you start trying to redistribute their GPAs. If everyone could graduate with a 2.35 and nobody failed, wouldn’t that be better for the “class” than if everyone got to keep their scores and some failed while others made 4.0s? There are certainly more 2.5 GPAs than 4.0 GPAs, so shouldn't we take from the few who have high scores and distribute their grades to those who have low scores? A large group of low scorers will be helped by this policy and only a few brainy s.o.b.s will be hurt.

The students with high GPAs very quickly point-out that they *earned* their GPAs and that they should get to keep them. The students who are just plain egalitarian and want to hold hands and sing songs about how good it is to share, even those with good GPAs, might feel that it would be a great social good for this policy to be applied across campus.

I contend a lot of high scoring students would find another college to attend, or a bar with really cheap beer... and could save tons of money on textbooks they aren't going to open, but that's just my suspicions. I've been wrong from time-to-time.

So let’s bring all this greedy-talk down to something we all understand and isn’t abstract to us.

Let’s talk about the redistribution of RAC.

Those with the very highest RAC are using more than “their fare share” of bandwidth to the SETI servers and they are consuming a hugely disproportional share of the available work units. Since they have such high RACs it must mean that someone else is being exploited or cheated of their opportunity to have a high RAC, too.

No, really, think about it - if nobody would buy any CUDA cards for crunching numbers and stores had to start practically giving them away, then more people could afford them... right??? It is the undue power that high RAC earners have in the marketplace that causes nVidia cards to cost so much... isn't it? Or is there a logical fallacy in there somewhere that I don't get?

So, I propose that without using the terms Republican or Democrat or Marxist or Fascist or right/left wing or liberal or conservative that we find a FAIR way to redistribute the total RAC of the project across the users so that nobody has to be repressed and nobody exploits anyone else.

The goal, of course, is for the advancement of the project. Ultimately we'd like everyone to have a nice big RAC so we can make progress toward finding an alien. Maybe those of us with high RACs won't mind helping others increase their RAC by helping them out with some of ours.

I mean, there's only so much bandwidth and therefore a finite amount of possible RAC, right? We have GOT to make this FAIR.

Here's a good starting point:

http://www.bluenorthernsoftware.com/scarecrow/sahstats/rac/


I have what I think is a good idea about how to do it, but I’m interested in your ideas.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN REACH AGREEMENT, NOT BICKER FOR ITS OWN SAKE.

Fine - nobody wants to bite... I'll start.

What if we made Berkeley "the government"?

If they just required that people contribute "x" to SETI@Home in order to have a RAC greater than 10,000 then SETI@Home could use those funds to distribute nVidia GT240s to people with RACs under 1000.

Maybe $50 at 10,000 / $100 at 30,000 / $300 at 50,000 / $900 for 100,000, and $3,000 for a 300,000+ RAC.

That would be enough for about 2,500 GT 240s each churning-out 5,000; so an additional 12,500,000 RAC for the project!

We'd raise those computer's contributions to the overall goal by about 5000 each and strengthen the bonds of community while we are doing it.

The GT 240 is really cheap, energy efficient, and may still be available in bulk. No, not 460s. They cost too much more and would run people into the RAC category where they would have to pay-to-produce.

But, just imagine if we could get 2500 new GT 240 users all crunching at once. We'd have a 20% increase in RAC and find an alien 20% faster. We just have to put the means of RAC production in their hands.

In fact, imagine how many new crunchers we could get if by signing-up and agreeing to run their computers 24/7 they would instantly qualify for a free GT240!?

EDIT - I just realized that there are 142,000 users with RAC>1<1000.

I suppose we'll have to start charging at some RAC lower than 10,000 to live our dream of increasing the collective production by 12 million. Details, details...

So, I propose that without using the terms Republican or Democrat or Marxist or Fascist or right/left wing or liberal or conservative that we find a FAIR way to redistribute the total RAC of the project across the users so that nobody has to be repressed and nobody exploits anyone else

I'll bite....sorry but I think this thread is really not useful.

RAC's are based on the hardware people have--noone is repressed and noone exploits anyone else. If people choose not to run Optimized Apps, it is their own fault. We don't need to "redistribute" RAC to satisfy those who choose not to optimize their systems.

---

"But all of this gets very vague and abstract unless you are the one with the knife at your throat."

Ah, yes. The Gospel According to Friedman.

Continue, please.

---

Join the PACK!

take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us

It starts small and just grows. Every little thing is another injustice. Another rationalization.


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

take from the us and give to the them.

Remember this is what you advocate.


Has anyone been able to find in the Constitution when just because you are an American citizen you are entitled to cash from the Government?


Yes, it is time to redistribute RAC. Those with excess RAC will have to pay RAC tax. Those without the means to get a lot of RAC can apply for RAC stamps!

---

take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us

It starts small and just grows. Every little thing is another injustice. Another rationalization.


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

take from the us and give to the them.

Remember this is what you advocate.


Has anyone been able to find in the Constitution when just because you are an American citizen you are entitled to cash from the Government?


Yes, it is time to redistribute RAC. Those with excess RAC will have to pay RAC tax. Those without the means to get a lot of RAC can apply for RAC stamps!

I'll give up my RAC when they pry it from my cold dead computers...

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

take from the us and give to the them.

Remember this is what you advocate.


Has anyone been able to find in the Constitution when just because you are an American citizen you are entitled to cash from the Government?


Yes, it is time to redistribute RAC. Those with excess RAC will have to pay RAC tax. Those without the means to get a lot of RAC can apply for RAC stamps!

Should we confine ourselves to a SETI RACtax or, to keep people from being able to avoid the tax by moving over to Einstein, should we propose a BOINC tax?

I'll give up my RAC when they pry it from my cold dead computers...

That isn't how it works. How it works is that we'll make a form available to you and another to the SETI@Home lab. They will have to withhold RAC from your production until you file the papers with them that proves you only owe "x" of your RAC for redistribution.

If you are late with those papers, then there is a RAC penalty that grows by the day, accumulating interest, etc. Eventually, they will just confiscate your accumulated RAC and throw you off the project.

I always assumed that if it were voluntary that lots of people wouldn't volunteer.

We just need to vote on this, right? Or get Dr. A to declare it so with popular support.

I'll give up my RAC when they pry it from my cold dead computers...

That isn't how it works. How it works is that we'll make a form available to you and another to the SETI@Home lab. They will have to withhold RAC from your production until you file the papers with them that proves you only owe "x" of your RAC for redistribution.

If you are late with those papers, then there is a RAC penalty that grows by the day, accumulating interest, etc. Eventually, they will just confiscate your accumulated RAC and throw you off the project.

I always assumed that if it were voluntary that lots of people wouldn't volunteer.

We just need to vote on this, right? Or get Dr. A to declare it so with popular support.

Well....
I am sure most of this thread is rather tongue in cheek, but a $5.00 a year pay to play 'tax' would put the project in the black for some time to come.

Except, of course, most folks would not even pay that to participate.
It would kill the project.

I don't ever want to see it considered.

I would, however, like to see a lot more green stars floating about in the Seti forums, especially from those who can afford it, as witnessed by the computer equipment they run and their RAC.
Right now, of the top 20 users, only 8 of us sport a green star. (And the usual disclaimer about those who choose to hide it).

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us
take from the them and give to the us

It starts small and just grows. Every little thing is another injustice. Another rationalization.

My RAC is hovering around the 10,000 mark, sure take half of it and distribute it amongst those with less than 5,000, it's not as if I need what's being taken. And no, I'm not in the lowest income tax bracket either, so it's more a matter of "take from me and give to them", same justification as RAC. Anonymous altruism is not that hard a concept to grasp is it?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Didn't you know the Golden Rule is outdated, try the Platinum Rule instead, as Karl Popper said:

"The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by."

take from the us and give to the them.

Remember this is what you advocate.

Says you.

Has anyone been able to find in the Constitution when just because you are an American citizen you are entitled to cash from the Government?

No, and the government's been taking cash my employer says is mine since before I became a citizen. "No taxation without representation" now that's a joke, ask anyone with a permanent resident's visa (aka Green Card).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Well....
I am sure most of this thread is rather tongue in cheek

Why would you think that?

Because the idea is bureaucratic, absurd, ridiculous, and in no conceivable way better than common theft?

but a $5.00 a year pay to play 'tax' would put the project in the black for some time to come.

Except, of course, most folks would not even pay that to participate.
It would kill the project.

Ya think!?

I don't ever want to see it considered.

Don't worry, it won't be --- until SETI@Home has the coercive power to force you to participate.

I mean, SETI@Home has paid-for and collected all this data and the participants now have a data-debt that has to be paid. So if we can't agree to cuts in bandwidth and the addition of user fees, I'm afraid we'll just have to chain you to your computer until all the data is crunched.

And don't forget we are about to have more data from Green Bank that has already been collected. You'll owe your "share" of that data's crunching, too. If we can't get it crunched in our lifetimes, then your kids or my kids can do it.

So we really do have to increase the average RAC of the average participant or we'll never get our data-debt paid (see also: indentured servitude).

EDIT: I forgot to include that your debt in particular is very, very high. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." :END EDIT

Of course, the way out of all of this is just not to have a computer at all. How can you have RAC without a computer?

But I'm surprised by all the GREED I'm seeing here.

Blurf had is right, you know. The difference in RAC is because of the computers that people are putting to work on this problem (capital) and their time and effort to crunch (their labor) and their ability to optimize their setup (their education and experience) and their willingness to have a bigger power bill and maybe even a fire (their liability).

People who have all that just do not understand their responsibility to share the rewards they get with those who don't have, don't know, won't fund, or won't risk.

My RAC is hovering around the 10,000 mark, sure take half of it and distribute it amongst those with less than 5,000, it's not as if I need what's being taken. And no, I'm not in the lowest income tax bracket either, so it's more a matter of "take from me and give to them", same justification as RAC. Anonymous altruism is not that hard a concept to grasp is it?

No, altruism isn't a hard concept to grasp.

Neither is charity.

So, I'm sure some provision can be made for you to get partial credit for giving that which you don't need yourself, against what the collective decides to demand of you.

Thanks for the charitable donation to the "everyone's the same" drive.

Now if we can just figure-out how much we need to have taken from you, willingly or not, to do others the good that we all want to see done, we're on our way to figuring this thing out!

Didn't you know the Golden Rule is outdated, try the Platinum Rule instead, as Karl Popper said:

"The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by."

I guess you have to add that quote, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper as I don't see it, but I could be blind.

In any case, another rationalization. Might just as well not have it, if you are only going to do it when it is convenient [reasonable] for you. Now if he meant reasonable for the other guy, now we might be on to something ...

Doing the right thing, all the time, isn't supposed to be easy. It is the hardest thing you will ever do.

---

No, and the government's been taking cash my employer says is mine since before I became a citizen. "No taxation without representation" now that's a joke, ask anyone with a permanent resident's visa (aka Green Card).

A serious question I'm curious about:

Under those circumstances, why did you put-up with that system prior to becoming a citizen?

Usually someone comes into the country and works illegally and doesn't pay any income or payroll taxes and sometimes no car insurance or licensing fees, or... well, anything except sales and excise taxes, for YEARS.

In fact, I was thinking of becoming an illegal myself, just so that I could avoid income and payroll taxes. I could do simple work with no liability or meaningful regulations that could get me fined into the stone-age making about half what I currently make and still have more money in my pocket and no forms to fill-out.

Doing the right thing, all the time, isn't supposed to be easy. It is the hardest thing you will ever do.

Defining the "right thing" is the hardest part.

Mother Teresa "did the right thing" a lot. Did she help humanity more or has maybe... oh... John D. Rockefeller, for one?

I wonder what would have happened if he gave everyone everything they had demanded of him keeping only enough for a simple luxury; like maybe, a nice lounge suite in his simple apartment?

Well that's a "fair" way to distribute wealth!

Thanks for hanging-in-there.

I was hoping that we could try to "find a way" with the redistribution question long enough for everyone to agree that it doesn't work. Not only are there mathematical reasons it doesn't work, but there are human nature issues in play.

The only way to force a useful redistribution policy is through the use of what eventually becomes brutal force and that serves nobody. Even the heads of state usually find an ugly end and the poor end-up all the poorer.

Didn't you know the Golden Rule is outdated, try the Platinum Rule instead, as Karl Popper said:

"The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by."

I guess you have to add that quote, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper as I don't see it, but I could be blind.

In any case, another rationalization. Might just as well not have it, if you are only going to do it when it is convenient [reasonable] for you. Now if he meant reasonable for the other guy, now we might be on to something ...

Doing the right thing, all the time, isn't supposed to be easy. It is the hardest thing you will ever do.

You can find it in the wiki entry on the Golden Rule, or in the book it's quoted from (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2). I think the answer to the question of "reasonable to whom?" is complex; I don't believe in Popper's formulation it's simply a matter of convenience.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

No, and the government's been taking cash my employer says is mine since before I became a citizen. "No taxation without representation" now that's a joke, ask anyone with a permanent resident's visa (aka Green Card).

A serious question I'm curious about:

Under those circumstances, why did you put-up with that system prior to becoming a citizen?

There were a couple of reasons for my comment, one of which was to remind some that their situation could be worse (many dislike paying taxes, though they do understand there are some benefits, some do not even get the benefits), and that it's coming up for Independence Day and it is my understanding that the comment was a rallying cry 235 years ago.

Why did I put up with it? I was pretty sure it was a temporary situation.

Usually someone comes into the country and works illegally and doesn't pay any income or payroll taxes and sometimes no car insurance or licensing fees, or... well, anything except sales and excise taxes, for YEARS.

"Usually"? Are there figures for the number of documented vs undocumented immigrants in the US?

In fact, I was thinking of becoming an illegal myself, just so that I could avoid income and payroll taxes. I could do simple work with no liability or meaningful regulations that could get me fined into the stone-age making about half what I currently make and still have more money in my pocket and no forms to fill-out.

Quite, and if everybody thought the same, there'd be no funding for the police, fire service, etc, etc. There are some good reasons to pay into the community pot, the disagreement generally appears to be about the extent. Do you believe that if the offer were made, those "illegals" would take up citizenship and the "burden" of taxation, or prefer to remain income tax free and undocumented?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Do you believe that if the offer were made, those "illegals" would take up citizenship and the "burden" of taxation, or prefer to remain income tax free and undocumented?

Of course, most of them would stay undocumented....
Why not? They suck off of our system and get the benefits without paying the price.
Deport them.....ALL of them.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Do you believe that if the offer were made, those "illegals" would take up citizenship and the "burden" of taxation, or prefer to remain income tax free and undocumented?

Of course, most of them would stay undocumented....
Why not? They suck off of our system and get the benefits without paying the price.
Deport them.....ALL of them.

I disagree, they come here to make a better life for themselves, and they want the fast track to a better life here in America.

Offer them free citizenship where they have to pay taxes or face deportation and see which they choose.