Proper repeated demonetization only a first step in corrupt+fake-currency emfubar

It is NOT like montek which has incremental advantage suggestions over now and undesirable views on unannounced things. Proper Demonetization begins with what it seeks to accomplice in conjunction with required other realistic measures. The goal of this war on corruption/black-money is to make it impossible for the enemy to keep the ill-gotten wealth. Corruption collects and black-market sustains the contaminated money. Money has to be invested, which is why the pickings from currency demonization is small. Forced transparent valuation is a very effective tool, but currency demonization is essential towards attack on corrupt and fake collection.

Aaqgs-demonetization starts with a january start, say 6, announcement that all notes bigger than 50 will not be legal tender starting next year. All the subsequent notes will have a prominent year in letters and braille. They will always be legal tender only for that year. Government will issue nots valid for next year starting july 1. People have till end of year to get new ones. High denomination notes would have chips embedded for encrypted auto recognition by machine to fuck fake currency makers without mercy. Every note must have a number and its several exponent on it, the problem of finding exponent is known to be impossible. The machine check some subset in parallel, never all to make machines proof against easy pilfer.

All property and owner records are computerized. Not only real estate but gold, paintings in fact any value bearing commodity. The map is between aaqg-aadhaar and property description handle. Computerized emfubar is now possible since the computer output is just a suspicion revealed in nondeterministic manner to human agents. The agents are assumed to be corrupt (public, not private see relevant aaqgs-recognized dilemma) hence must prove self to be uncorrupted. Non-determinism and routine statistical mal-cases keep the corruption in inspectors low or nonexistent.

The last most important point is “not sci fi” any more. A determined government got aadhaar, with my improvements can hit corruption. Above will truly emfubar the corrupt.

aaqgs-recognised dilemma – Public and private

There are two approaches to law – Public or " the charged has to prove innocence" and"private or the prosecutor has to establish guilt". Further adjectives can be invented and applied to both - beyond-reasonable-doubt, by-preponderance-of-evidence, not-unusual, not-usual, under-preponderance-against and under-reasonable-against”

 I argue that ideological insistence on one ideology is stupid and unnecessary. I WANT my judge to be Public in justice and in fact most government servants, experts and choosers. I also consider my privacy important as in opt-in and opt-out debate. I want to be treated as private when faced by law-enforcement, my landlord etc. It is a matter of role, not the person. A judge, government servant etc have private lives too.

A dysfunctional big brother society of 1984 takes public to undesirable extreme. Very private societies are unbearably corrupt. A mix is needed as in all aaqgs-recognised dilemma in which factors that argue for one or another are considered and strict ideological positions are abused.


Empirically, cause-effect patterns are Public if they are or can be imposed like a judge, policemen or tax-collector, or assumed like a doctor, sales recommend er etc . They are all authority figures, by rules or assumption This is distinct from those providing us with requested optional service considered our equals or inferiors. One expects those in authority to have a Public modus operand-ii, while privacy for servers is all right. Fake service sets will catch the corrupt in both classes with statistical certainty.

AAQGS-RECOGNISED DILEMMA – TAXES VERSUS VALUES

I have NEVER understood the immense shenanigans huge number of servants of government and citizens go thru using lawyers, courts and chartered accountants for valuation of property and goods. If a fair, easy method was there, massive savings are possible, directly as well as nearly annihilated government. So I expose my aaqgs-secret.

By my definition, a value is always interpreted as sale value. Government some how decides on a division and asks the current owner of record to declare sale value. Government also secretly collects bids. The tax on any property above exemption is quoted by a tax rate. The owner then pays the tax or sells the property to the government at that price.

Dishonest are fucked. Value it too high, unnecessary taxes. Too low, government acquires and sells. There is no way to know how many buyers at what prices have bid on the property. Nor is this info ever released!

Unlike Georgian economics, this is very similar to it, all property, including stocks, bonds, historical papers, paintings etc are included. If you have a collection, but not a source of income, you better sell off some, or use it in lien, else the government might buy it.

I am more interested in this proposal than philosophical basis. Property and money mean something only when alive. I admit no rights to any parts of nature. We submit to rules of society solely because of fear and continuation of law. There are no ethical reasons except a belief that ethically cooperative behavior will be repaid in the future. There is no compulsion or lien returning the ethical investment in me by my parents. It is the inner joy that makes my behavior ethical to my children and parents. I feel blessed by USA, but disagree strongly with its individualistic nature. My ethics are backward but I accept that and make no attempts to improve.

AAQGS-RECOGNISED DILEMMA – EQUUALITY VERSUS JUSTICE

AAQGS-RECOGNISED DILEMMA – EQUUALITY VERSUS JUSTICE

THE DIFFCULTY CAN BE GAUGED FROM THIS -

It is not possible to be pure conservative and decry rational safety-net entirely. It is also a political fact that reduction in safety net benefits are very painful to conservatives. Clearly then, tying the level to some objective indicator eliminates the politics. The ratio of tying MUST not be national but local tied to local politics.

What indicator? It is a safety net, not a goal as might be in some socialist version which I am not. At the same time, one has to contend with the problem of lawyer-likes that will PROVE that benefits to their people are insufficient. Further there is the problem of cash assistance which must never be refused, moral or not. Even specific assistance is to be carefully used. Food stamps are routinely used by aged parents of doctors who live with them. The stupidity of imposing separation opens a cultural mischief box.

The ultimate cultural unifier between US and India is discussed in conflict between ethics and law. There is no law in US mandating treatment of family as a unit, exactly like possible in India. It is also abuse the semantics in India to argue successfully for very private-only beneficial and socialistic-abuse-inefficient-supposedly-fair or briefly congress deals. Clearly we are ahead in accepting the moral cultural burden even when grossly backward in economic terms. Some ideas I have are purely local. Nevertheless many AAQGS-RECOGNISED DILEMMA are not, and transcend economics. The solution to problems of aged parents is strengthen the great system here and modify the hands-off Social security in USA.

Analysis so far indicates typing to some indicator. Obvious ones like price index sound fair but are not, for the burden falls equally and unjustly on different profitabilities. This consideration and issues of incentives, consideration of devastation of the shared commons, and easy objective of law leads to the following simple but likely very controversial idea compatible with resolutions of all dilemma so far -

1. The idea of equal vote is stupid
2. The vote is proportional to taxes paid since the previous election

All kinds of retirees, commies, on-dole etc are eliminated.

I am a great believer in restoring force model of issues, also rock and hard place or scylla and charybdis models, with ideologies the extremes. Every issue has ideological solutions correct in some neighborhood. Real systems operate at some point away. An objective system with restoring forces will become the ideologies in extreme cases but not be tied to one most of the time, instead interpolate.

Let us consider tax rates. One might assume that such elections will create governments dedicated to cutting taxes. But doing that reduces voting strength and next government will return them. What if socialists come to power? Many people will lose taxes. Only taxed will be the bad guys, who will fuck the socialist next time.

This is not far from democrat-republican tussle in USA. Democrats don't like it, but their wishes on so-called poll-funding reform has fortunately failed in supreme court, so the rich essentially have multiple votes through political ads.

Why good for India is simple – the money for ensuring multiple votes to rich is going to the biggest worst morons – owners of media, journalist and actors etc. Happens here too, less following demonetization.

By the way, the deviation model is very general. I believe that educators at all levels have a deviation percentage in taxes paid by their students. Some will succeed regardless, for example, kids of big shots but this where deviation comes in. False stupid commentary by emfubar bastards incapable of understanding deviation is expected and will be replied with very offensive language since I consider them incapable of siring any but subhuman.

Aaqgs-recognized-dilemma opt-in versus opt-out

O

other view -

Solving the Opt-in/Opt-out Debate, Privacy Article | Inc.com

Conventionally, liberal side of the issue favors opt_in while conservatives prefer opt-out. What is meant is semantics of people who have not bothered to specify are assumed to have voted in the negation in opt_in, affirmatively in opt-out. Specification is generally hard. A simple abuse philosophy in opt-out is to invent a new method for every new transaction. Then you can claim on every complaint that bothering would never recur. Most people suffer from a second problem – address of agency is not known, nor is how they decode shut requests! How do you terminate the menace of telephone sales and browser hijack?
Consider telephonic sales. If you have explicitly forbidden calls, then they will not be made in opt_out, otherwise they can be made. Opt-out has the difficult problem of locating the forbidding database and meeting its requirements. It is very difficult to implement in opt-in, For many valid targets NEVER bother to sign up in equally difficult opt-in circumstances. Another big issue is impossibility of distinguishing between genuine errors and error-excuse destruction of opt-in.
The first aaqgs-comment is gross stupidity of deciding any issue by ideology. One might devote a small time otherwise, and decide by ideology anyway! But fundamental to aaqgs-belief is that all ideologies are applicable to small subsets of problems and it pays to have some discriminant function between ideologies that reduces to ideology in relevant extreme. This is true in ALL aaqgs-recognized-dilemma that the choice is pissed on stupidity of ideological answer and construction of the interpolation that reduces to ideologies in extreme. It requires brains, readers should try interpolation between the two options before reading on.
The first no-no is to come up with any complex solution that requires government servants or lawyers. These are simply the private-public version of same unproductive philosophical stupidity that serves to destroy productivity.
Fundamental to aaqgs-philosophy is error-free constitution, achieved whenever. For this purpose, the highest principles are

0. aaqqgs-philosophy explicitly recognizes conflicting parties of aaqgs-players. It is a document on rules of non-violent conflict. Once exhausted, only violent conflict remains.No ideology which considers violent conflict as legitimate can be an aaqgs-player.

1. There are rights and duties. No one deficient in duties can argue for rights.
   
2. The rights and duties must be textually enumerated. This is to prevent a party from imposing impossible burdens on adversaries. This does not imply the existence of undocumented duties. They can not be be used in current conflict but maybe incorporated for future conflicts. Professional judges are crucial in that they expand the law while delivering equitable judgement on current case.
   
3. The preferred aaqgs-solution is to invent a continuous measure which can be measured transparently and whose value decides the degree of closeness of ideological points. In case above, one must have opt-in-ishness-chooser which leans to opt_in when 1 and opt_out when 0. There is a very simple continuous numerical function obtained by analogy to grades – percent of population below and above. One extreme is nice multi-modes corresponding to grades. Other is a uniform distribution when interval schemes have to be used. In either case, depending on philosophy, an optin-ishness-chooser can be constructed. In fact, crime convictions are no longer digital 1 or 0, instead better done as percent of jury convinced above a threshold of clean chit that the convict is considered liable for. Death penalty can be abolished if what happens to a convict after such conviction, is no longer justifiable but left to the state including corporal punishment. Death penalty should not be considered as punishment but as a cessation of judicial protection on application with the thereafter treatment entirely political! Such convicts can be executed, used as mine-canary, drug-study-victims organ-sources etc, or simply life imprisoned based on political votes of others. As always, there is a popular democratic choice which is decides, never any intellectual moron which ALL are against the dynamic will of the people. Both aacqgs-religion and aaqgs-philosothy (i.e. ethics and law) are aaqgs-dynamic and different from ALL OTHERS up to this point which are condemned to be static and eternal in theory, while not so in practice through transparent lying, reinterpretation and sect-formation; three unpardonable sins aaqgs-free from now and forever.
   
4. Neither judgements can be delivered based on analogy, nor can argumentation be made by analogy, the parties in both cases must be either successfully master or be fired.
   

Security is the zeroth and highest aacqs-goal. That being so, one can safely assume its use to justify anything and describe its invocation by competition as politically motivated non-sense. Essen
It is the highest aaqgs goal to design popular vote answers where the will of members can be applied in a democratic manner without aaqgs-hard barriers implementation which constrains the future to a path. This can, however, be done by allowing irreversible steps now but only allowed by courts. For rapid pronouncements, the supreme court is of life-long tenure and insulated from cases of individuals, more like an administrative court with appointments from the high courts by repeated direct elections, giving it the flavor of judicial senate, and also popular removal every few years. It is this that prevents dictatorship and arbitrariness.
Second highest goal is efficiency. A society with high rates of growth

Aaqgs-development – on the issue of proven applicability

How does one prove that one system subsumes the other? simple in axiomatic systems – one shows that every axiom of one system is subsumed in the other, either as axiom or derivation. In fact, one can show two systems have equal power by showing each subsumes the other, and strictly bigger by proving that one valid subsume in one cannot be derived in the other. A more defined system may be stronger than a subsume r. For example, anything subsumes all other systems and nothing can be subsumed by any system. The real issue is useless loss of generality.
With this in mind, let us compare legal/ethical distinction with class distinction. If there are two classes a & b, one can simulate them easily by two ethics classes such that they always act as a & b! Clearly then, my distinction is at least as powerful as MARXISM. It is more whenever you are forbidden to ascribe difference in behavior for non-economic reasons, for example attitude on education in Greek or Latin. QED
People disagree on many things, not always on hidden economic reasons, some times for aesthetic reasons. One can always find economic hidden reasons by similar process as one can see penis and vagina in every line drawing or photograph. Rather than argue with such bums, better prescription is the ignore such sub animal emfubar and use contemptible language if not avoidable. NEVER show any respect beyond that required by the occasion.

A non-ideological approach to life is aaqgs-mandated. In every situation, some pre-filtering has to be done before ideological application and differences can be selected. Only time it is different when a subsumes b and both are applicable. Many problems can be answered in equivalent ways. It may indeed be a surprise, with resolution forty years in future, as the violation of Bell limits finally laid the quantum ghost of hidden variables to rest. It has taken another fifty years to combat the ghost of collapse to rest and has just begun.

Aaqgs-recognized-dilemma – Law versus ethics

Internet goes everywhere, time to progress into 21^st century bereft of earlier experienced moronic incompetent intellectuals like shuck able garland of weights.

aaqgs-I consider Law versus ethics far more important than class distinction to understand history and predictions. Ethical behavior is an internal mechanism -- as individuals we perceive "right and wrong" in a particular situation and act accordingly. Law, on the other hand,  is "external".  There are rules, promulgated by others, and we choose to comply with those rules or not.  The rules may or may not reflect our perception of right and wrong -- but they represent a consensus of what rulers of society feels is "right" or "wrong".   So there is a major distinction between ethics and law.  Simply following the rules does not make an action ethical -- at least that's the lesson of the Nuremberg war trials.  Nor is violation of an unjust law or rule necessarily unethical -- for example, Gandhi's march to the sea to evade the British salt tax, or Rosa Parks taking a seat at the front of the bus may have been illegal, but not necessarily unethical.

History is replete with examples of ethical dilemma created by legal class distinction hurt caused by ruler defined arbitrary laws which favor one identifiable gelled class over another. All laws are generally hurtful to some, but not the others, all the adjectives are important to prevent an author from creating virtual classes of the loser's from any law. The classes must be identifiable and sufficiently organized to demand consideration. A unification organizing effort is needed prior to consideration of the losers, caused or historical. The battle of independence of colonies, of people of color, voting beyond sexes, color discrimination and sex discrimination can be looked so.

But that is history. Anyone a competent can refine the semantics to make the past conform to a's historical account. Then in the guise of “intelligent don't let the history repeat”, it is applied to predictions to argue for desired actions. So common is this technique of thugging, particularly non-skeptic intellectuals that it deserves a neologistic name – semantic-thuggery. A vast super-majority of so called historians are not just reliable event writers, but lunatic subhumans with pet theories of what the events correspond to, and hence devoid of any respect, considered unnecessary burden on Exchequer and should be fired mercilessly. Any useful history will have a number of readers that will financially support the non-science intellectuals.History is simply respectable conspiracy theory

Even science is supported by empirical argument that it is possible to feel the benefits of patent and copyright regime in a far less restrictive, democratic, non-exclusive manner even though it is not administered so but by self-chosen contradictory (up to relevant scientists to deal with them) schemes which must NEVER be open to micro-management by politicians. In this scheme, popular science is rational stoic for all else, a statistical rational skepticism where the pure science rational skepticism (even for scientists re other fields) for effort cost reasons. Advertisement is necessary evil, only solution is internet based rational skeptic database of branded values. Brand values are measurable in non-monopoly-circumstances with $ price averages and spread, indicating the efficiency of inspectors, workers, processes as standard deviation for legally defined sets of services and products. In other words, it must be illegal to provide services below the minimum not defined by a fine print.

Elimination of fine-print is possible and central to my political advantage. It is this, not Marxian class warfare, that define the next few centuries. The evil gelled class is lawyers by super-majority, the success of my program is reduction of professional lawyers to 10-20% of now. It will greatly benefit production, sales, and citizenry to eliminate fine print. It can be done by aaqgs-deviation-contract limit in all fields. Every transaction has a deviation from government printed rules. The length of deviation may be some percent of legal contract length, say 10%. That is the number of bytes the transaction wordage can be from the government contract.

Consider a rental. There are some government rules based on parties in power and court judgments. All modifications and fill-in-blanks constitute the deviation. The full applicable contract can be printed out by a simple program. Quick look at deviation tells the consumer, interest or not.

Parking slip: same thing. Deviations printed on ticket.

A lawyer is NOT very smart. His experience enables him to rapidly match paragraphs with the standard. A longish document becomes a set of deviations. Right cases pop up to match the deviations. It is like human way to do chess, vastly different from poor AI of analyzing trillions of positions. One easy way to test I am right is to finally find a method to emfubar lawyers as a class. It also works to decimate reverse engineers from source code for complex software.

Idea is to break up things into small chunks, instructions in software. Consistent with required order, they are dissociated from semantic order, but some other order, usually some strange, but not arbitrary sense. In programming, it is by name. So all the declarations are moved up, sorted by type and alphabetical by name. Further, all non-recursive procedures are open to possible inline expansion. Consistently, code sentence-set is reordered. Such code is very hard to read. Things are even better for lawyers. To emfubar them, infrequent words or words without court case history can be used.

It is said in lawyer community that only the lawyer who draws up a good contract, like premarital, can prepare a destruction case. My rules eliminate that! No fine print is possible. Deviation-only rule has enormous applications in business contracts and options-trading!