US/Canada is a bigger problem but there's probably a way to physically link people

@Beemann I know, I was poking fun.

Keep your religious attitudes from legislation that restricts my life

someone tried to convince me that crypto only as a way to crowdfund was practical yesterday.

I'd recommend focusing on the trade association idea and leave the geographic concentration, alternate payment systems, alternate networks, etc, as hypothetical. They aren't actionable in a practical way and would take too long to realize to have any use. The time window is very short here.

What your proposing, @Beemann Beeman, is essentially the Free State Project. But that's not going to matter when the federal government and international businesses make the decision above your head anyway.

@DrYuriMom So long as you say that for the opposite way 😛

I agree with Atkins here.

But, of course! @ryuplaneswalker

Alot of the specific logistics are particular problems to overcome. Not something that needs to be resolved all at once.

@DrYuriMom That is why my position on gay marriage..was to remove the civil parts of marriage.

No taxes, no legal rights inherently attached.

Like, if we have any lawyers, it might be good to DM Tim and some content creators for example

just..

Start looking up corporate boards and the like.

to be married however you want..but you are still individuals in the eye of the state.

Be my guest, @ryuplaneswalker. If there was no civil benefit to marriage then I wouldn;t care. It just can't be LGBT who argues that case because we'd be called "anti family" and we aren't.

Tim knows Will Chamberlain, who is a DC lawyer interested in this problem.

@DrYuriMom Well that was my argument, and I got called anti-LGBT 😛

As long as all pairs of consenting adults are treated equally, I'm jiggy with it

Fair enough. Know any content creators who might need help too?

Chamberlain is pretty partisan though, and for mass appeal it would be best to keep this trade association ideologically neutral beyond a commitment to free speech for all.

I'm not sure I'd want to apply a partisanship test.

Numbers are more important than having a unified political stance.

I'm not sure if totally eliminating pairing benefits will be good policy if we want another generation, but that can be debated.

I can agree with this, Atkins, but I'm not sure most people really care that much. If you start saying "X is too partisan" you run the risk of just excluding too many people as it is.

Well that is a societal problem Cat.

So long as you can agree that free speech for everyone is something that must be upheld, other positions are immaterial.

We added a huge amount of risk to men for pairing.

that is why I will not date someone with children, or want children of my own.

My comment with respect to Chamberlain wasn't to exclude him; it was simply an acknowledgement that I don't know him on a personal level and I don't know if he'd agree with what we're proposing. He may not be willing to partner up with people of differing political opinions. I don't know. It's worth talking to him.

Oh I see. Fair point.

That he and Tim are on speaking terms is a good sign though.

One issue is the potential for subversion.

But that's another issue.

I think if the focus is on concrete actions and steps, unity, cohesion and resistance to subversion tend to follow.

I'm glad I had kids.

My two geeklings are amazing young adults

Also, Days of Rage has some interesting points on how the left organized in the past. Just as a hint, @Atkins. And you should check out my page on Minds.

Can't drop any more hints than I already have.

And one will be a young man on campus starting next year 😃