The tax for putting a vehicle to the market (imported or locally made) for the first time (not applicable to resales; resales should follow a different criteria) should be based on a formula that takes several factors into consideration (not an exhaustive list).

1. Price of the vehicle (price from the manufacturer on the released year, adjusted to inflation) : higher price → higher tax %

2. Cost to put to market (shipping costs, insurance etc) : higher cost → higher tax %

3. Date of manufacture : older date → higher tax %

4. Current usage (ex: distance driven, time since first sale, etc.) : more usage → higher tax %

5. Safety features for passengers, other vehicles and pedestrians (can use existing globally accepted safety ratings) : more safe → lower tax %

6. Environment impact (projected over expected lifetime) : lower impact → lower tax %

7. Energy cost to travel per unit distance (ICE, electric, hybrid or any other) (eg: for 10 km distance and 100m elevation at peak efficient speed with maximum load) : less energy cost per unit distance → lower tax %

8. Capacity (no of people or cargo capacity) : higher capacity → lower tax %

Additional criteria can be introduced based on the requirements of the government and the people. For example, if promoting locally made vehicles is a priority, additional criteria can be introduced to cater that.

The importer should be liable and accountable to provide the correct values for each criteria and these values should be made public.

Additionally, for the purpose of assigning a value for each factor, each factor can be put into a scale.

For example, if we take the “date of manufacture”, it can be put into a point scale as below (example only)

Less than 2 years : 0 points

Between 2 years and 5 years: 1 point

Between 5 years and 10 years: 2 points

Greater than 10 years : 3 points

The final equation can be of following form (example only)

T = Σ  ( a.Fb )

T = final tax

F = factor value

a = weight of the factor

b = scaling factor

a, b -> needs to be determined for each criteria by the authorities

Depending on the type of vehicle, (either people transport, cargo or special purpose) different combination criteria/ factors can be used with different weights and scaling factors.

If you ask anyone with a scientific background "what is a universal language that you know?” many would give the answer as mathematics. But why is that? As I see, most would say it because everyone else is saying it, and some say it because it is the underlying backbone of modern science; especially physics. There would be no physics or modern science if not for mathematics. And as I see, the notion of mathematics being “the” universal language arose from it being used to model and explain many aspects of the universe we know. But does being the core of modern science qualify it to be the universal language? I think not.

First of all let’s look at what a language is. In layman terms, a language is a tool that is used to represent, manipulate and convey knowledge. As English, French, Sinhala and all the languages are formed for this purpose, mathematics is not very different. And though, all the languages are made for handling knowledge, the way each language achieve it is different from one another and sometimes is also very unique; and mathematics as a language is also different and unique in its own way.

Then let’s see what a universal language is or should be like. In my opinion, a universal language should be an ultimate tool in handling knowledge. Knowledge comes in different shapes, colors and sizes. Quantifiable knowledge, the kind of knowledge that mathematics is so much capable of handling is just one kind, and there may even exist forms of knowledge that we as humans still or never be able to handle as we do not possess unlimited physical or mental capabilities. Here, it is important to understand that the entire collective of human knowledge is limited by the physical and mental capabilities of us, the humans. May it be the knowledge of a scientific theory or the knowledge in a piece of literature or the knowledge of a tasty recipe or simply the knowledge of knowing that it is raining outside, every bit of this knowledge is crafted by us, in a way we understand. And this vast system of collective knowledge is molded in a systematic way that we humans can understand and handle, mathematics included. And a true universal language should be able to handle knowledge despite these differences. And even though a true universal language exists, we may have to reach an ultimate state in at least in mental abilities to fully able to use it.

Moreover, an important thing to understand is that mathematics is human-made. Same as art, science, philosophy and every other thing we have learned and invented, it is an integral and an important part of the human knowledge collective. Specifically mathematics is a systematic language with emphasis on handling knowledge of quantities.

Mathematics is a language that deals in quantities. And quantifiability is a primary requirement in the scientific world. Actually this is the reason that mathematics is used as the backbone of science. But natural (spoken) languages incorporate many aspects other than just quantities. And this makes a statement in a natural language open to a wide variety of interpretations, thus containing more information. But this quality also makes it not very suitable for a field that emphasize on dealing with quantities such as science.

In my opinion, the requirement of quantifiability is a human weakness. It’s a human inability that makes it very difficult for us to understand the universe without specifics. But why does based on our weaknesses we should decide that something is more powerful and universal than another?

And finally what about mental objects? Yes, we may still not be able to exchange information between one another directly using mental objects or store them for later use, but who’s to say we won’t be able to in the future? And the representation of information is astronomically powerful and diverse with mental objects. And the language of mental objects could be the ultimate limit on the human knowledge handling capability. Maybe and just maybe the language of mental objects could one day become a true universal language, or we may invent something entirely different that is more powerful. So until then, let’s not jump into false conclusions. ☺

This is an idea that I had a little while back; and was lost; and then reappeared in my mind again. The idea is raw and highly abstract in its nature, so be cautious.

The idea is simple. There are 3 types of domains.

1. True-dynamic domains: No real statics exist, only pseudo-statics that are created by taking intervals of the dynamic.
2. True-static domains: No real dynamics exists. Only pseudo-dynamics that are created by taking a series of statics.
3. Hybrid domains: Both true-dynamics and true-statics exists.

So what is a true-dynamic domain and what is a true-static domain, you may ask.

A true-dynamic is a one single big flow. There, you can’t pinpoint anything perfectly. There are no isolated things, everything is like a mist. There are no instances and there are no exact things in a true-dynamic domain. If one to take an interval in this kind of a domain and consider it as indivisible, then it could be seen as a pseudo-static. But remember the boundary of that interval is also not exact but a diffused one.

And it’s quite the opposite in a true-static domain. Everything is ultimately made up of indivisible discrete things or are indivisible discrete things themselves. There is no flow. If one to arrange a set of statics in a series and then it can be considered a pseudo-dynamic.

I think the hybrid-domain is self-explanatory. It’s a domain both true-dynamic entities and true-static entities can exist. But if you think a little bit more, there is a problem. What about the boundary of a true-dynamic entity in a hybrid domain? Is it clear-cut or somewhat fuzzy? Because having a definitive boundary contradicts what a true-dynamic is, and is actually a property of a true-static. This raises the question that, can hybrid-domains exist, or are they impossible? If they can exist, what is the nature of a boundary of a dynamic entity in it? I don’t really have any answers to them now and I’ll just leave these questions for everyone to think about.

These also lead to many other questions about the reality we live in. Is space a dynamic or a static? In a dynamic space, the famous “Zeno’s paradoxes of motion” would still be there, but in a static space they would not (or would they?).

Is time dynamic or static? If it is a dynamic, then instances would not exit. That means you won’t be able to talk about the state of something at t=25, because the instance of t=25 or any other would not simply exist. But you could talk about things in a somewhat fuzzy interval of time. (Zeno again!)

What about matter and energy? Quantum physics with the standard model and the others seems to say that matter and energy are dynamic and their static behaviors are just pseudo-static. (mind my poor physics :))

Modern computing seems to be true-statics, because they are binary machines, and having 2 clearly separated states mean they are true-statics. All the dynamic behaviors are just pseudo-dynamics.

What about mathematics, can mathematics handle both true-dynamics and true-statics, or just a one? Euclidean geometry seems to be static. Because it can have zero area points and zero width lines and likewise. The series of integers seems to be a pseudo-dynamic. But what about the real numbers? To me it seems like a hybrid domain where the rational numbers are static and irrationals are dynamic, but I’m no mathematician; I’m merely an infant (maybe an unborn even) when it comes to mathematics. So I’ll leave this to the mathematicians.

And finally, what about the (physical) reality itself? Is it a true-dynamic, or a true-static or a hybrid?

Personally I love a true-dynamic, even if it’s real or not. I love it for the elegance, the majesty, and the all or nothing nature of a true-dynamic. That’s also one of the reasons why my writings have less numbers and equations in them. Because numbers represent something exact and that’s a static thing. I like a bit of vagueness and a pinch of mystery in things (not too much, obviously).

So, that’s it from me for now. What are your thoughts about this?

Background

We all know how a transaction happen between two parties. If one party gives 10 dollars to the other, then the other party should also give 10 dollars or something of equal value back. Otherwise it wouldn’t be fair, right? In other words, the transaction has to be symmetric. This is the most fundamental principle of economics/ social sharing that had existed since the time man began to share things with one another.
          
All the modern economic systems, theories, studies and ideologies are based on this prehistoric principle. Whether we exchange goods, like in the past or buy things with physical or digital money, the same principle applies. This idea is so basic, that we even take this for granted and treat it as a universal law, never noticing its existence, like the air we breathe.

That value of the exchanged goods or services are always decided by the two parties. (But in the real world sometimes (more often than not) one party get more power at deciding this value.) When it is overpriced, the receiver is unsatisfied and when is it underpriced the giver is unsatisfied.

And not only that, the economic systems that we have today have many errors such as bribery, corruption, transparency problems, wealth inequality and so on.

The idea

As you may have guessed by now, the idea that I’m proposing is a system that is different than all the economic systems that we have today or had in the past. It’s as the name of this article suggests, a monetary system with “asymmetric transactions”.

Let me explain the idea. In an asymmetric transactional system, the values for the goods or services exchanged between two parties will not be decided by the same two parties, but by an independent, neutral third party. And the paying amount and the receiving amount may be different. These amounts may not be related to each other, but be related to the behavior of the two parties and to the goods or services exchanged.

In an asymmetric transactional world there isn’t a fixed amount of currency in existence at a given time. Because currency is both created and destroyed at the point of the transaction, namely by the third party (i.e. the one that handles the transaction between the 2 parties).

Let’s try to understand this with an example. Let’s say John and Kate want to make a transaction. Kate buys something from John and Kate pays money to John for it. And let’s say that this transaction is handled by Lee, who is a trusted, independent and neutral party to both Kate and John. So what happens is, Lee analyses the attributes and the circumstances of the transaction and the two parties involved (Kate and John) and decides on an amount that Kate should pay and an amount that John will receive, if they carry out the transaction. The amounts that Kate should pay and John will receive may be different. For instance Kate may have to pay 10 dollars while John receives 8 dollars or 15 dollars or the same 10 dollars. This will depend on the criteria that Lee analyses about John and Kate and the transaction they are making.

When everything is ready, Kate gives the money amount that was decided to Lee. Then Lee destroys the money received from Kate. And finally Lee creates a money amount to be given to John and gives it to him.

It is not necessary that John and Kate is aware of the amount of money that the other gave or received. They may be made aware or not; it’s up to the implementation (in my personal opinion it’s better that they are not aware).

It should be noted that the money amounts that Kate pays and John receives are decided at the point of the transaction; it is not predetermined. So the amounts may (or may not) be different it Kate and John decided to do the transaction on a different time or a different two parties other than Kate or John decided to the same transaction. This all depends on the criteria that Lee uses to make the decisions.

Implementation

This idea can be implemented in many different ways. One way would be to decide the amount that “the receiver” (John) should receive, based on the effort and the skill level of “the receiver” that had gone into creating the product or the service, the overall quality of the product or service, the importance of the product or service, the risks associated with the production, the local and global demands, the local and global supply and etc. (Just go crazy with criteria.)

And the amount “the giver” (Kate) should pay may be based on the level of necessity of that product or service to “the giver”, the economic power of “the giver”, the overall quality of the product or service and etc. (Same here, go crazy.)

Since this idea is difficult to implement with physical money, the money will be digital and the decision maker (Lee) would very well be a computational system (an AI of course, maybe “Skynet”, just kidding) that have access to the data that are needed, that can process them instantaneously and can be accessed by anyone anywhere. And most importantly, security should be paramount, privacy should be a priority, and the system should be open and unbiased.

This, as it is does not seem to be possible with the today’s settings. But with the ever increasing mountains and mountains of data on basically everything and the ever increasing power of computers and the improvements on algorithms and with the ever increasing reach of global connectivity and the Internet, this may very well be possible in the near (somewhat) future.

Implications

One example would be a critical patient may get a very low price on a same medical device that he/she needs while a person who just wants to see what it does (maybe out of curiosity or some other reason) may have to pay a higher price while the manufacturer of that medical device makes the same amount of money from both sales.

Another example would be say a company creates a digital product and sells several digital copies of it. Different people may buy it for different prices but the company would receive a certain amount of money for their creation and effort, and the amount may not depend on how many people have bought their product, since making copies of digital content takes zero to nearly zero effort. They may (or not) receive less and less money per copy as they sell more and more copies, depending on the deciding criteria.

Another interesting thing would be that the current employer-employee work model may not be valid in an asymmetric transactional world. It will be more like a buyer-seller or a collaboration model. This is partly because the service receiver (employer) does not have power over the salaries and other payments to the service provider (employee).

Among other things, a transactional system like this would eliminate (or minimize) the unnecessary and harmful accumulation of wealth for ones that does nothing or close to nothing.

As you may have understood by now the idea of profit works very differently in asymmetrical transactions than in the symmetrical transactions we are very much used to. In a symmetrical transaction, profit is an anomaly. If the idea is to pay an equal amount of money for the product or service you receive, then someone having a profit means that someone is getting more than he or she gives and that is the transaction’s symmetry has been forcefully broken. In my opinion, this is a major reason for the problems in our economies, because we are forcefully breaking the symmetry in transactions that are meant not to be broken. But in an asymmetrical transaction, there is no symmetry to begin with and these problems would not simply arise. (But yes, there may be other problems that are unique to asymmetrical transactions.)

You may (or not) get the wrong idea that this is either capitalistic or socialistic. But in reality, this does not belong to any. Rather this can be implemented in both capitalistic and socialistic environments.

It is possible that some types of transactions and businesses in the world today are possible only in a system with symmetrical transactions and in a world with asymmetrical transactions, they would be not possible. And the vice versa, that there are types of transactions and businesses that are only possible in a world with asymmetrical transactions could also be possible.

Every transaction will be transparent; no shady stuff. You will reap what you saw; no inequality. No overpriced or underpriced stuff; you pay for what you get and you get paid for what you offer.

Yes, this is crazy. Yes, this may have many errors, inconsistencies and pitfalls. And yes, this may very well be impractical. And to be honest, I haven’t still figured about the process of hundreds of different types of things that involve one party giving, and another receiving money such as loans, charity, tax and etc. Some of them maybe only be possible in a symmetric transactional world, and we may have to either abandon them or find alternative methods in an asymmetric transactional world for them or in an asymmetric transactional world they would be trivial or just impossible. The idea is still very raw and there is still a very long way to go from here.

It is important to note that an asymmetric transactional system will not solve all the problems of a symmetric transactional system. But rather it will solve some problems while introducing new ones of its own. What we have to do is identify them and try to find ways to eliminate or minimize them. And if the pros outweigh the cons we may someday can adapt to an asymmetric transactional system.

So, that’s it from me for now. And I invite everyone to have your say on this. If you have an idea to improve, if you want to criticize, or just want to comment, go for it.


Note from author:

I’m not in any way an expert in economics or any related field. I haven’t even had any kind of formal education on economics or any related field. So these ideas may very well have many mistakes and pitfalls, so be advised.

I think the problem with time travel is that we consider time to be flowing in a single direction. The so called "Arrow of Time". That is why the problem whether a certain story of time travel is consistent or not matters.

But what if time have some "mini loops" that runs on top of the great "Arrow of time" or just time is not an arrow but like an explosion flowing in different direction?

If there are mini loops, then there will be events or certain truths that only exist on a loop and are logically circular, like "event A" causing "event B" and "event B" causing "event A". That means that there are events that any of the chains of events starting from the "Big bang" didn't cause, but exist on the arrow of time as a "mini loop" that have no strings attached to the past. i.e. Events that have no reason or cause but exist on their own. Its like the "big bangs" are happening again and again in smaller scales within the universe creating mini-universes that interact with this universe. When that loop runs over there will be residual information of that universe(loop) existing but the important things is that some information will be lost. Small universes (that holds the information for the events happening in the time loop) being born and getting destroyed inside this universe will make time travel possible. Since a different universe holds the information for the time loop, this universe or the small universe won't have inconsistencies.

I think this is a problem not just about time travel on its own, but with our logic of reasoning. We expect the logic to be linear but what happens when the logic is circular. If that's the case then there actually is no problem with these kind of self-holding events.

The example where the future self of a person comes to the past and teaching the his/her past self to built a time machine is an example for this. The knowledge of how to build a time machine has no reason or cause to exist but exists on its own.


This is becoming a bit out-of-the-hand now, so I'll stop. Don't forget to criticize, comment or just share your idea on this.

I’m not a man, I’m not a woman or a transsexual…
I’m not white, black, brown or yellow…
I’m not a Cristian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist or an atheist…
I’m not straight, gay or bisexual…
I’m not a vegan, a vegetarian or a meat-eater…
I’m neither rich nor poor…
I’m not a royal, or a commoner…
I’m neither a capitalist nor a communist…
I’m not a champion or a looser…
I’m not a celebrity or a nobody…
I’m not a child, I’m not a young, not even an old person…
I’m not an American, not a British, not an Iranian, not a Chinese or a Korean…
I’m not European, Asian or African…
I’m not strong nor weak…
I’m neither a master nor a slave…
I’m not a psychopath, not a criminal, nor a sinner and not even a saint…
I’m not a human, not a dog, a pig or a fish or a tree…

I’m just a living being trying to live in peace and happiness.

All the conflicts, the discriminations and the injustice of the world are here not just because we categorize others; but because we categorize ourselves from the rest. Because we separate ourselves from the whole. Everything that is wrong starts when we separate ourselves from the rest and see us as different (may be even a little). But if we were to see that we are all but one, the world will be in peace and harmony.