You've just explained why anarchy/libertarianism doesn't really work.
Congratulations :)


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Anthony D'Onofrio <iamtexture@???>wrote:

> "private goods require impetus to promote individual rights over common
> good."
>
> There are no individual rights without protection of the common good.
> The only thing that keeps a bad actor from smashing in your head is
> that the collective is incentivized to protect you from them. All systems
> of government - The USA, street gangs, etc.. exist because of this.
> If this is rejected in the model you have of social dynamics, then every
> conclusion subsequently drawn is invalid.
>
> The individual is not king. No (wo)man is an island. You may be free to
> pick which social contracts you do and do not live by, but you cannot
> scream "unfair!" when you do not reap the benefits of protection when
> you reject the good of the collective.
>
>
>
> "when a public good is collectivised, governance is extremely susceptible
> to political manipulation and becomes a magnet for corruption. "
>
> This is only a problem when the regulatory mechanisms between the
> collective
> and their representative break down. The representative is supposed to
> REPRESENT the people. With smart contracts and DApps it will be possible
> to contractually bind representatives to a specific set of agreed upon
> points,
> when broken the individuals who chose that representative can immediately
> move their money and political support to an opposition candidate who will
> agree. If you can retract political and economic support and levy
> punishment
> at will, the dynamic completely shifts.
>
> In addition, this is thought experiment is existing within far too large a
> governing
> body. We instead should aim to create human-scale communities which, as
> communities, combine to form a larger-scale society / states bound by
> smart
> contracts.
>
>
> "a (possibly the most common) failure mode of democracy is
> that the *most* clever/powerful are incentivized to promote ignorance and
> pestilence among the rest of the population to keep enough of them
> malleable
> and dependent that they will vote for the elite."
>
> This is the core problem. If you can manipulate the masses it doesn't
> matter
> what technologies or systems are there to free them.
>
> There is only one freedom - freedom of the mind. All others are
> illusions.
>
> The new technological landscape requires a whole new way of thinking. We
> must
> develop new models to understand the social dynamics, and admit that we
> don't
> really have any idea what the solutions are. Human beings are animals that
> evolved
> in a very specific set of circumstances, and we developed this amazing
> ability to
> create and utilize tools. Every new tool has the potential to completely
> shift what it
> means to be human, how we can and will organize, and what pressures we
> face /
> have conquered.
>
> No one knows the answers. No one really knows the questions. We do not
> need
> ideological solutions defended with a religious ferocity. We need
> mechanisms for
> identifying the questions, the problems, coming up with multiple answers,
> testing
> and implementing them, acquiring data, and optimizing them for whatever
> variables
> we choose.
>
>
> I've been writing about these things for the last couple months:
> http://distributed-autonomous-society.quora.com/
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd@???> wrote:
>
>> Good observations.
>>
>> If I might add, a (possibly the most common) failure mode of democracy is
>> that the *most* clever/powerful are incentivized to promote ignorance and
>> pestilence among the rest of the population to keep enough of them
>> malleable
>> and dependent that they will vote for the elite. Democracy is often
>> characterized as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, IMO
>> it's more like three children and their mother voting on whether to buy
>> candy.
>> In a pure democracy, the candy-man is king.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Caleb
>>
>>
>> On 04/15/2014 05:23 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
>> > i am just writing some notes here.
>> >
>> > you put the tax money into a central repo where it is voted by a
>> > collective on its allocation. the downside is that majority vote doesn't
>> > maximise utility of that resource, however it can allow allocation that
>> > better serves the participates (disregarding corruption). this can
>> > disenfranchise creative & energetic ppl by imposing limitations on what
>> > they can accomplish.
>> >
>> > an alt model is where you can invest your tax where you choose. this is
>> > nice because it creates relationship between good being funded and
>> > person funding the good, and puts the responsibility on the funder to
>> > ensure the money is well spent. it's susceptible to corruption where
>> > those with money have more market power. this can lead to development
>> > which disenfranchises those with less money.
>> >
>> > the third model is no common good, which isn't desirable as the means of
>> > wealth production become privately owned, and people are rented. this
>> > isn't really a free market as individuals are forced to sell their
>> > labour at low prices to those who own the means of production, further
>> > entrenching their position over the market. this doesn't hold true for
>> > all industries, but where land or some resource is involved, it can lead
>> > to corporate governance & private military.
>> >
>> > when a public good is collectivised, governance is extremely susceptible
>> > to political manipulation and becomes a magnet for corruption. to ensure
>> > the process stays fair and just, requires a never ending loop of
>> > bureaucracy and overseers. the political system itself becomes another
>> > form of hierarchy.
>> >
>> > private goods require impetus to promote individual rights over common
>> > good. we can often lose utility here or expectation of a resource when
>> > relations become adversial due to competitve incentives. this is a
>> > social issue and doesn't always hold true. but in some cases it can
>> > create extreme effects and lost potential value.
>> > together with an environment where consumption is separated from
>> > production, individuals lose responsibility due to lack of observation
>> > about the hidden cost of actions, passing the buck (or brunt/blame) of
>> > that cost onwards down the chain.
>> >
>> > anyway these are my notes from observations in community and stuff.
>> > i pefer we try to promote individual freedom wherever possible, but
>> > sometimes, esp around common interest we require a consensus among those
>> > participating parties. also i believe we can reach massive gains in self
>> > organised governance using digital tools for transparency and
>> > information. by promoting tools of governance, transparency and
>> > informational resources, we can empower people with a strong form of
>> > self governance that can scale massively.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Anthony D'Onofrio
> iamtexture@???
> 501.681.3225
> -
> Chaos Collider - Dream. Design. Develop. Deploy.
> http://www.chaoscollider.com
> -
> Peace.Love.Human.
> http://www.peacelovehuman.org
>
> "Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come
> alive and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have
> come alive." - Howard Thurman
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>