>But we want people to step out of line. I don't want professional
politicians that are constantly reinventing their image to win
constituents.

In this model, the politician as a person can be completely
decoupled from their role as a social servant. When all the
person has to do is submit to the will of those who offer support,
then it is in their interest to simply act as a puppet of those
who give support. This would require proper incentives and
punishment. There could even be some sort of proof-of-stake
mining based on how many coins the politician keeps and for how
long.

Whether or not this just enables tyranny of the masses is another
discussion. However, there should probably be some agenda of the
representatives to alter the laws sufficiently so that they can be
eventually replaced with the appropriate technology.

>When thinking about governance, there are 2 typical approaches taken.
The only approach that matters is the strategic one. There is a
social, economic, and political landscape. Whoever leverages
this, as it is, in each moment - wins.

> By enabling communities to link up and scale, and increasing their
efficiency by empowering them we can work towards our vision of an
alternative and resilient governance model.

I generally agree, and this is the approach I'm taking. But I have some
concerns that it doesn't really solve the main problem, which is the groups
who adapt quickest to the social landscape and how it operates will
rise to the top, independently of the truth or goodness of their ideology.

Reality is too complicated to be summed up in a political ideology.
We do not have the answers, but we are taking this one step at a time.
That's the only truth we have. We must engage reality as it is, in this
moment, free of ideology.


>Rule of majority is rule of mediocrity.
Yeah, pretty much by definition. But the opposite is often a recipe for
tyranny.


>Instead I'd rather see an emphasis on tools that allow individuals to
form agreements, discover information, resolve disputes and allow groups
to manage without needing centralisation.

That seems like what the system being proposed does. Some people aren't
going to want to vote on every stupid thing. So it makes sense for them to
give away their decision making power, and as long as they can take it back
at will, you get multiple levels of efficiency without much drawback.
I derived this token model from thoughts I had on centralization and the
natural mechanisms by which we assign our control. The original example
I used was the power dynamics of riding on a bus:

http://peaceloverevolution.quora.com/Centralization-is-not-evil

I would argue that society is much like riding on a bus, except we are
moving
temporally instead of spatially. As we move forward, we have access to
greater
and greater configurations of reality, ie computers, cell phones, delicious
food.
What we can optimize for is not simply individual freedom, but a higher
order of
human functioning that ends up quantitatively better than the quaint
notions of
freedom that we currently harbor.

>No software can solve the issue of initiating violence.

If the economic system is embedded into the social system there can be
economic penalties levied against those who initiate violence on a
per-transaction basis, enforced by code and regulated by communities
running a distributed social contract platform.

>btw I forgot to mention that transparency is very important too.

Probably most important in the construction of these types of systems.



On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Kristov Atlas <
author@???> wrote:

>
> The problem is no accountability, voters are locked in once the decision
> is made. This made sense in the days of horseback travel, but in a
> post-bitcoin world this idea is preposterous. Accountability is necessary
> all the time, and applying the metaphors and tools of Bitcoin we can
> achieve it.
>
> No software can solve the issue of initiating violence. This is the actual
> problem with politics, not accountability. Direct democracy might be an
> incremental improvement, but I'd rather flip the board rather than
> rearranging our chess pieces. It's time to evolve.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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