Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment

[Guy Higgins < >]

Tom,

I agree with your “lament” on social systems being gamed until they break.  Still thinking about it though…

Guy

From: Tom Crowl < "> >
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 8:08
To: Jason Wong < "> >
Cc: David Brin < "> >, Guy Higgins < "> >, Douglas Rushkoff < "> >, Micah Sifry < "> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < "> >, ProjectVRM list < "> >, Andy Oram < "> >, Joe Trippi < "> >, John Battelle < "> >, Michel Bauwens < "> >, Brennan Center for Justice < "> >, Kevin Kelly < "> >, Wells Fargo Board of Directors < "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment

RE David's thought on the connection to service... I tend to agree... and does anyone besides me remember Eisenhower's suggestion about a need for some form of broader service requirement for a couple of years as a supplement (or alternative) to the military draft?

And the essence of what Guy is talking about is eliminating the role of "professional politician"... which I also believe merits serious thought.

People of goodwill must get serious about implementing good reform... because the alternatives are very, very bad.

Perhaps we may conclude that every human social system will be gamed until it breaks... and anticipate that.

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

I was asked by someone privately about what I'd like to see happen with all this... in a specific sense.

 And here's my answer:

Obviously I'm fighting for the enablement of a micropayment capability... and moreover am interested in feedback and organizational methods as they relate to identity, governance, banking, transaction and the net generally.

I've laid out several approaches for this to take place. I've earned a patent for what I believe to be the best. I've tried to engender rational discussion re potential problems in implementation or use.

I know David also has thought deeply about these issues... both as to how to do it and its potential utility and importance.

SO... here's what I'd like to see:

A meeting of interested players with expectation of a plan to move forware about this specific issue (the micropayment) ALSO including the major players needed to make it happen (major Internet players especially) and any others with the perception to understand that this is not a trivial capability... nor is its method of its implementation.

I'm appalled by what seems to be avoidance of this by both government, finance and this industry. I no longer believe its  because they don't believe its possible. Or don't recognize its potential power. SO there must be other reasons. I'm tired of their condescension and inertia.

What is the excuse for this? Do they argue that it can't be done? That it shouldn't? What role for privacy? What role for transparency? Is there a need for curation? What kind? Could the blockchain have a role? Should it be a public function or a private, for profit business. (perhaps it should be member owned... i.e. a co-op... and perhaps should be for the benefit of its members)

Where are the organizations who keep talking about the role of the Internet and society? Or the Internet and governance? Are they interested in practical approaches or only talk and delay?

This is a vital tool which doesn't need to wait for Congres, the Parties or the Business Roundtable's "seal-of-approval". I keep hearing that leaders like Bill Gates and Kevin Kelly see a need for new tools for governance, economics and organization. Where are they?

And then another meeting about the sorts of suggestions David and Guy have discussed. i.e. Its time to take a serious look at how social structures and designs are either helping or hurting representative government. Personally let me add another: the potential role of sortition (e.g.the jury system) in governing bodies and the subsidiary institutions they create.

If TPTB don't recognize that they're out of touch... that there are serious problems in governance which will and are leading to division and demagoguery as the only alternatives to stagnation and the status quo... then its already too late.

And the maillotins will be here eventually.

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Jason Wong < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

As a newbie I must say this is the strangest group I've belong to. And I've been around some strange people before including fighter pilots, finance people and gynecologists :)

Jason D. Wong MD MPH MBA, FACOG

(c) 301-675-1970

On May 9, 2016, at 9:16 PM, David Brin < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Guy's suggested electoral rules are tempting, though one is reminded of Heinlein's criterion for citizenship in STARSHIP TROOPERS... service first, then voting.  far better pattern was suggested in his novel DOUBLE STAR, wherein computers let us bypass the insane unfairness of electoral representation based on where you live.  The result is that 40% of Americans will never elect a representativeand congressfolk blithely ignore that 40% in their district.  A treason made worse by gerrymandering. (Which one party has refined to an art and a reflex.)

Far better for a modern era? Any 750,000 citizens can unite to "buy" or to "elect" a representative, unanimously. All the other reps must find 750,000... say among single university women or all the tuck drivers in the midwest.  If your constituency shrinks below 700K you better recruit more citizens or you are out of office and those 600,000 need to fish around and build alliances to get over the mark.

This way, no one is disenfranchised, ever!

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 5:31 PM, Guy Higgins < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Tom,

Thanks.  I’m sure that there are people who disagree and at least some of them will have ideas to improve my thoughts.  The important  thing, I think, is to figure out ways to keep power from concentrating on any long-term basis.  

Guy

From: Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 17:19
To: Guy Higgins < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Cc: Jason Wong < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Douglas Rushkoff < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Micah Sifry < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, David Brin < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Andy Oram < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Joe Trippi < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, John Battelle < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Michel Bauwens < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Brennan Center for Justice < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment

Thank you guy! We need more concrete thought re practical solutions. Though I'm not so sure all would agree with your proposals... its necessary that we begin to think outside the boxes we're stuck in.

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Guy Higgins < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> > wrote:

+1

This is why I think that we don’t need simple term limits, but rather something like:

• No one can run for an office until they have completely (as in 100%) supported themselves in the private sector for a period no shorter than the term of office for which they are running
• No one may serve in any elected (and perhaps appointed) office for any term longer than they have already supported themselves in the private sector
• After completion of a term in elected office, every official must support themselves completely in the private sector (which means no think tanks, no consultancy, no reliance on “laundering" of government money through some official entity)

I want people in office who are dedicated to good governance – not to “helping” people.  Almost every person can solve their own problems better than they can be solved by some legislator or regulator from 1000 miles away.  

Folks in office should have to worry about living under the laws they passed and the repercussions of those laws, particularly those laws governing personal sovereignty and privacy.

Jes’ my thinkin’

Guy

From: Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 16:59
To: Jason Wong < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Cc: Douglas Rushkoff < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Micah Sifry < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, David Brin < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Andy Oram < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Joe Trippi < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, John Battelle < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Michel Bauwens < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >, Brennan Center for Justice < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment

By "Altruism Dilemma" I'm referring to the unavoidable gap between biological altruism and intellectual altruism and how that will bias decision makers when in consideration of various alternatives for approach to a problem. (this isn't an argument against intellectual altruism.. we need all we can get.)

A simple way of looking at it is this:

You or most anyone will (I assert) have a stronger physical reaction to the death of a loved one (even a pet)... than the death of a hundred people you don't know. There's nothing 'evil' about this... in fact that gap is necessary for survival... (i.e. we'd be paralyzed by grief every time we watched the news.)

However this "gap" leads to problems In governance. This makes it easier (for instance) to favor personal advantage over the welfare of a constituency. Simple examples... regulatory capture... or the passivity regarding the obvious injustice of how drug laws have been enforced. Combined with rationalizations driven by their cognitive dissonance we have politicians of all Parties and stripes who actually believe that they are not affected by big money contributors while destroying the Middle Class, indenturing future generations all along enriching themselves and their contributors. (hence ideologies often become hooks for rationalization... e.g. "trickle down economics for which there is absolutely NO evidentiary support.

I briefly attempt to define it here:

Self Interest vs Altruism: Problems in Scaling the Decision Process
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2009/02/self-interest-vs-altruism-problems-in.html

Issues in Scaling Civilization: The Altruism Dilemma

http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2012/02/issues-in-scaling-civilization-altruism.html

While he doesn't address the Altruism Dilemma directly... if you happen to get Netflix I highly recommend "Requiem For the American Dream" featuring Noam Chomsky... (and frequently quoting Adam Smith in support). Particularly note his comment about the danger of this pattern of narrowly focused decision making going global.

Finally, recognizing the dilemma doesn't fix it (and in fact it can never be entirely 'fixed)... but rather hopefully will prompt construction of concrete structures to address it... i.e. meaningful mechanisms for providing 'heat-from-the-bottom and reforms of credit/currency creation along with severe restructuring of what we oxymoronically call "the financial services sector"

If what I'm saying doesn't make sense or needs clarification... I welcome critique. I'm really struggling to find my way in this area. I'm a presumptuous amateur.  But I think there's something in what I'm trying to think through

Thoughts on the Biosocial Roots of Oligarchy

http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2014/10/thoughts-on-biosocial-roots-of-oligarchy.html

If I'm wrong... I nevertheless must try to see a way to clarity. The current governing "groupthink" is on the wrong path globally.

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jason Wong < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> > wrote:

Altruism dilemma?  Similar to tit for tat?

I thought Satoshi solved this issue more than seven years ago. Do you have another system in mind?

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"> > wrote:

Below my suggestion for topic at PDF 2016.

I persist in suggesting that the micropayment and especially its requirements is not receiving the attention it deserves.

Topic:

That there's a long standing connection between credit/currency creation, banking and political power which in combination with scale and its relation to what I call the altruism dilemma leads to wealth/power concentration. Further, that the needs of the collective micropayment (scale and one-click identification) offer a pathway made possible by the nature of the Internet to create a cross border, user-owned network with both identification and payment capabilities separate and independent from privatized banking. I believe this is a needed fundamental change in human organization... important beyond the U.S.

This network may form the root for other forms of credit/currency creation... both localized and otherwise.

The "button" (or whatever signaling method) for such a capability... because of curation requirements if for no other reason... is to a considerable degree a POLITICAL mechanism and deserves consideration.

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com