Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Jason Wong < >
  • To: David Brin < >
  • Cc: Guy Higgins < >, Tom Crowl < >, Douglas Rushkoff < >, Micah Sifry < >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < >, ProjectVRM list < >, Andy Oram < >, Joe Trippi < >, John Battelle < >, Michel Bauwens < >, Brennan Center for Justice < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment
  • Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:04:15 -0400
Agree! Results count.

Disagree on the five beers. As an Asian I can't drink five beers. I think it has to do with not having a certain enzyme!

Jason D. Wong MD MPH MBA, FACOG


(c) 301-675-1970


On May 10, 2016, at 3:41 PM, David Brin < "> > wrote:

Instead of cludged prescription that sound really cool over one's fifth beer, how about this unique idea.  Actually restore something called "politics" as a process of sober negotiation engaged-in by adults?   
    
    Your own cynical-dismissive chuckle, upon reading the previous sentence is THE major symptom of a disease that has been deliberately inflicted upon us by those whose core aim is to stymie one of the most important problem-solving modes of the Western Enlightenment. Destroying politics as a grownup and serious process of negotiation has been nothing less than treason.

There is no pretending equality of blame. Let's take Jason's sunset clause for regulations... a real five beer proposal. How about instead responsibly auditing agencies and deliberating which ones to revise or cancel?  You might imagine republicans do this, but when they had complete control over all three branches of government -- from 2001 through 2007 -- they eliminated zero agencies and only deregulated Wall Street and resource extraction, two deregulations for which we paid trillions.

(In fairness, in 1996 the Congressional GOP did banish and eliminate their own bipartisan Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) which kept offering up inconvenient "facts.")

So which party banished the captured Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) or the captured Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) restoring competition to airlines and rails?  Who broke up AT&T's monopoly? Who deregulated GPS and who pushed through the famous bill unleashing the Internet upon the world? I could go on, but you might guess the answer by now, know it was Al Gore's bill that did that last miracle.

There is no "balance" here.  One party still wants to engage in pragmatic, negotiated politics.  The other will not sit at the table.  They have made it declared policy to burn the table.



On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 11:47 AM, Jason Wong < "> > wrote:


How about this- constitutional amendment every ten years for a complete top down review of all federal laws, regulations and executive directives. Mandatory cleaving of ( % ) of the above, and disestablishment of any laws greater than 50 years old.  That will solve the historical issue of empires and nations failing over due to the sheer weight of oppression. 

Jason D. Wong MD MPH MBA, FACOG

(c) 301-675-1970
This is kind of a squirrel, but I think that some of the ideas that the illustrious Mr. Heinlein listed in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress were even more interesting:
  • Elect representatives by private sector “career” — doctors would vote for someone to represent them, engineers would vote for someone to represent them, etc.  The question of course is would there be representative for career criminals ;-)
  • Voters aggregate alphabetically rather than geographically — that would force a national legislature to view bills differently and force local councils/legislatures to focus on local issues (which my neighbors seem incapable of doing — they are far more interested in solving other peoples’ problems; sigh…)
  • Hold an election and then randomly choose 60% of the winners and fill out the legislature by choosing the remaining 40% randomly from the losers — no need for term limits there
  • Require all bills to pass by a super majority but repealed by a simple majority (or even a significant minority — say 40% +1 or some such).
Obviously all of these ideas have serious issues, but they are interesting and could generate some better way forward – some way to avoid concentrations of power.

Guy

From: David Brin < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >
Reply-To: David Brin < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >
Date: Monday, May 9, 2016 at 19:16
To: Guy Higgins < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >
Cc: Jason Wong < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Douglas Rushkoff < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Micah Sifry < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Andy Oram < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Joe Trippi < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, John Battelle < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Michel Bauwens < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Brennan Center for Justice < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment

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!




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" href="mailto: "> >
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 17:19
To: Guy Higgins < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >
Cc: Jason Wong < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Douglas Rushkoff < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Micah Sifry < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, David Brin < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Andy Oram < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Joe Trippi < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, John Battelle < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Michel Bauwens < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Brennan Center for Justice < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >
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.


On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Guy Higgins < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> > 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" href="mailto: "> >
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 16:59
To: Jason Wong < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >
Cc: Douglas Rushkoff < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Micah Sifry < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, David Brin < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Andy Oram < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Joe Trippi < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, John Battelle < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Michel Bauwens < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >, Brennan Center for Justice < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> >
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

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

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



On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jason Wong < " target="_blank" href="mailto: "> > 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" href="mailto: "> > 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.









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.