Tom,
An interesting question, but I don’t have the doubts about the citizens, educated or not. They know what they want and are entitled to vote for it. Anyone is up to stating their preferences
and understanding that their child’s future is involved in decisions today. Jacques Ranciere’s books on revolutionary era France and the educational system in the wake of the Revolution and Napoleon have helped me formulate this idea to my satisfaction.
Demagogues are the source of problems, but the people need to stand up to them, question them and resist over-simplification of issues. The people aren’t the problem. It’s often the way
questions are posed by demagogues that make their arguments seem cut-and-dried, and we need a better way of addressing that in our headline-driven culture. One thing is certain, it’s time to get over 24/7 political commentary networks. Let them move back to
the fringes where they belong and have the media focus on policy, real events and information, instead of the political consequences of every little D v. R squabble.
I hope you’re not reading me to say that advocacy is wrong. It’s much-needed. I am making the distinction between advocacy of ideas and payment for propagation of ideas (political marketing).
Communities can assemble and recombine in new orders to solve many problems. Payments need to be transparent so that recipients of political messaging have an exact knowledge of whose paying for messages and what their stake in the question is. Conflicts of
interest need to be pointed out all that time.
You’re not a crackpot from loony-land, just ahead of herd. It’s lonely out here. But you’ve got the basis for a vibrant conversation about the tools we need and the ideas to build them.
That’s not to suggest that the masses are cattle-like, but we are a social animal that values inclusion. Radicals live outside the comfort zone of majority consent.
Best,
Mitch
From:
Tom Crowl <
>
Date: Friday, May 13, 2016 at 4:50 AM
To: M A Ratcliffe <
>
Cc: Guy Higgins <
>, Jason Wong <
>, "
" <
>, David Brin <
>, John Battelle <
>, Joe Trippi <
>,
"Victoria Silchenko, PhD" <
>, Micah Sifry <
>, Michel Bauwens <
>, Douglas Rushkoff <
>
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Banking and the Micropayment
Thanks Mitch... but let me get some clarity... and let me be blunt:
RE: "educated citizens are essential to the intelligent exercise of the franchise, otherwise the country gets what it pays for, so to speak. Our educational system is a mess for a variety of reasons
that reach far beyond this comment, so I will only say: More money is not necessarily the solution, but it’s not necessarily excluded from the solution."
Just to be clear... I'm all for education... and agree our system is a mess. But tell me if I'm wrong.
Is it your feeling that the sort of lobbying capability I advocate might be Okay... if only we didn't have such stupid citizens?
Now be honest... is that idea lurking in there? Its a very reasonable position. I'm not so enamored with the collective brilliance either but I don't agree that means this shouldn't exist. And would like
to argue why I believe that.
But first... is that idea lurking in there? Because I believe that its a very broadly held belief... (that the masses can't be trusted, are easily swayed by demagoguery, and should not mess in the details
of what we leaders are doing) and is an obstacle to this idea getting one word of exposure or attention from any mainstream "intellectual" community... and that boil needs to be lanced.
I have to assume that that's why I've never had any luck with place like the PdF over the last seven years who you'd think would at least be interested in considering the idea... but are apparently convinced
that this and myself are from crackpot loony land. Just one of the ignorant peons trying to barge in to our intellectual citadel.)
I just need to understand what I'm fighting here.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Mitch Ratcliffe <
" target="_blank">
> wrote:
Guy. Excellent rant. I want to reply inline, but it gets ugly at the level of bullets here.
So, in list form:
Re the Founders. Things have changed, for good and ill. Celebrity is an appalling result of the massive increase in channel capacity
we’ve seen since 1970, when there were three television networks, radio and newspapers. It sucks up enough attention by segment to create a marketable advertising asset and, presto, another celebrity pawn broker or presidential candidate is produced. That
mindless sucking void of the advertising model has already succumbed to full-lifecycle marketing and mass information collection. Now, the question is: What do we do now?
I’m glad someone spoke up in favor of the unrestricted franchise, btw. I think the expansion of voting rights is a signature of
progress.
Additionally, educated citizens are essential to the intelligent exercise of the franchise, otherwise the country gets what it
pays for, so to speak. Our educational system is a mess for a variety of reasons that reach far beyond this comment, so I will only say: More money is not necessarily the solution, but it’s not necessarily excluded from the solution.
Re the presidency this year. I can’t argue that any of the candidates haven’t gamed the system. My only criteria for a vote is
simplified this year by the inanity of the spectacle: Who do I think will be able to handle any crisis that might beset the United States if you woke them from a deep sleep and told them the bad news, and who will not be able to handle it? I have my answer
to that question.
The Founding Fathers were lucky in their mix of engineering and political skills, not too much of either but more than the per
capita average in both.
Distributed governance models, which allow parties to agree to business conditions that can be enforced, can serve as a form of
social _expression_. It would allow organizations and consumers to attach conditions to their transactions, such as “the parties agree that no product or service supplied under this agreement was prepared, manufactured or transported under conditions of slavery.”
This would allow people to vote with their money, by attaching restrictions to its use that are machine readable. Supply chains could assemble under audited conditions in response to exact conditions laid out by consumers – in fact, supply chains are largely
in place and waiting to be configured.
Blockchain could play a part in this, but it’s not moved from flavor-of-the-day to Enduring Technical Innovation such as TCP/IP
or the printing press.
At the end, I agree that there are no silver bullets. But great kludges can lead to miracles of performant fault-tolerant infrastructure.
Paying for development is always the rub.
Best,
Mitch
Random thoughts trigger by your observations:
-
Absolutely agree that our Founding Fathers (Capitalization intentional) drew very heavily on the work of the philosophers who preceded them
-
Our Founding Fathers (FF) also drew very heavily on their experience in ruling themselves — up close and personal
-
Our FF took those two threads and wove them into a practical government, the very first of its kind, ever — one that is the ancestor of our government today but which was, in fact, very different
-
I agree with you that widening suffrage has been important — but I think that it is important to the extent that We-The-People wield it well
-
Our FF could never have envisioned a world in which celebrity was important (celebrity is the state of being famous for being famous)
-
The rapidity of communication, today, was completely inconceivable in 1783 – 1788, as would be the amount of content-free material being communicated that is being accepted uncritically (to one degree or another) by
that expanded population of voters
-
I’m all for having “better qualified” voters, but I’ll be damned if I can think of an even marginal way in which to identify those voters (other than my humble self, of course ;-)), so I’m unwilling to restrict
the franchise
-
Your observation about “opportunity” is, I think, critical. We all should have a right to opportunity – the
chance to succeed, not to success. At a towering five foot seven, I am never going to succeed as an NBA player, no matter how hard I work at it, but I did (several decades ago) have the opportunity to try (meaning that no one and nothing (except my
lack of ability) stopped me)
-
Opportunity, in general, is not available, I think, to a huge number of people because they can’t get a good education. I went to a very small Catholic high school — the resources available were trivial compared
to those of the public school, but the education was, in no way, inferior. More money doesn’t make for a better educational opportunity, and we need to figure out how to make good education available to all — that’s one key to a better future, maybe the “key”
key (sorry, I couldn’t resist)
-
The power of the government to tax and regulate (which is necessary, even if it is routinely abused for inane purposes) is the power to destroy. People object to Citizens United, but organizations (corporations
(of which most Americans are owners, even if only through mutual funds held by their pension funds) are routinely vilified, but interest groups (say the Sierra Club – bless John Muir) and labor unions are also covered by the Citizens United freedom of speech).
Since the government has the power to destroy “me,” I should have a say in that government. Organizations can only have a say through financial contributions (call it lobbying, but lobbying your legislator absent financial contributions is pretty unsatisfying).
-
I do not like the power of money in today’s elections, but I can’t think of a workable way around it. Government financing sounds good until you realize that somewhere, someone (notice that both of those are
very vague terms) will have to decide that you are a viable candidate worth public monies and I am not — therein lies the potential for mischief.
-
As an engineer, I am comfortable with the concept of the “decomposition of requirements.” For those not familiar with that term, it means that if I want firm suspension on my car, the requirement is “decomposed"
into the shock absorbers, the springs, etc.
-
Therefore, if we start with the idea that the government has a very limited set of responsibilities
-
National defense
-
Civil Order
-
Stable currencies
-
Protection of private property (maybe that’s part of civil order)
-
We can decompose those into a decent set of laws that limit both the power of the government and the power of non-government money
-
I think, however, that we need to explicitly recognize that humanity will always include some people who will game whatever the system is, and the rest of us will hammer them if we find out.
-
I think that Hillary and The Donald (and Bernie and Ted et al) have, to a larger or smaller extent gamed the system.
There is no silver bullet which will create a perfectly wonderful government or society. No species that survived
“nature, red in tooth and claw” is going to going to be Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood — ain’t gonna happen. So, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” something that requires that good education and some kind of commitment in the part of most of us to “light
one single candle rather than cursing the darkness.”
BTW, I think that VRM is a part of that, and I think that Tom Crowl’s micro-payments are part of lighting that candle.
>>Jason Wong writes: 18th century principles are the foundation of this great nation. Not sure there's any evidence
your ideas are better.
Give some credit to the centuries before the Revolution, they influenced the country along with the ideas of the times.
The greatness of a nation is its ability to evolve with the times. The issue is not whether my ideas are better –
they are not even my ideas as much as the history of changing American voting laws. What matters politically is whether we are advancing with improving fairness and access to opportunity. Economically, we’ve not been this disunited since the 1920s. Something
is not right, everyone knows it.
Let’s work through the value of the 18th Century ideals, at least. Someone here referred to the “five beers”
quality of the 18th Century ideas the other day, suggesting they were half-baked. I say they were better, and that we’ve improved as a nation because of the widening suffrage.
How about this as a starting point for the discussion: Ask yourself if you would be better off without the vote. Maybe
you have money and property, but imagine you didn’t and examine the results of giving up the vote to “better qualified” representatives (putting aside the quality of our current legislators). Imagine your “perfect” representative – would you hand over your
vote to them permanently?
We seem to be gesturing toward Plato’s “philosopher kings” when talking about the qualifications to lead, but he was
living in a time with its own Koch Brothers, Tom Steyers and other patrician political figures that killed Socrates for his radical insistence on conversation and understanding of human thought and behavior, and their consequences. We can’t put off the debate
for another 2600 years.
I think everyone on the list agrees their vote is an essential benefit of citizenship. Would anyone here give up the
vote to have the country run by a cadre of propertied technologists and bankers? Or support the creation of a company to run the financial system under today’s disclosure laws? These are the questions we’re actually talking about when we discuss technology
that can change existing agreements, yet we consistently fail to address the political and social consequences.
The 18th Century offers great ideas but it doesn’t provide much of the language we need today, because
we’ve grown. Now, we have to step up to the hard debates the Founders endured for a decade after Independence before they felt ready to write a Constitution. It’s time to stop passing the buck to hypothetically better representatives than us. We’re up to this
conversation.
Mitch Ratcliffe
18th century principles are the foundation of this great nation. Not sure there's any evidence your ideas are better.
On Thursday, May 12, 2016, Mitch Ratcliffe <
" target="_blank">
> wrote:
I agree with Tom’s general idea that political _expression_ is better than mob or plutocratic rule, but to call micropayments
out as a “particle of speech” seems to propagate the essential problem of the post-Citizens United world. We’re left with political spending as a sacrosanct form of speech when we know that money in politics is the fire in the theater.
We’ve been told not to shout “Fire” based on the ideological assumption that the theater of Capitalism is always well
intended. Today’s uproar, with people from all quarters shouting “Fire!” demonstrates that Capitalist ideology has lost its force. It is time for a post-Capitalist politics, as Tom says. We want the positive features of political debate, which are inconvenient
to the existing power holders in U.S. society, and we don’t want to throw the benefits out with the system that has seized hold of U.S. political discourse.
There have been a number of suggestions on the list recently that reach back to standards for political participation
based on property and money, which I find dismaying from this group. Eighteenth century notions of an elite who are capable of leadership because they’ve proven their financial worth are cropping up here and elsewhere. That is a huge step backwards. Freedom
(speech, religion, etc.) and distributed power in a democracy come before and after money, they don’t change based on the wealth of the individual.
We should be steering away from the tight coupling of money to political _expression_ and leadership, as the United
States has throughout its history.
The influence of banks or a platform provider in transactions is the product of their unregulated reaching for profit
and power in any interaction their systems facilitate. Tom’s approach, with a neutral cross-platform transaction system, comes freighted with the same potential for overreach if the operators are not subject to rules of transparency and civic scrutiny. Bureaucracy,
a system of rules for completing a complex repeated operation, has evolved, but so has our ability to measure and monitor. We can regulate overreach, the trick is to do it without suppressing the emergence of new discourse.
The transactional tools need to exist. So does the political dialogue. I’m at a loss to understand how social transparency
is improved by treating political transactions as part of free speech. Political speech is free, it’s how we urge our society in particular directions, and it is not guaranteed to succeed. Money can amplify messages, but it does not catalyze genuine messages.
Granted, being able to put down the money to start and support a movement is potentially positive, but it’s not consistently positive, as any U.S. citizen can see. Why wouldn’t we insist on transactional oversight in political spending?
Until we actually have a conversation about the rules of a new social compact that deals with the technological change
in the ease of communication and transactions, we’re going to continue to deal with unlimited political power for holders and managers of wealth because they are able to act in secret while engaged in the ultimate public activity.
Mitch Ratcliffe
From:
Tom Crowl <
>
Date: Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 4:29 PM
To: John Philpin <
>
Cc: Guy Higgins <
>, Jim Fournier <
>, Douglas Rushkoff <
>, Jason Wong <
>, David Brin <
>, 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
Let me put it this way... a micropayment as part of collective advocacy... which I see as one of its most important potentials... is a particle of speech.
Its empowering an intention (idea + an objective) together with others.
I believe its a necessary fundamental for political feedback much preferable to pitchforks. This is very different from buying a song from a seller's library
of songs. It suggests a need for universal availability... like speech is supposed to be.
This doesn't mean no limits or safeguards are necessary... but the tool needs to exist.
Apple could certainly be part of that! As could Google and the rest of them in abetting the creation of such a cross-platform capability!
I look forward to their phone calls. Mornings are best....
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Tom Crowl <
> wrote:
Yes.. very strong thoughts. This function must NOT go into another private silo... whether a bank or an Apple. (which would then require another private
silo for android, and any other potential rival)
Should they attempt to use any variation of a cash card system (either pre-paid or after-the-fact billing) I'll do everything I can to sue their asses
off.
Same with the banks who I initially tried to approach... (and there's a great but painful story to go with that which will come at the appropriate time).
A cross-platform capable single pathway is best for a variety of reasons in my opinion. In other words the same system for the users of Apple, Android,
Mozilla, Microsoft's browsers, etc.
I'm very committed to the independent user 'pocket' idea which is not bound to a single signaling entity..
This is a critical element in the broader vision which has to do with the potential of this payment network itself as a universally owned construct for
at least some forms or payment... and that network's utility for other purposes besides the micropayment.
I've been long aware that these threats exist.
I have no power except whatever reasoning I can muster. And very few listen. But let's try to not simply stumble into a Brave New World so few decades
past 1984 because we didn't think things through.
I'm not saying that either Apple or the banks are evil (well maybe the banks)... but this is not another function they should gobble up. And I believe
there are very important reasons they should not.... and this should be a new form.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:12 PM, John Philpin <
> wrote:
Talking of 'Apple’ carts - I have always had my money on ‘them' for being the first with micro payments.
they already have apple pay and all the credit cards,
their forays into TV, Publishing, Streaming music, Apps … all need a 'payment something' beyond what is there today
thoughts ?
On May 12, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Guy Higgins <
> wrote:
I once read that humans laugh when it hurts too much to cry…
From:
Jim Fournier <
>
Date: Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 13:46
To: Tom Crowl <
>
Cc: Douglas Rushkoff <
>, John Philpin <
>, Guy Higgins <
>, Jason Wong <
>, David Brin <
>, 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
Yes, black humor may be the only reasonable response to the world. If we were to boil it down to one cross-cultural
principal it might be something like “protection of privilege”, then lawyers, guns and money, and politicians, are just details of implementation.
Diagnosis may be easier the a prescription for effective treatment, but it seems that the only things that really
perturb the system change the game rules, like the printing press, maybe http and html, possibly blockchain, but conservation of privilege may be almost as inevitable as conservation of energy.
On May 12, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Tom Crowl <
> wrote:
Yes they do! Of course I was only making a jest... but you have the essential driving the joke.
The 'serious' goal must be to provide methods for essentially perennial (r)evolution... and a re-examination of methods
and results short of Billionaire tossing.
Most "economists" (i.e. pretend scientists)... and politicians (I.e. pretend philosopher-statesmen) fall into the
trap of rationalizing the advancement of their interests via dependence on ideologies rather than evidence.
And sadly, voters tend to follow them. People prefer the false certainties that fixed ideologies (and many religions)
offer rather than the uncertainties and "lets see what works" approach that the pragmatist embraces.
But its important to add that the boundaries of pragmatic consideration are defined by the forces and experiences
acting upon the decision maker(s)
This is why I'm so angry about the effects of big money dependence in politics... and how it has so narrowly set the
limits of debate.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jim Fournier <
> wrote:
If you substitute guillotine for volcano it sounds a bit like the French revolution… Extremely unbalanced systems
get brittle, often with collateral damage.
-j
On May 12, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Tom Crowl <
> wrote:
After periods of attempt at serious thought I often feel an irresistible urge to be silly... to go way out of the
box. But maybe inside of the silliness there's some angle to consider.
Taking an anthropological approach (as I'm wont to do...)
Sacrifice has a long history in human civilizations. With that in mind:
Take the top 10 wealthiest, most powerful people each year, hold a big global party... and throw them into a volcano!
(at least till everyone on the planet has food, a roof.. and peace)
Now I don't hold my breath for this one to become a reality. But it would do quite a bit to change motivations at
the top.
Haven't had a drink.. but that's gotta be a 10 tequila shot idea! And could go quite a ways towards a more egalitarian
world.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Tom Crowl <
> wrote:
I'm repeating this line. I don't want it missed. Agree or disagree.. but this is the core driver of the work I'm doing.
... this has grown out of my deep concern regarding scaling problems in human societies which I don't believe have
their roots in specific ideologies or Left/Right rationalizations but arise as products of natural human drives operating in environments for which we have not evolved.
The micropayment AND the method of its implementation is certainly not some final solution to all this. But I think
its a piece.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Tom Crowl <
> wrote:
David, thanks for the mention in your excellent article re the need and utility for the micropayment!
Only one clarification: Its absolutely true that my original "invention" was built on the idea of its utility in advocacy
and charity... for two reasons:
1. Its the initial motivator for my interest... especially the impact of scale and low click through resistance would
serve to create a better political balance and serve to remedy the disaster which the DLC and big money dependency has done to distort political decision and accelerate and wealth/power division. I also recognized it perils. This has never been an effort to
create Tom Crowl's Handy-dandy website to give quarters to politicians.
2. I felt that utility in those areas could act as the catalyst for user adoption of the system... and the soliciting
side's interest in its promotion.
Literally within weeks it became very clear to me that the potential was far greater... its utility in journalism
became the next area where this utility was apparent and I've made that point repeatedly. But I could not afford to redo my patent application and that, in a sense, it was unnecessary for the reason below:
It quickly became clear that the needs of the micropayment (especially one-click identification) suggested that it
was a natural monopoly... and that ALL micropayments would for whatever purpose utilize the same system. And have also made this point repeatedly.
This is why as far back as 2008 I was pointing out that this natural monopoly could be a key to "catalyze the net"
with utility and implications far beyond the micropayment itself.
Additionally, my use of the term "moneyed Like button" was not only to simplify understanding of what I was talking
about... but also to relate it to my neophyte exploration of the nature of money itself... and its relationship to intention (i.e. an idea with an objective).
And finally some points to ponder:
?
Perhaps we should NOT here automatically shy away from the idea of a "universal identity silo" (everyone in it... one user; one account)... but rather recognize that there are potentials
in such a network as well as perils and consider how such a network might be managed.
?
Could there be value for it as a general feedback mechanism against wealth/power concentration by being constructed as a "for profit" universal silo? (i.e. one user/one share; non-transferable
expiring with death)
?
Could such a network... while designed for "established" currencies... have utility in allowing other forms to evolve perhaps for local trading currencies?
?
Could "seeding" accounts be something to think about?
?
Could such a "pool" be the root for one or more public banks?
?
And the "Long Now" position: its potentials (if things like "the end of work" , material abundance, etc. come to pass) as an apolitical vehicle for things like a guaranteed income)
And then there's this: from the start this has grown out of my deep concern regarding scaling problems in human societies
which I don't believe have their roots in specific ideologies or Left/Right rationalizations but arise as products of natural human drives operating in environments for which we have not evolved.
Here's another of those biosocial issues along with the Altruism dilemma: We primates are neither fundamentally "Good"
nor "Bad. What we are is this: fundamentally social mixed in with a bit of pirate. (I haven't got a good name for that yet)
This has big implications when combined with scale, the altruism dilemma as well as the tendency towards rationalization
and cognitive dissonance.*
Developing healthy politics requires a broad cultural recognition of these problems. In other words the average citizen
needs to incorporate a better understanding of what humans are and are not and the implications. And for that broad recognition to take place... we must first have some leadership form an intellectual community... somewhere.
* In fact I believe that with simply these two issue it can be shown just WHY the big banks need to be broken up for
BETTER banking... and that's coming.
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <
> wrote:
To reply to David Brin: that's why I'm thinking to go straight to the businesses (even the big ones) that are suffering
under the grow-no-matter-what paradigm, and offer them more revenue-based, circulatory solutions toward rewarding their shareholders (along with other stakeholders).
They quickly come to realize that the only thing in the way of them becoming dividend or even profit-based enterprises
is a tax code that rewards capital gains and punishes dividends, payroll, and value creation. Then, they will start using their clout to lobby for the very changes that will make the economy less extractive and more generative.
If the legislative bodies are too paralyzed by the republican party to enact anything other than 'table burning,'
then we don't look to them for solutions.
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, John Philpin <
> wrote:
This just in through Twitter :
https://twitter.com/GillersMusicMan/status/730132524991655939
looks like Beethoven ripped off the the 5 beer concept and put it to music some 20 years later !
On May 10, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Guy Higgins <
> wrote:
Interestingly, I suspect that almost the entire U.S. Constitution was a “five beers” idea — in 1783. Those guys took
a bunch of theorizing by Enlightenment philosophers, seasoned it with lots of practical experience and invented democratic government (and if we think there was agreement across the board, joe should look at the Ten Dollar bill and recall how differences were
settled then — Mssrs Hamilton and Burr)
From:
Jason Wong <
>
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 14:04
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
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
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
On May 10, 2016, at 2:30 PM, Guy Higgins <
> wrote:
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.
From: David Brin <
>
Reply-To: David Brin <
>
Date: Monday, May 9, 2016 at 19:16
To: Guy Higgins <
>, Tom Crowl <
>
Cc: Jason Wong <
>, 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
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 <
> wrote:
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.
From: Tom Crowl <
>
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 17:19
To: Guy Higgins <
>
Cc: Jason Wong <
>, Douglas Rushkoff <
>, Micah Sifry <
>, David Brin <
>, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" <
>, ProjectVRM list <
>,
Andy Oram <
>, Joe Trippi <
>, John Battelle <
>, Michel Bauwens <
>, Brennan Center for Justice <
>
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 <
> wrote:
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.
From: Tom Crowl <
>
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 16:59
To: Jason Wong <
>
Cc: Douglas Rushkoff <
>, Micah Sifry <
>, David Brin <
>, "Victoria Silchenko, PhD" <
>, ProjectVRM list <
>, Andy Oram <
>,
Joe Trippi <
>, John Battelle <
>, Michel Bauwens <
>, Brennan Center for Justice <
>
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:
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 <
> 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 <
> 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.
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.
--
Professor of Media Theory and Digital Economics, CUNY/Queens
|