..."When I think of very large scale state transitions in a very complex network of networks, operating at lots of levels, it seems to me, the transition has to be a fractal one, where things have to be created at a local level which are self-consistent, at the intermediate region level, nation level and global. If a system is well designed, the same principles ought to be applicable at all those levels simultaneously, and hence should be working in parallel at all levels, and change will happen more rapidly at some than others. My strong suspicion is that it will be local that comes first, and then examples of things that work locally will be tried regionally and then tried nationally and then finally adopted global. It's a high level way to prune strategic rules. They should be fractal and operate self-consistency from hyper-local to global."...
Framing politics as problem solving ...The process of governance design itself: "first state assumptions about what the problems are, to define a design challenge as you see it, talk about the resources available, the tools and technologies and other things that we have at our disposal. and then to come up with a prototype."...
...On the tension between individual freedom and collective decision making: "solution is that in a post scarcity world, most things do not need to be collectively decided - only once a conflict arises."...
What would be the incentives that we actually get people to participate... ..."We are passed ideology, ideology is dead, nobody can agree on anything. The only systems that seem to work on the peer-to-peer side are opt-in. Opt-in governance, there won't be one form of governance, there will be multiple competing forms of governance."...
Game design, a form of governance that becomes viral... "At a game theoretic level, it's hard to imagine something that will function to accomplish what needs to be accomplished and be opt-in. If somebody want to build nuclear reactors and does not want to opt-in to the system of governance, they can't be allowed to do that."...
..."Reputation architecture: how does nature itself opt-in to this form of governance? Future generations... They can't opt-in on there own..."
..."Markets are all about allocating scarcity, when they get to a global level you get a kind of copernican system of wheels within wheels of markets all interconnected, that nobody really understands but everybody knows how to co-opt. That hyper concentrates wealth and power. And over the long run that destroys middle classes and drives'em off to the periphery, it drives them all to low level of subsistence, where we all compete against each other for the limited number of jobs and wealth that the hyper concentrated entities allocate to us. That's what the future looks like, if we don't come up with something better to compete with it. There is no way to shut it down through pure violence. It leverages few-to-many systems, and bots. With bots, software bots in particular you can scale a system like that to where a couple of people can manage billions as we gain in sophistication. So, that's the timer on us, on what we are doing here. So, we better get cracking."...
What are the cultural biases that keep us from thinking of other ways of governing?...
..."We live in a two speed society. We have a rapidly self-organising civil society that is operating at a global scale, that's inventing new forms of governance and democracy. And then we have a much slower democratic governance system that is a bit in crisis and that seems to be quite slow at adapting new practices. I think the key is the bridge. We have to find a way that representative democracy can look at civic practices and inspire itself by these new civic practices."...
How can we experiment so that it becomes acceptable to change the existing forms?
Governance activity needs to be designed so that self interest is taken out of the picture, so that one primarily talks about helping to create policies for others, for society and impact on ones own live is neglectable in comparison.
Opt-in wouldn't work in the sense that everybody that wants to do something can just get together and do whatever they want. That is not what opt-in governance means at all, quite the opposite. It means that all other interests have a right to participate as well in the policy making and can therefor suppress activity when needed. Opt-in decisions have no legitimacy for those that were not involved in the process. In fact, they have no legitimacy for anybody that doesn't agree with the outcome. Opt-in decisions also provide no right to act where others are impacted, that did not opt-in to the process.
17.9.2013, 22:51