In transcending economy, is "the virtual" the long term core of economy?


#1

In transcending economy isn’t the virtual the long term core of economy?

I think what motivates this question for me is the sense that Safenet/Safecoin or similar approaches must be secondary or must kow tow to the established state backed currencies or will by necessity and general agreement be marginalized bit players or experiments. That such approaches will now fall to the state tax collection systems or SOPA - PIPA type efforts. After all, certain actors would gladly destroy or subvert the internet to restore the status quo and recover from likes of E-Mule. It look like they are doing it, but I don’t think that matters, the counter example has been set by efforts like emule. Funny that emule reminded us of the power of real community and common interest.

  1. Presumably we will one day have more efficient access to energy and even get more efficient at energy to matter conversion. Presumably true scarcities will always be larger i.e., real property, agro/energy, transport. But to begin with the virtual offers something that looks more like the reality we will be in if we solve our physical problems.

  2. Virtual economies do not have to be scarcity based and hence not really economic. The tragedy of the commons is an excuse, generally a bogey man- the commons is the goal. We don’t have to kill excitement and all incentive with a commons. And what is not limited does not have to be rationed. If we are to live sustainably it must one day be possible to allow people to pursue atrophy or growth and needs and wants in the absence of artificial scarcity. Our highest goal cannot be serving the desire of some people to tell other people what to do. Also we don’t have to create challenges we have a huge residual challenge from playing the power imbalance game for so long. People don’t know other ways and we have a huge challenge in addressing overrun resources and cumulative damage.

  3. The virtual realm is possibly the best basis for a guaranteed annual income (this wouldn’t be an artificial rationing.) It could take the form of open access to everything with end user controlled incentive through system generated income permanently granted to every end user to be primarily spent on micro contribution for future works. It would be just one input and probably thought of as more like a vote. But it would also be a substantial resource transfer meant to drive activities. Here end users would add substantially or have the primary input on the efforts of who best served their interests without strings attached and without conflicts of interest and this would most directly apply to key virtual drivers like education, communication, information, entertainment. This could be the basis for a lasting highest common denominator for of security and quality of life that kept power the the stable base.

We do not want to automate enclosure. That would be the tyranny of the data base. Its no coincidence that one of the first uses of the database was in the concentration camps. This technology can be used to train volition out of the human apparatus. The vocabulary we have is a vocabulary that isn’t working. For instance the internet was amazing. The internet needs to function for a bit longer but is past tense. Its been doomed by our vocabulary of enclosure. When we say business we aren’t doing much more than applying the tools and techniques of animal husbandry to other human beings. Its CAFO type stuff. We say we don’t like planned economies but every economy has been planned and generally based on preserving the deepest and most blatant conflicts of interest so much so that we are numb to them. We don’t like censorship but we revel in the most destructive and recalcitrant from by basing our system both politically and economically on sponsorship. We don’t like gossip about individuals but we are proposing individual tracking systems that reproduce the financial gossip and enclosure known as the credit system and to the point of exile now as if that were an improvement. As we attempt to automate planned economy we are thinking of contract “formalized enclosure-lock in- anti neutrality- the glue of centralization”

We don’t want the cage. What we’ve had is imprisoning lip service. “You have freedom what more could you want?” Its not enough to say its impractical or utopian to want to be free of money, markets, states and contract. We were free of the tools of enclosure and centralization for most of human history and sufficient on 4 hrs of labor per day outside the nest in communities of 100 or so working in face to face cooperation. The actual question is whether technology itself demands imprisoning tools of crowd control. Its survival at this point and its obvious that technology does not demand these approaches. Progress is getting rid of them by finding sensible replacements. We need systems that are stable and don’t erase quality of life and any basis for human rights.


#2

I think we need a ‘Philosophy category’ for these big picture discussions?

Do you read TradeWithDave (David Harrison)? he is pretty awesome in decoding this stuff

He at times comes from the Jesus Christ angle, but not in a preachy way. For example in the Loaves and Fishes parable his opinion is that, it was not by magic that JC replicated few into many, but in fact by talking about scarcity/abundance the people were encouraged to release the goods they had hidden on them.

He is also really big on forgiveness and even believes that true forgiveness can change the past…freaky. One of his favourite sayings is “There is no forgiveness in the blockchain” unless they enable reversibility of course.

His view is that a lot of the freaky stuff like Cass Sustein’s nudge (behavioural economics) can be traced back to Plato…Plato’s cave in this case.

Probably the plank of his thinking is that hidden power is trying to replace Free Will with Free Choice where the menu is selected by them…think opt in being the norm for organ donor-ship rather opt out as default and risky investments as the default in your 401k/pension/superannuation …sneaky stuff like that.

And that Hegel has a lot to answer for with his dialectic…that seems to be the root of a lot of evil… Problem Reaction Solution Isis Outrage Syria

I would love to see a discussion between David Harrison and David Irvine…would be fascinating viewing I’d reckon.


#3

That is fascinating. I was just thinking there is need to reverse much of the real society (as in demarcated real property and the metered measured, accounted for society) by building ambiguity into systems. Those people had ambiguity in the fish in their bags and it was apparently put to good use. In a census it may be important to know exactly what a magnate has but its also important to have a good amount of ambiguity protecting ordinary citizens. It might be good for a state understand its populace is packing like the Swiss but not have any idea how much ammunition they have. Even better that they really don’t know with any great specificity how much resource the average person has. The point is not tax evasion where we still have systems that need taxes for equity, but rather disabling the policy scheming that says the average person should be paying x% of disposable income for entertainment and they aren’t so keep shaking them down with collusion.

Those who benefit from concentration go crazy over the notion of ambiguity in accounting because that process if it got out of control could quickly nullify their concentration. As things stand an injection of ambiguity could also destabilize. I don’t think peace should depend on enclosure accounting so I think we need to build ambiguity tolerant systems. In WWII people were getting their noses measured to determine if they should go to concentration camps. Involuntary measurement is a kind of violence. Ambiguity as an expression of privacy should be a more overt value to combat nonsense sentiments like “you can’t manage what you don’t measure.” The last thing we want is the management society which is consistent with being “opted in” as the default and consistent with constrained preselected choice. I guess will have to find ways to build in forgiveness and reversible elbow room into the block chain’s replacement. Certainly the block chain was meant to counter and reverse restriction and enclosure and it was a first shot illuminating possibilities.

I very much like ACIM/Advaita and ACIM draws a link between time and forgiveness. If I am not mistaken ancient Greek philosophy didn’t give time any real objectivity, it was more dream like- dreams that could be forgotten or in some cases remembered even if they lacked traction. The past was a dream subject o consciousness.

I will check out David Harrison’s site. Even if he didn’t contribute regularly or engage in dialog here it would be nice to know that he’s watching Maidsafe. I want to think that the net is still functioning enough that it causes people to gravitate together at cutting edge conventions. If a David Irvine doesn’t know a Steve Perlman they are probably only separated by a degree or two.


#4

Thanks for your response


#5

Of course. Thank you too.


#6

Love this idea!


#7

No, it’s people.

It’s just us.

It always has been, always will be :smile:

Just people/life/cells/whatever helping eachother,

in infinite ways :smile:

The “virtual” or “digital” are just mediums for this.

Just my opinion tho…