Mutual Consent and the Inevitability of Freedom


#1

Consent vs Compliance

Consent is the giving of permission for something to happen or agreeing to do something without being forced. Compliance is the act of conforming, acquiescing, or yielding. You are considered to be in compliance when you yield to the subject of a body of force that is exerting some type of power over you. In some cases there is no choice whether you will comply or not. For instance we are forced to comply with the natural laws of the universe. Gravity is one body of force every individual must comply with. In other cases we are given a choice to comply. An example would be paying taxes to a governing authority. We can choose not to comply but the results of this non-compliance will probably result in that governing authority exercising its power to force you into compliance inasmuch as it can do so.

Freedom

We have freedom in that we have a choice to refuse to comply in spite of the possible consequences. When we have a conviction that is opposed to the subject of compliance we will refuse to comply no matter the consequences are. When we have a preference against the subject of the compliance we will often weigh the cost of not complying, ie the subject’s expected use of force to bring us into compliance, and decide if we will or will not comply. We have a higher degree of freedom when we are given the ability to choose without fear of repercussions. The higher the degree of freedom the closer we are to consent and the further away we are from forced compliance.

Inevitability of Freedom

When we say something is inevitable, we are saying that we expect most will have to comply to this new compliance body. Either there will be no choice but to comply to these subjects of compliance or the cost of non-compliance will be too high. The best distributed autonomous systems are really new compliance bodies that eliminate the ability of other compliance bodies to enforce their subjects of compliance. The new resulting compliance body in essence forces all to act in a new relationship of mutual consent. MaidSafe (or something like it) is an inevitable compliance body that will force us all into relationships of mutual consent and that is why I will do my part to see it happen.


A different view of what Technology actually is
#2

This is a really nice piece of philosophical expression. It sums up my enthusiasm for the SAFE project, as well. Thank you.


#4

Yes systems based on non coercion or the minimum levels possible. To me even things like friction are a kind of passive coercion (correction can be or become coercion- systems don’t necessarily start out perfect.) So we want that gone too. I think these are systems that place the power in end users hands and only take money and influence from practically established plausible end users.

Like a broken record any kind of spam or sponsorship would be a conflict of interest that would undermine such systems almost instantly. Even to be taken seriously they would have to be free of both from the start and for any foreseeable future. They really have to be sponsor and spam proof systems that forever look to weed out any conflict of interest. If the DAC’s had a charter at the heart of everyone of them should be the elimination of conflict of interest, defined in terms of the end users interests. The majority of law is based on this but its definition of removing conflict is way to often removing conflict for a rich elite or the generation of conflict in an ethical or moral sense.


#5

I’d be really careful in your thinking here, for consistency and truth sake.

Friction is not necessarily coersion, at all. And while coersion may be unintentional, it can’t be passive, I don’t think.

The SAFE network will give us unprecedented tools for controlling our information, but it doesn’t guarantee that we’ll always get what we want or expect out of others, or that they won’t do things we don’t like or disagree with, or just plain get in our way, intentionally or not. On the contrary, the same mechanisms that give us the control we want also gives others the same.

Taking central controllers out changes the dynamics and could get very interesting. I have confidence that things will be much better in the long run, but we may be in for a more interesting ride than we sometimes realize. Freed prisoners often don’t know just what to do with themselves and can’t sleep without getting into the closet–too much space. We’ll have a lot of interesting frictions, no doubt, because we don’t have the experience or sets of societal agreements in place to deal with the level of social freedom the SAFE network will put there.

By it’s very nature, the SAFE network can’t do anything but make authoritarian heirarchy really difficult. People will have to bootstrap themselves to new mindsets, as individuals and by influencing others. I think that process is already seeded in society and those seeds are starting to strout all over the place. The SAFE network is just good, rich soil with lots of water. But weeds are inevitable as well.

[edit: Sorry if this sounds lecturey. Can’t help it when I wax philosophical. :wink:]


#6

Yes friction is of course tends to brought up in the context of steps digital techniques that could make access easier or more convenient.

Sorry, was thinking along the lines of passive aggressive or aggregate passive aggressive. Watch the add and have less hoops even as the is a hoop. Pay what we call the lower (but still inflated price) if you use our price club card… steps that slow the end user down and try to entangle their attention, even if not intentional, seem suspect. The card is coercive and its friction and its aggressive friction. To me this is where culture and education comes in. People can be educated, probably building on an expanded definition of spam and by tying their actions and use of attention in aggregate to their own empowerment.

I think there is agreement about authoritarian hierarchy but I wouldn’t count it out yet. To me end user empowerment is the key to all of it. Need or want in trade or attention terms will be tied to the end users sense of empowerment and drive end user behavior. Presumably there is agreement that a dencentralized system that puts power in the base is the goal. Asking if, as far as we can see, this is the basis for trade of any kind is probably safe ground. Openness as abstract as it can seem is going in this direction. The internet of the 90s while was widespread enough that when used in conjunction with the still relatively open PC interface it exploded. Of course search and hyperlinks were a big help

Big business came later to sponsor and enclose. To me there really should be no compromise on power in the base. The system needs to be built to preserve and keep that above all else. The service of end user empowerment as a motivator will work against a natural tendency for wealth and power to arbitrarily accrue in encroaching destabilizing ways.

I have a sense that the last mile issue was to a large extent phony. It was a choke point that the sponsor industry and its benefactors saw as a way to remake internet in hierarchical format. In their model peering will soon cut out the back bones and you will be made to watch and every minute no matter what you are doing and this in turn is meant to guarantee a totalitarian government in the hands of the few. In short its a sponsored that is to say censored environment that is meant keeps enclosure through various techniques like peering but also by making the content aside from propaganda, useless but addictive.


#7

I’ve posted the original Topic on my Liberty.me site which is a libertarian social network where I first heard about MaidSafe. If you like this topic and want others outside our circle to see it I’d appreciate it if you [Appreciated] it on that site.

Thanks…


#8

You get it, Chadrick. It’s a pleasure to be building BuildItHub and SAFEx with you!