Can gov’s way of allocating resources (by centralized fiat force that can suppress feedback loops) compete with decisions via decentralized win-win agreements that thrive with feedback loops?
If someone promises something without specifying the consequences if they don’t deliver, consider asking them, “or else what?” until they come up with a specific natural consequence that you agree with. Ask for it in understandable writing. If the writing is not understandable, say “no deal” until the contract is understandable and local. “Power is never granted, only taken”, and this is 1 way to do it peacefully.
Focus on doing what you love to do and what you are good at. “Do all you say you will do, don’t encroach on others or their stuff” (Richard Maybury), and make amends for the inevitable mistakes. Define what is valuable to you and trade your valuable stuff (time, mind, body, knowing) only by mutual agreement with other competent entities. You can defend your stuff while not take on others’ stuff.
All people are created UNequally. However, by definition equality exits via contracts where:
- (entity A: perform, or else what) = (entity B: perform, or else what)
- Entity A and B can freely and competently contract.
- “Perform” includes who, what, where, when, and maybe how.
- “Or else what” includes who, what, where, when, and maybe how.
3 areas rarely set up correctly:
Money – NEVER let others’ control a money supply by fiat. “Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws” – Amschel Rothchilds. Use only competing currencies. Make no laws about what, and how, people “should” value things. Competing currencies allow those who are ok with risk to employ competition which modulates the money supply via Laissez-faire feedback loops. (I would LOVE a fiat debt currency, as long as I was corrupt, and in charge of it. Imagine, as my little slaves procreate and do all the work to grow economies, they pay me more and more via seigniorage, the hidden tax of inflation, and fees. Suckers!!!!) CONTROL YOUR PERSONAL MONEY SUPPLY by storing your wealth in real things like precious metals, real estate, businesses, relationships, etc.
“Voting” Group decision making – Current forms of voting are inefficient, and “…vulnerable to strategic manipulation...” mainly due to very weak feedback loops. There is work being done on a system called Castpoints where the best options automatically emerge from discussions. Until it’s ready, the best solution I know of that helps a group choose the most workable option from a range of options is:
- 30 days before the election, candidates compete by indicating via written contract what they will do, or else (which goes into escrow if monetary).
- Candidates are titled “contracted organizers” or “organizers” if elected.
- Residents indicate who they pick by depositing, say, 0 to 100 ounces of silver ($0 to $5,000) publicly in escrow. (It would be best if the resident could vote 0-10% of net worth, but resident’s net worth is none of a town’s business.) (Might as well start using hard money: silver.)
- Each ounce of silver is one vote.
- Voting progress is transparently updated in realtime.
- If a resident’s organizer has to make amends of say 1,000 ounces of silver ($50,000), escrow would remove that amount from the cumulative amount of that organizer’s “yes” voters.
- If voters do not re-fund their escrow account, that is the maximum they can “vote” next election.
Scope of action – (money, projection of power). Decisions are vastly more effective locally because, “Elements in the system are ignorant of the behaviour of the system as a whole responding only to what is available to it locally.” Therefore, efficient taxes are collected only once, locally, and at the point of sale. They are spent at the level of the tax, and/or 1(one) level away. Therefore, the feedback loop is very direct and concise. People can respond very quickly by simply voting with their feet. No demonstrations, agent provocateurs, just buy goods and services at the next town, the local merchants will “help” local organizers understand things rapidly.
Also, true grass roots movements are hard to marginalize, compromise, slander, etc. simply because of a lack of top down control.
Mayor Bloomberg said Friday that he’s going to start turning the screws on the Occupy Wall Streeters. [Not even bother with citing a legal authority?] … “It’s a little bit complicated by there’s nobody to work it out with,” he said. “There just is not any one group, one idealogy, one objective, one person to negotiate with.”
How can 2 people divide a piece of cake (whatever) in half “fairly?
- Ask someone impartial to do it for them. The cost is another person who “should” be impartial.
- 1 person divides the piece, and the other person can complain if they don’t think it’s fair. Now police and judges get involved at relatively high cost usually paid by others.
- 1 person divides, and the other chooses. This is called” cut-and-choose”. It’s popular because its a self-enforcing protocol is cheaper and “…safer than other types because participants [gain little] advantage from cheating…”
Self-enforcing protocols are useful because they don’t require trusted third parties. Modern systems for transferring money — checks, credit cards, PayPal – require trusted intermediaries like banks and credit card companies to facilitate the transfer. Even cash transfers require a trusted … currency, and [issuers] take a cut in the form of seigniorage, [fees, and inflation] … Modern contract protocols require a legal system to resolve disputes…
Note, the self enforcing contracts being suggested here don’t need a legal system.
Of course, self-enforcing protocols aren’t perfect. For example, someone in a cut-and-choose can punch the other person and run away with the entire piece of cake. But perfection isn’t the goal here; the goal is to reduce cheating by [designing] away potential avenues of cheating. Self-enforcing protocols improve security not by implementing countermeasures that prevent cheating, but by leveraging economic incentives so that the parties don’t want to cheat…
Over reliance on voting, laws, and other forms of force don’t work well for societies. Why? Math: Complex adaptive systems, like societies, cannot be managed efficiently from the top down; they can’t be legislated (forced) to success. “Biologists have consistently failed to manage systems like national parks and wetlands where the network structure is, if anything, simpler than that of markets.” Which are much simpler than societies. Trying to do so creates fiat protected niches where all the nasty aspects of society thrive: Crony capitalism, taxation sans representation, gov funded schools who’s “graduates” can’t write a paragraph, meddling in other countries business, etc.
The Evolution of Future Wealth: We do not yet know what makes some systems more adaptable than others… the level of central control over subsidiary parts of a system is an important consideration. Too much control [laws, regulation] freezes the system into limited configurations [slow to adapt and prosper]; too little causes it to wander aimlessly [anarchy, can’t prosper]. Only systems that hover on the border* between order and chaos [use contracts] exhibit the needed general stability and capacity to explore the universe of possible solutions to challenges. [innovate and prosper]
*Borders are where most of the interesting life is biologically, emotionally (near the edge of comfort zones) and spiritually (persona growth). They are also a bit messy and uncomfortable.
Another way of looking at the game is that 1 group is willing to play the victims and “buy” comfort while another group is willing to play the bullies and “sell” comfort. This is why:
– Even if all the bullies disappear, victims will defect to fill the empty niche that is created by us not willing to be in the zone maximizing life because we believe it’s too uncomfortable.
– Making rules that try to keep everyone comfortable AND allow everyone to thrive will never work by definition (they don’t overlap).
Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar; lying is a cooperative act.
If you don’t want to be deceived, you have to know what it is that you are hungry for… Lying is an attempt to connect how we wish (and fantasize) we could be, with what we are really like.
Working systems have feedback loops that convey the consequences of past actions to the present. ”Regulations”, “checks and balances”, “safe guards” are all fake emulations of feedback loops. Not only do they not work, they provide more niches where fraud, crime and inefficiency can flourish.
Scientific basis for the evolution of cooperation ”By letting different strategies compete in a repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma game, Axelrod (1984) showed that mutually cooperating, “tit-for-tat” like strategies tend to dominate purely selfish ones in the long run…” Significant findings in this context:
- Nasty things like crime CAN NOT be reduced to zero because one time defectors have an advantage. And because the “system is hovering on the border between order and chaos”, things can’t be perfect.
- “Law makers” encourage people to not remember history, so things seem like the first time: no reputation, no history with reference points.
- Retaliation (punishment) was originally a means of protection against invading cheaters (who have no history).
- Introducing “reputations” (history) negates the usefulness of punishment. Meaning it’s a mathematical fact that society can tend to be kind, organized, and prosperous with a minimum of force and punishment.
There are no kings of the koalas, nor presidents of the pansies, nor queens of the quetzals, nor gods of the gorillas because complex adaptive systems don’t find them useful. (Even bees don’t have a queen of all the bees, just the local hive.) Every current form of voting and “law” (master slave relationship) attempting to manage societies by the majority, from the top down, ultimately fails because:
- When (if) a single component controls the collective behavior (not the individual behaviors of all the components) of a system, then the collective behavior cannot be more complex than the individual behavior.
- The control of a complex adaptive system tends to be highly dispersed and decentralized. If there is to be any coherent behavior in the system, it has to arise from competition and cooperation among the agents themselves. The “competition and cooperation” seems to be most efficiently structured via contracts. Neil Stevenson used this idea in Snow Crash.
Decisions are much more effective locally because, “Elements in the [complex adaptive] system are ignorant of the behaviour of the system as a whole responding only to what is available to it locally.” Therefore, tax systems should spend at the level they tax, and/or 1 (one) level away.
When Efficient tax, regulation and representation systems was posted, I thought it would just be an academic idea that would never be put to use. Incorrect! It already worked! Outsourcing saved 50%, no increases in property taxes, and incumbents (that wanted to stay) had a lowest re-elect vote of 84%.
Why? Because people started to move toward local, contract based systems:
A healthy cell has strong boundaries. A psychologically healthy person has strong boundaries. A strong building has a strong foundation which is the boundary between the building and the ground. Boundaries are possibly the most fundamental thing after “null“, and simply differentiate between me and not me, this and not that. “Not me” is a long list list of stuff.
It seems the root cause of all trouble is making boundaries into beliefs about “separation” which leads to, “If ‘they’ do the ‘should’ life will be better for me/us/everyone. Is this why people keep trying to organize something that is self organizing, instead of doing their own thing? Hierarchies emerge to organize things. Beliefs applied to hierarchies create 1 up, 1 down situations. Thus: God is “up”, hell is “down”. Origin of “hierarchy”: hierarkhe: “sacred ruler” Love linguistics!
A majority of people let non local’s have power over them with nary a consequence (feedback loop). Fait laws are about force. Typical voting in a fiat system is slaves fighting over which bully should rule them. Currently, police don’t en-force contracts, they en-force laws and therefore the will of law masters who act as if they are God’s / the environment’s / the poor’s / whatever’s / sanctioned unreproachable representative, (“your honor”, “the honorable”), and decree rules that everyone, except them, have to obey, or else. Well meaning police are in a no-win situation. The more exceptions, the less robust a system and more niches for nasty things to thrive.
Fiat governments parasitize wealth. Contracts trade, create and/or add wealth. Fiat gov’s are inefficient and usually end with abundant blood, tears, and loss of wealth. Contact based organizations have to be more efficient than competitors. The less adaptive ones usually fail orderly with employees free to work somewhere else, customers free to use the more successful competitor and the main losers, if there are any, are the owners, investors, and bond holders who freely exposed themselves to risk and reward.
The only way to win is to not play the game. Ignore all the fancy hidden wordy fluff and implicit rules. Simply do what you say you will do, do not encroach on there’s or their property, and clean up inevitable mistakes. A sovereign individual manages their own (re)actions and money supply thus greatly separating themselves from the majority of parasites by denying them their money (power) and fear (mental, emotional, and spiritual control).
So many people need you to behave in a certain way for them to feel good. They condemn you for your selfishness. “How dare you be so selfish as to follow what makes you feel good? You should follow what makes us feel good.” At an early age, you were convinced that you weren’t smart enough to know and that somebody else should make the decisions… Abraham
Simple Rules: Complex adaptive systems are not complicated. The emerging patterns may have a rich variety, but like a kaleidoscope the rules governing the function of the system are quite simple. A classic example is that all the water systems in the world, all the streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, waterfalls etc with their infinite beauty, power and variety are governed by the simple principle that water finds its own level.
Focus on doing what you love to do and are good at. Do all you say you will do, don’t encroach on others or their stuff (Richard Maybury), and make amends for the inevitable mistakes. I define what is valuable to me and trade my valuable stuff (time, brain, body) only by mutual agreement with other competent entities. I will defend my stuff and not take on your stuff.
Simple responses that keep power when someone tries to take power by:
- Promising something, ask, “or else what?“
- “Offers” either or choices (democrat, or republican), respond with, “Both, or neither.”
- Says you “have” to do…, or I “need” you to do…, respond, “That doesn’t work for me, what other choices are there?” (make them do the work)
- Says a bunch of crap, respond with nothing or, “So you say.” And don’t engage.
- Tries to force you to make a decision “now”, say, “I will think about it, and get back to you if I’m interested.“
- All of the above, ignore, or say, “Thanks, not interested.“
- Finally, “I prefer not too.” Not saying no, not saying yes. Not offering much for someone to attack.
BASIC CONTRACT ELEMENTS TO FORMALLY ORGANIZE A GROUP.
- Primarily focus on the union of what you love and what you are good at. This creates people who are fulfilled, and less likely to fall for the con of others “helping” them out.
- Do all you say you are going to do and respect other’s privacy and property (Richard Maybury), or make amends by be-ing response-able and cleaning up mistakes. This has zero to do with “punishment”.
- Pay/charge a flat fee for local organizers only near the origin of the product or service at the time of sale. No taxes on anything else. No property tax — that negates private ownership which greatly lessons economic stability. Only contracted sales tax at the point of sale.
- Local organizers contract with residents and visitors. Anyone who does not like the contract can be a candidate intending to change the contract(s), including or else what, or leave.
- Contract with neighbors just 1 step away. Then these nodes compete for population. People can, and do, easily move to better run situations.
- Local (city, or burough if a biger city, town, incorporated area) organizers decide what percent of local revenue to contract with neighboring towns and the “county” level of organizers in exchange for contracted products and services.
- County organizers decide what percent of local revenue to contract with neighboring counties and/or the “state” level of organization in exchange for contracted products and services.
- State organizers decide what percent of state revenue to contract with neighboring states and/or the “federal” level of of organizers in exchange for contracted products and services.
- Avoid fiat money. Use competing currencies. “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be MASTER — that’s all.” “Power is never granted, only taken.” “Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws” – Amschel Rothchilds. Competing currencies allow those who are ok with risk to employ competition which modulates the money supply via Laissez-faire feedback loops.
- Mind your own business, not other’s business.
INCOMPLETE EXCERPTS OF CONTRACTS FOR PEOPLE-TOWN, AND COMPANY-TOWN (To get people thinking. Notice all the feedback loops.) (Silver is used here, but it really, the would be the equivalent purchasing power of whatever value the town accepts.)
- If anyone contracted by the town breaks contracts:
- All medical bills will be paid for by contractors bonds first, our bond and insurance second, up to 90% of the max for similar injuries.
- Depending on the severity you will be paid 10 to 1000 ounces of silver ($100 to $50,000) by the bonds and insurer to triple compensate you for the time you were not able to freely manage your stuff. This is determined by the arbitrators.
- Contract enforcers (“police”)
- All interactions are recorded independently by xyz.
- Serious mistakes (defined in the contract enforcers contract) will result in the enforcer being fired, forfeiting their 1,000 ounce ($50,000) bond, and leaving town within 30 days.
- 90% of any interest from escrow accounts will be used quarterly to help fund town activities. 10% will accrue in the rainy day fund up to 100 ounces of silver ($5,000) per person.
- Keep 100 ounces of silver ($5,000) per person in a town escrow account to pay possible amends. (Notice how the town is not in “debt”? In fact, depending on many things, possibly the town can make money from interest and/or wise investment.)
- You can defend your stuff.
- If someone is pointing something like a gun at you, you can protect yourself with deadly force without warning.
- If someone is threatening you with something like a knife or martial arts skill, you can attempt to leave, brandish your own weapons and attempt to verbally diffuse the situation and/or attempt to leave. If you are about to be potentially seriously injured, you can protect yourself with deadly force.
- If someone is stealing your stuff, you can not hurt them even to stop them. You can use force on their vehicle to stop them.
Local business also agree to:
- Keep 50 ounces of silver ($2,500) per company person in a town escrow account to pay possible amends.
- Companies agree to charge the current 10% sales tax and pay it to us by the 7th of each month.
- If this does not happen, your company will be charged 1% per week.
- If your escrow account runs out, you can’t do business here.
- If you cheat, you will have to pay 5 times the cheat.
+ Self Enforcing Contract template v1.3
+ Avoid police brutality structurally: Consider employing contracts, NOT laws to organize societies.
+ Thanks to the Web Bot Forum for inspiration.
October 23: FAQ’s and clarifications
Wait, aren’t insurance companies just as bad as the banksters??
“Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk” spells it all out. Big projects are greatly facilitated via insurance. Meaning we don’t need gov to make big projects, just insurance. Most current “insurance” is just the gov forcing yet another tax that’s supposedly for our good and really gives gov more control and their friends a fait guaranteed income stream.
Contracted insurance is optional and sometimes used, sometimes not, depending if the participants value it for that specific contract.
If you want to do a project and have the money, you just do it IF you think it has greater value than your chunk of money. If you don’t have the money you can get in gov and force others to pay for it.
Or you can attempt to get investors. If you can’t get enough investors, something is not right with the idea, the presentation, or possibly the timing. If you do get enough investors, since there are a lot of people involved, everyone would want a bit of protection from mistakes or fat tails like a broken pipe that floods inventory. The insurance company is supposed to be good at managing that. In fact they should be offering suggestions like, “If you house the inventory in a more elevated building, the premium can be reduced 15%.
Thriving Society’s money on deposit are simple forms of insurance. It is one thing to win a case, another to collect. It’s also the greatest challenge. People always want to mess with stuff that is “just sitting there” — partially how fractional reserve banking got going in the first palace. In this case, if a town of 10,000 had a security deposit of say $2,000 / person that’s $20 million. Ideally, the money would be “properly” invested and the income used to build town resources and pay for community building activities.
Also, insurance should take over for things like ‘building inspection’ and ‘appraisals’ because they have very weak consequences if not accurate.
What about cheaters?
Depends on how many cheaters. Cheaters are like friction. Except in some interesting situations I don’t understand, all systems have at least some friction. In our system, one thing they do is serve as contrast. Meaning, “That is a good example of what I don’t want to act like!” Mathematically we have to have some cheating: all vibrant societies will have friction in which manifests as mistakes, cheaters, and some instability.
How can a system adapt to changing rules?
The rules never change, just our willingness to work with them (what some might call free will). Near as I can tell the most basic rule is: What goes around, comes around. Tools to thrive with that:
- Focus on the union of what you love to do and are good at.
- Do all you say you are going to do. Richard Maybury
- Don’t encroach on others or their property.
- Make amends for inevitable mistakes.
- Ego always tries to confound things for apparent leverage.
- After about 1%, the degree you pay attention to an ego is how much you will suffer. I have proof 🙂
Why can only local stakeholders (residents) make a deposit to vote?
Why should outsiders have any say at all — they don’t live in the town and won’t have consequences to deal with. And why should any residents NOT have a say? Consequences will definitely affect them.
There have to be feedback loops where people have something at stake AND can respond relatively fast. Some type of deposit where consequences can manifest directly and concretely, and amends distributed.
Who is paying the consequences for electing of the current president? Nobody and everybody. The dude before that? Same, and all wishy washy, indirect and confounding.
In this system the less wealthy can put their money where their mouth is, the wealthy have reputations that could be affected, and people who get screwed over by the “organizer” get rapidly compensated. Sounds good to me. Currently, crooks promise the moon by stealing from others and the worst that happens to them is a pat on the back for how many they snookered. Fed and state “representatives” and the whole process are a utter joke, yet people still participate — and then complain. Huh???
People will say, do, and agree to anything until they have something at stake. Then they pay attention. Yet another illustration of why local is more impacting than non-local. Complex adaptive systems suggest that the scope should be a maximum of 3 steps away, and there are only a few data points that far away. Just one step since that is very clear and should take care of 80% of stuff.
It would probably be more descriptive to say ‘person (group) who directly experiences the consequences’.
Wait, current voters already have things like freedom at stake!
Sure, they have freedom at stake, without valuing it. How many have actually read the us constitution, etc? A few…
Due to evolution, people are not set up to value something unless it’s:
- Experientially local enough to form strong enough memories.
- Feedback is quick enough to facilitate comparison.
- Feedback is direct enough to be clear.
…response times are as relevant as ever. That’s because responsiveness is a basic user interface design rule that’s dictated by human needs, not by individual technologies…
Responsiveness matters for two reasons:
- Human limitations, especially in the areas of memory and attention… We simply don’t perform as well if we have to wait and suffer the inevitable decay of information stored in short-term memory.
- Human aspirations. We like to feel in control of our destiny rather than subjugated to a computer’s whims. [feeling in control locally is more memorable than being subjugated from afar, until the subjugation grows to large levels.] Also, when companies make us wait instead of providing responsive service, they seem either arrogant or incompetent.
And this illustrates the historical experience:
… So, their responses were based not on immediate use (as in normal usability studies), but on whatever past experiences were strong enough to form memories. Under these conditions, it was striking to hear users complain about the slowness of certain sites… When sites shave as little as 0.1 seconds off response time, the outcome is a juicy lift in conversion rates. Today or the 1990s? Same effect.
How many people basically remember what what they read in the constitution? 5, maybe 6?
Maximizing what makes me feel/be fulfilled as long as it’s not at other’s expense, or overtly detrimental to myself. I can’t maximize things for others’ since I can’t know what is best for them (in general, and not young children).
Just ban the rich from voting!
Fiat rule by the nasty wealthy (or anyone) is vastly different from what some wealthy people do with their money.
Wealth is going to concentrate somewhere. I would much, much, rather have it concentrating in areas that operate with contracts, rather than fait. Almost all fiat rulers, wealthy or not, absolutely suck by any measure. Not just because they actually do suck, which is very likely, it’s the niche itself that exudes suck. (Absolute power corrupts absolutely because there are almost no feedback loops.) So even well meaning fiat rulers can basically only aspire to sucking less. Many rich people are rather nice and helpful. Eric Sprott had enough wealth to start a competitor to the allegedly fraudulent GLD and SLV. He is now starting a real bank.
Poor people have minimal political power: they are slaves. That’s why the nasty rich often have a lot of poor around, (just not too close to them).
The people I want to make decisions would have a good enough track record and enough collateral to make good on contracted amends. Those with no wealth still have collateral: the “or else” might be going to jail.
Who would you want organizing for you?
- Elect me because: without raising the sales tax, I will make sure within 3 months all town roads don’t have a pothole for more than 5 days nor cracks bigger than 3 millimeters — OR ELSE I will quit and the town gets to keep my $30,000 bond.
- Elect me because: I promise to fix all the roads so our precious children, granny, and baby harp seals won’t have to worry about tripping.
What about “the rule of law?”
Laws can’t be applied evenly — 1 reason why masters love them. Police “legally” break laws all time “in the line of duty.” Oakland tells protesters to pack up immediately “…stating that they do not have permission to camp overnight on the city plaza and that their near two-week encampment is breaking the law…” So apparently it was okay to break the law and now it’s not?? So what laws can be ignored by who, for what reasons, and for how long? Who gets to decide when, where, how and who those laws are enforced on? “Boyd declined to say what would happen if protesters ignored the order[s]… nor did she comment on what role police may play…” Why keep consequences hidden? How can people make informed decisions without facts? Doesn’t the “law” already specify what is to happen?
Only people who have money can marshal the resources to effectively protect themselves. Laws (after the fan fair dies down) are probably the worst thing for poor people. “Precedent” is said to “guide” current decisions, when it is used as just another road block to people with minimal resources.
Specific example with contracts: The contract enforces are contracted to do their job or they lose part of their bond. It would be common for a town to contract with residents that normally you can’t have more than XX number of decibels coming from your property 10pm-8am (that would infringe on others’ quiet), except if the proposed noise makers had agreement from potentially impacted people. So say some people have a wild party, the contract enforcers have to enforce the contract as stated in the town/resident contract (warning, escalation in pre agreed upon steps, no surprises, and their resident deposit is dinged), OR ELSE the contract enforcers lose part of their deposit. Only takes a few videos to document things and send it to the arbitrators. No costly court cases, 8 month delays. Done. And everything is very fair because all parties pre agreed on everything including the OR ELSE. Feedback loops are fast, fair and totally transparent. All the saved money can be put into parks, lower sales taxes, etc. (compared to now, OMG)
I want a system that equalizes birth inequalities.
How can that be implemented?? Who decides? Who pays for managing all of it? What if the advantage is intelligence or beauty? Make people less attractive or dumber? This sounds like denying reality instead of aligning with it and working with what you have. The starting point can never be level, even with identical twins. The only thing I know of that brings 2 parties together equally is freely entering into contracts by competent people. Good friendships also tend to be balanced, but often don’t have the resources for big projects.
Is this like homeowners associations?
I’m not familiar with homeowner associations so can’t really comment. I have read in the Ticker Guy’s blog that one onerous problem is that, in many contracts, if some people stop paying, everyone else has to take up the slack. If a fair number of people could not pay it would be reasonable to assume that there could be a general economic difficulty and the last thing needed is requiring others to pay more. Basically it’s another form of a bank run, so contracts like those are not robust. The error is stipulating that others make up a shortfall that they did not cause.
This sounds like a lot of work.
Power is only taken, never granted. (I balked at this for along time — due to thinking like a good slave.) It is work to keep your power. It requires time, some experience, clear enough thinking, and a backbone. Anyone who does not do that in relationship with their self, personal relationships, and group relationships is a victim / slave in that arena.
Fight the power!
I don’t recommend “fighting”. That just solidifies “them” as being in charge. “Fight the power” is just about the most ironically counter productive slogan ever.
When is it okay to use force?
- Enforcing an agreement that was entered into by competent parties. Actually, since all competent parties agreed to a use of force, it’s “consequences being forced” to happen, not just “fiat force”.
- Protecting myself or those under stewardship from direct possible harm (violent coercion and compulsion).
- Those who are not “competent” to manage themselves. To the degree they aren’t and/or in the area they aren’t. The simple metic is, will anyone contract with them? No? Then these people automatically filter to those who have interest and resources to steward them.
Force is usually a win-lose proposition. That’s partly why gov’s love laws: Once the are in, everyone else loses, by definition.
Personal freedom and group sustainability need to be balanced, right?
How do you do that?? It is insanely arrogant to think I could know:
How much I should limit Sally’s, Fred’s, Lisa’s, etc., freedoms…
Which freedoms to limit and for how long and in which ways…
What group sustainability is for a particular group…
How to identify and manage the sustainability variables…
How to manage changes in the group and changes in the variables…
How the group is supposed to interact with other groups etc.
It’s impossible to manage from the top down because the feedback loops are very weak and so the “leaders” don’t really experience the consequences of their actions. Who better to make decisions, or contract them out, than the people who are going to experience the consequences?
The same pattern in a totally different milieu! This is what works — universally!
…Trust… My job depends on it… Until WWII conductors were usually dictators, these tyrannical figures who would rehearse not just the orchestra as a whole, but individuals within it to an inch of their lives. We now have a 2 way street… [feedback loop!] As conductor I come to rehearsal with a cast iron sense of the outer architecture of that music within which there is then immense personal freedom for the members of the orchestra to shine… In order for this to all work, I have to be in a position of trust… I have to trust the orchestra and even more crucially I have to trust myself [self trust!]…
When you are in a position of not trust what do you do? Overcompensate. In my game [he gets it!] that means you over gesticulate — end up like a rabid windmill, and the bigger you gesticulate, the more ill defined, blurry and useless it is to the orchistra… you become a figure of fun … There’s no trust anymore, only ridicule.
… In South Africa… Opera company of 40 signers… Most black… one white performer had been a policeman who would aggress the community… How did we recover from that?… Simply, we sang, we sang, we sang, and amazingly new trust grew. [they built REPUTATION]