At first i read that w/ dismay..but why could history not be respected when crafting new systems?
But, let’s not bash the middle.’ Mushy? That is where the Sensible Center is.
At any rate, within such a system, it is my understanding any party can be formed So …

It might be assumed that I “LOVE” money in politics… (since I’m advocating more people giving more often via a micro-transaction capability)

But this is not necessarily so… what I crave is a better balance of inputs to decision, mechanisms of accountability, … and some means of responding to and reducing the enormous costs* for anyone but an “Establishment” approved candidate to ever see the light of day. And I see the micro-transaction as a vehicle for doing that.

* costs have always been a problem but they are magnified as a result of not properly protecting the interests of the Commons when new technological ‘landscapes’ (radio, television) were incorporated into our existing cognitive environment. I believe the network I suggest can drastically reduce and/or eliminate those costs.

I’d like to argue that should the Pirate Party’s approach succeed… and I hope it does… and eventually negate (or at least seriously reduce) the need for monetary participation in politics… that nevertheless, the commons-owned account network remains a fundamental for scaling human association and decision.

It may be that its political contribution potential serves only as one of a number of possible avenues for catalyzation of this (or these) transaction networks.

I have to confess that it may be my own cognitive bias (talking my own ‘book’) that convinces me that this commons-oriented capability is vital well beyond its role in whatever current representative models are out there… but I rest it on some roughly forming ideas:

1. That money really IS rooted in motivating the transfer of a decision (an idea + an action) from one to another and was made necessary with the growth of human groups beyond natural human community size… that its a tool utterly dependent on socially shared assumptions… and that hence, the manner of its creation and distribution become critical to the decision and survival capabilities of a group

2. And that money, while a necessary tool without which human groups would not have ever been able to scale at all… as currently formulated is a technology incapable by of addressing what I consider the three scaling dilemmas humanity faces… and without remediation exacerbates those dilemmas.

THE THREE SCALING DILEMMAS

(While humanity faces many, many problems with scale… water shortages, climate change, wars, plagues and on and on… what I’m talking about are qualities inherent in our very biology… tensions that truly aren’t ‘solvable’ but can only be managed… and must more or less… be eternally monitored. In fact I’d argue that these dilemmas are universal and applicable to any intelligent social species anywhere in the universe)

1.The Altruism Dilemma:

Its natural that we are more emotionally upset by the death of a close friend than reading about the death of thousands far away that we don’t know. It’s also essential! Caring strongly about those around you is necessary to form the bonds to keep a group functioning… but were the same degree of attachment to exist with all members of our species… we’d either be in constant grief unable to function… or we’d have to live in an world of very restricted information so as to not be bothered with the constant onslaught of very sad news.

This is the inescapable distinction between biological and intellectual altruism. This doesn’t suggest that the expansion of intellectual altruism is a bad thing. In fact its a very good and necessary thing. It just means that, by itself… it can’t solve the inherent bias in decision makers. And this, btw, in my opinion is why Authoritarianism is able to exist at all. But its more pernicious effects are more subtle… and has much to do with the history of colonialism and how the introduction and eventual dependence on non-indigenous monetary systems has inhibited local development in much of the world.

And it really is the dilemma all representative systems in whatever form are attempting to address.

2. The “Monsters From the ID” Dilemma:

Simply put, the rational mind evolved to serve the lizard brain. However convoluted the path of motivation… Einstein came up with E=MC2 to get laid, fed and approval from the fellow members of his tribe. In fact there’s been a positive feedback loop for quite a while now (millions of years) between better cognition and better chances for survival. I’m big on rationality! I too hope to get laid, fed and approval from my fellows.

But there’s an issue that has to be managed when our ability to serve the lizard-brain becomes… well… just too good. Because the lizard-brain doesn’t want to do a thing except have sex, eat and admire itself. And it really reacts badly to being thwarted.

And in terms of representation and decision… in a scaled society without remedial mechanisms, especially one afflicted with the first dilemma (namely all large societies)… the resulting hierarchical structure (despite being representative rather than authoritarian in concept and intent) results (quite naturally but problematically) in a narrow decision making class… utilizing ‘lizard-brain’ laden messaging (emotion-based argument is as old as humanity) over rational argument to advance its agendas. In other words, any group will have divisions. But in a larger group… especially a hierarchical one… unless mechanisms are introduced to combat it… the leadership, even if believing fully in their own good intentions in some representative system, will cultivate the ‘mob’ rather than the ‘crowd’ if for no other reason than that its easier and cheaper. This is a problem.

Because ‘democracy’ can be seen as name applied to both a mob or a crowd… But its only a “crowd” democracy that can avoid devolution into the manipulation and eventual internalized exploitation of a stagnant representative system.

In other words, if isolated from the decision process and its consequences… and moreover intentionally deceived or kept in the dark (even with good intentions by people who may well believe in their tales and purposes)… people DO accept ‘idiocracy’… at least long enough to burn through their resources and the inevitable collapse… while at the same time eroding whatever civic decision capability they have.

And the ultimate “monsters-from-the-id” dilemma really was laid out by that old science fiction movie… “Forbidden Planet” and ties into the third scaling issue we face: What happens when technology scales the power of the individual to the point that one or a few pissed-off-people can blow up the world? That may be an extreme way of framing it but this changing power relationship magnifies a justice imperative hyperbolically.

3. The “ICT and the Ultimatum Game” dilemma:

Authoritarianism was justified by the authoritarian with rationalizations offered by the first dilemma (“The ‘little people’ must be content with their lot… this is the way of the world… without our leadership they would certainly fall into chaos and disaster.”)

And maintained with the second. (bread-and-circuses, flag-waving nationalism and promises by politicians made that are not to be too closely examined).

But its the third dilemma that made Authoritarianism possible at ALL… technological limitations and especially the limited availability of information, communication and organizational capabilities made it impossible for any small discontented element to do much about it. So problems built up until either social explosion, collapse or both occurred.

Even democratic and/or representative systems can only be maintained so long as discontent remains below a threshold whereby the hypothetical number needed to prevent its operation is greater than the actual number of discontented actively seeking to do so.

I’m convinced this is a very real threat. Cultivating ‘idiocracy’ may work for a while when times are good… but when stresses occur… will lead to inevitable disaster preceded by a hopeless but tragic detour into repressive police state-type approaches tying to stop some inevitable number of discontented from doing what they want to do.

A necessary defense against a rising number of discontented is much greater citizen participation in decision within a framework guarding minority rights, cultivating rational rather than lizard-brain debate.

Beyond that however, ultimately the promotion of an economics of ‘distributed resilience’… (localized, independently survivable economies) seems, from an ecological standpoint, to be an important goal though I’d argue with only the minimum number of global but narrowly defined issues remaining necessarily determined by global consensus.

This is contrary to the current globalization meme which sees inter-dependence and cultural harmonization under a commerce-based value system as a positive inhibiting armed conflict. This is a well-intentioned position and not without merit.

A model for the synthesis necessary between localization and globalization models is needed. But won’t work as envisioned.

Enough for now.