[MG] Striking at the root

alex at twister11.de alex at twister11.de
Sat Feb 18 10:28:32 EST 2012


> Ned> As with the "working ballot experiment", the "full collaborative
governance experiment" has never been run before, and has not until now
even been possible
> -- the new governance systems will need to use technologies that are only
now available.

What about starting with "full collaborative governance" for companies?
There is the corporate governance, there might be a court of arbitration,
security guards, developement of vision, mission statement, and guiding
principles, distribution of income streams, make-or-buy-decisions,
operational execution, and so on....
In essence, what we have is a group of people that do selforganisation of
their life's ...but in practice they find out, that because of special
skills they have and special ressources they have access to, they do NOT
selforganize their entire life, but use MAKE-OR-BUY-Decisions to cooperate
with others (externals) ...

today, normal organisations are not really groups of people that work
together at eye level, but instead they have hierarchies. There might be in
fact companys that have very flat hierarchies but they still have them.
some might use democracy as a mechanism but that often leads to the reign
of the will of majority.

So what systems do we need to enable companys of partners to be founded
adhoc and disbanded adhoc? If u have 5 people, thats probably not a big
deal...what if its 50 people? what if its 500? what if its thousands?
.....what if its millions - like whole nations?

What principle could be used to make it scale?
I like votorola, because it scales so nicely, but votorola is only part of
the picture - maybe its hard to think about all the things a country has to
take care of, we could start with something smaller, like companys... there
are small companys and there are large companys - whats there needs?
maybe its possible to learn about skills that occupy people have and enable
them to found their own OCCUPY COMPANYS that use alternative principles
backed by the right open source software, that will enable them to be more
effective than traditional companys... if thats the case, other companys
might start to copy this principles and new startups might uses this
mechanisms and so the experience of living in such a system will be spread.

Not only will it enable occupy to become independent of the traditional
systems, because they can cater themselves, but also will they inspire
others if they succeed.
Starting on a company level will also give us feedback of what works an
what doesnt.

what do you think of it?



On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Ned Conner <npconner at earthlink.net> wrote:

> **
>
> *On Sun, Feb 12 14:51 EST 2012*, Ned Conner wrote:
> Ned> I am a really big fan of tongue power -- I think that that's the way
> we should go.
>
> *On Tue, Feb 14 21:35 EST 2012*, Michael Allan wrote:
> Mike> I take it that if an electoral vote enabled one to communicate in
> ways that were potentially effective then we could no longer claim that the
> vote is absolutely without effect in the world. Its effect would instead be
> incalculable.
>
> Ned> I confess that I don't quite understand what you are saying here, or
> why you are saying it, or what it has to do with my remark that you quoted.
> (Sometimes I'm slow -- sorry.)
> Analysis Topic 1: Vote Power OR Proposal Power
>
> Ned> The "tongue power" I was referring to (I thought I was following your
> usage ...) is that of **giving reasons** for preferring one alternative
> over another. From the "tongue power" perspective, a vote is just a grunt
> -- a gesture. Beyond merely expressing preference, it is not usefully
> communicative -- it expresses no **reasons** for the choice made.
>
> Ned> In order to have collaborative governance, the **reasons** for
> preferences must be given. When I present a thesis that you don't find
> acceptable for various reasons, the most efficient and effective way to
> proceed is for you to articulate an **analysis** (analytically break out
> the parts you find problematic, and articulate the perspectives from which
> you see problems) and then propose **antitheses** (for each part, from
> each perspective, give the **reasons** that you find the part
> problematic). That then gives the two of us (and others who wish to be
> involved) the necessary information to be able to seek a synthesis that
> satisfies everyone. A sketch of the full recursive synthesis process might
> be [thesis > analysis > antitheses > ... (recursive drilling down) ... >
> syntheses > synthesis].
>
> Ned> As is done in Votorola, you could present an alternative thesis (or
> thesis fragment -- recombinant text) without articulating any analyses or
> antitheses, but that would leave me (and others) having to guess about *
> *why** you prefer your thesis to mine. This would greatly hamper attempts
> by myself and others to come up with a synthesis that might satisfy us all.
> To get from thesis to synthesis most effectively and efficiently, it is
> highly helpful to go through analysis and antithesis.
>
> Ned> Using voting as a decision mechanism short-circuits this recursive
> synthesis process of communicating **reasons**. My suggestion is that we
> abandon voting entirely, and instead create a decision system that uses *
> *proposing** (proposal = preference + reasons) as the decision mechanism.
> That is what I meant when I said "I am a really big fan of tongue power --
> I think that that's the way we should go."
> Analysis Topic 2: The Political Power of a Vote
>
> Ned> If all votes are weighted equally, then the **maximum** relative
> political power that each vote can have (in terms of its formal effect in
> making the legislative decision) is 1/N. When the voting population numbers
> (N) in the millions or billions, this is a vanishingly small serving of
> political power. I see an attempt to increase the political power of the
> vote of each citizen from zero to 1/N as an attempt to give each citizen a
> bigger thimble with which to try to bail out this global Titanic that we
> are on.
> Analysis Topic 3: The Other Structural Fault
>
> Mike> Nor could we claim (as I do) that the lack of that vote [carrying
> the full 1/N political power] is the root cause of political bondage,
> economic injustice and other widespread human rights violations [and war,
> poverty, biosphere degradation, fleecing future generations, etc.].
>
> Ned> After a legislative decision is made (even through full-power 1/N
> voting), the legislation is then handed over to hierarchs and capitalists
> and banksters for execution and adjudication. The governance systems of the
> hierarchs and the capitalists and banksters are not democratic: about the
> best that the general citizenry can do to try to affect those decisions is
> to stand out in the streets (in the freezing cold) waving signs.
>
> Ned> In my view, trying to create a voting system that increases the
> political power of the vote of each citizen from zero to 1/N is like trying
> to fix a crack in the legislative sidewalk (structural fault #1) of Jiminy
> Cricket Land. At the end of that sidewalk (at the point that the
> legislation is passed) lies the Grand Canyon (structural fault #2). On the
> other side of that Grand Canyon lies the Land of the Hierarchs and
> Capitalists and Banksters to which the legislation is passed, where
> democracy and collaboration are not to be found, and where political
> bondage, economic injustice, widespread human rights violations, etc.
> flourish -- it is the land where we all actually live, when we are not in
> Jiminy Cricket Land voting to generate better quality legislation for the
> hierarchs and capitalists and banksters to ignore.
>
> Ned> In order for collaborative governance to be able to actually produce
> good governance outcomes in the real world, the collaborative governance
> system must be capable of rendering hierarchies and capitalism and
> parasitic banking obsolete, which means that the system must be capable of
> making all of the governance decisions that hierarchs and capitalists and
> banksters now make, more effectively and efficiently than hierarchs and
> capitalists and banksters now make those decisions.
>
> Ned> To me it seems that resolving structural fault #1 without resolving
> structural fault #2 would be an empty gesture. And, any collaborative
> governance system that was capable of resolving structural fault #2 would
> almost certainly also be capable of resolving structural fault #1 as well.
> For both those reasons, I would suggest that we should be focusing on
> conceiving and creating a collaborative governance system capable of
> resolving structural fault #2.
> Analysis Topic 4: The "Just Do It!" Approach
>
> Mike> Would it [the full-power 1/N vote] really make a difference? I say
> yes, you say no, but really nobody knows because nobody ever tried it
> before. So we'll try it: we'll put a working ballot in the elector's hands
> and see what comes of it.
>
> Ned> There is indeed much to commend the "Just Do It!" approach. I wish
> you well with your experiment. (And also, we would all potentially be more
> effective in our quest to "make things better" if we could collaboratively
> work through to conceiving an experiment that we would all be willing to
> collaborate on running together. Our efforts and resources could then be
> synergistically rather than dysergistically employed.)
> Analysis Topic 5: Diagnosing The Primary Root Problem
>
> Mike> What is the root cause in your own theory?
>
> Ned> I see our primary root problem as being that some of the social
> arrangements we have now set up positive feedback loops that (over
> generations) steadily concentrate more and more wealth and power into fewer
> and fewer hands. These days, the three main social arrangement
> concentrators happen to be hierarchies, capitalism, and parasitic banking.
> In other times, other social arrangements have served to increasingly
> concentrate power.
> Analysis Topic 6: Solving The Primary Root Problem
>
> Ned> So long as we continue to be dependent on the decision making of
> hierarchs, capitalists, and banksters, we cannot remove them from power,
> nor render their roles and their systems obsolete. Therefore, we first need
> a fully operational collaborative governance *decision system* capable of
> making all of the decisions that hierarchs, capitalists, and banksters now
> make, more effectively and efficiently than they now make those decisions.
>
> Ned> As with the "working ballot experiment", the "full collaborative
> governance experiment" has never been run before, and has not until now
> even been possible -- the new governance systems will need to use
> technologies that are only now available.
> Analysis Topic 7: Experimental Validation
>
> Mike: Is it [your proposed root problem, your proposed governance
> solution] open to experimental validation?
>
> Ned> I would say yes. *Any* proposed root problem diagnosis, and any
> proposed governance system solution can be experimentally validated (at
> least indirectly). Governance systems produce governance outcomes (war,
> poverty, biosphere degradation, etc. on the "bad" side, citizens thriving
> and such on the "good" side) that are objectively observable and measurable
> phenomena. To determine whether a proposed problem diagnosis is valid, and
> whether a proposed solution does effectively resolve the problem, one would
> measure and track the governance *outcomes* produced by the decisions of
> the governance system. For example, if the diagnosis were that concentrated
> power is the root cause of wars, and the proposed governance system then
> leads to no more wars, that would constitute evidence (however fuzzy and
> disputable) that the diagnosis and solution were valid.
> ------------------------------
>
>
> On 2/14/2012 6:35 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
>
> Dear Ned, carrying on from here if you oblige:http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:Thoreau_Root
>
>    I am a really big fan of tongue power -- I think that that's the way
> we should go.
>
>
>  I take it that if an electoral vote enabled one to communicate in ways
> that were potentially effective then we could no longer claim that the
> vote is absolutely without effect in the world.  Its effect would
> instead be incalculable.  Nor could we claim (as I do) that the lack
> of that vote is the root cause of political bondage, economic
> injustice and other widespread human rights violations.  Would it
> really make a difference?  I say yes, you say no, but really nobody
> knows because nobody ever tried it before.  So we'll try it: we'll put
> a working ballot in the elector's hands and see what comes of it.
>
> What is the root cause in your own theory?  Is it open to experimental
> validation?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
> http://www.metagovernment.org/
> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
> Manage subscription:
> http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>
>


-- 
______________________
Alexander Praetorius
ICQ - 8201955
Skype - alexander.praetorius
Facebook - Alexander Praetorius
Diaspora / Geraspora - serapath / Alex P
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/attachments/20120218/ccb901c8/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Start mailing list