Popobawa4u's ideas on organising a free society based on voluntary groups


#1

Continuing the discussion from Eric Holder: no more civil forfeiture without warrant/charges:

The category “wrath” seems appropriate, not because we’ve been particularily wrathful, but because it is, by definition, the appropriate category for religion, politics, and cycling.

I really hope I haven’t completely messed up picking the topic title. It’s not about my ideas, after all.

I’m fascinated by your ideas, but I distrust them/disagree on many different points. But I still feel that either the defects can be fixed, or the good points can be incorporated into a different system. So I’m still listening. I hope I haven’t misunderstood too much of what you’re getting at, so maybe you can summarize “the proposal” again?

  1. Geography is relevant. I mostly interact with people near me, so I need some sort of common framework with them. The laws or non-laws that govern those relationships are the laws that affect me the most. By contrast, the fact that bOING bOING is a dictatorship with draconian laws enforced by an actual (?) dragon does not hurt me much.

  2. Coercion is relative. One man’s “coercion” is another man’s protection from coercion. The boundary is a matter of ideology and politics, and often cannot be decided in a neutral and objective manner.

  3. You’re not solving the problem of “government”, as the rules for how groups are formed and how they interact sounds suspiciously like a set of laws that are subject to ideological debate and that need to be administered by some sort of government.

  4. Groups with completely voluntary membership cannot enforce some laws/rules that I consider necessary or beneficial for society. Unless…

  5. Groups that provide important services can enforce arbitrary rules because people would lose their services if they don’t comply. Extreme case: “If you fail to go to church regularly, St. Mary’s Hospital will stop treating your cancer.” Less extreme case: “Dear teenagers, please accept these Facebook Terms of Service that you did not read, or set up a Diaspora server in your mom’s basement and get all your friends to use it.”

  6. Revoking the charter of a group that is too coercive towards its members requires a set of laws to decide when it should be done (3) and may have bad consequences for the members (5)

  7. Revoking the charter of a group that has a negative impact on others should be done according to democratically set laws and with due process (3), rather than according to some rating system which might be manipulated, and which is basically an ad-hoc decision by mob rule.

  8. Besides the state itself, there are other large power structures outside of democratic control (big corporations, hierarchically-organised churches, etc.). I’d like my democratically elected “government” to be the biggest, meanest of them all. If we replace the democratically elected government by something smaller, less powerful and therefore more democratic, something has to be done about the other organisations, too.

  9. Laws are complex, and they still will be complex when you kick out all the crud. I do not want to have to know the details of food safety before I buy groceries, and I do not want to read up on different building codes before I enter a building. My ignorance will be exploited.

  10. You’re trying to optimize the individual group charters towards freedom and a harmonious society by penalizing "bad’ groups. This is, mathematically speaking, an optimization problem. Sooner or later, the optimization converges to an optimum, meaning that the group in question lives happily without making others unhappy. A group charter has hundreds of variables that need to be optimized, so any optimization process will converge very slowly. Too slowly. People will look for some other way to protect them from drunk drivers, from polluters, and from people who disagree about the definition of rape if the optimization process takes too long.


Do I need to join a common group before I interact with someone, or will random interactions still be regulated by “the government” (3)? Or will each of our groups just be “policing their own”?


#2

No! XD I need to refer you or anyone else interested to the other topic. I hadn’t realized how much I typed there, but it was a few pages, and my kid is home sick today so I can’t re-do it. See mostly posts 16-24, and 29-36.

(1). Of course geography is relevant. But people have a lot of choice about both their geographic location, and with whom they interact. I’d argue that the reason you expect other people and their laws to affect you is because you are accustomed to living in a coercive environment. People are given political and economic incentives to influence people rather than let them freely associate. Basically, there is no reason to assume that physical proximity implies that people living there have the same values or goals. But the prevailing paradigm of nation-states and municipalities has been that this uniformity must be assumed - or imposed. People in some urban environments are accustomed to a reality of people with different kinds of families, businesses, religions, and outlooks on life generally living within the same space. Generally they do this despite local laws, which tend to be normative, rather than facilitated by them.

(2). Coercion as protection from coercion not only makes the idea relative, but recursive, requiring regressive iterations to manage. And what do we do about those who prefer to not be protected by others? Part of my intention is to make the deciding factors ecological, rather than ideological, modelled upon what is least disruptive.

(3). What I proposed were not laws, but conditions. This might seem like a semantic slight to some. But I see initial conditions for participation as being distinctly different than prescriptions of behavior. The only “law” effectively being to make your ideology the concern of your own group, and not that of others. But I agree that this, by design, leaves much undecided which would currently be the province of governmental intervention.

(4). Why should they need to enforce their laws? People who find those laws objectionable can join another, or start their own group.

(5). Arbitrary rules are, by nature, coercive - because there is no way to explicitly know or comply with them. If they are conditions to membership in the first place, then they aren’t arbitrary. But this requires people to make some decisions. Sure, you might find yourself negotiating what church you go to, or health care. But the goal here is for the individual to have more options, which they have more participation in. You still seem to frame things in terms of individuals compliance with terms of a larger group, rather than equitable participation. Fairness requires participation and negotiation instead of some big policy-for-everyone which is supposed to somehow just “happen to be” fair.

(6). I agree that this is the most difficult part. Although you are once again drawing a sharp distinction between the group and the members. Groups are basically emergent properties of what the members do. If you can belong to or create whatever group you choose, there is minimal reason for friction within groups. It would more likely occur between different groups. What I am thinking of is something - to employ a misunderstood, overused term - cybernetic. That is, models which strive for a certain algorithmic homeostatis. I know it sounds like hand waving, but this part needs work.

As for dissolution of groups having bad consequences - partly, whatever consequences - good, bad, or indifferent - are merely the results of their actions. Also, such a system as this encourages many memberships. If you are a member of 100 groups for various reasons, and a few are created and dissolved every few months is not as drastic as in a hierarchical system where a big organizations dissolution could be perceived as catastrophic. The proliferation allows for much more redundancy. Many of these, because of size limitations, would be somewhat special purpose. So you would probably belong to separate groups for such things as your church, schools, stores, healthcare, etc. adding or subtracting a few when you are all free to join others is fairly safe.

This also helps to overcome one of the main reasons for entrenched coercive power structures - which is that of organizations overstaying their welcome, or mutating away from their original intentions. It encourages something more like a natural life-cycle for organizations where them being easier both to instantiate and dissolve is a feature. Meanwhile if something worked perfectly, nothing stops others from copying it, or the members from creating a group which carries on its most successful ideas and practices.

(7). I agree that ideally the status of the charters should be a democratic process. The trouble with this is that it could only reasonably be expected to be democratic within the group itself, or between it and another specific party(ies) in dispute. Without the “streamlining” which occurs by having hierarchies make decisions for others, there is no practical way to expect millions of other groups to take time out to evaluate yours.

I agree that some concept of due process is needed, and again should be known at the outset. This is in part why the reputation/risk assessment needs to be a homeostatic balance, rather than an absolute measurement. This allows groups to evaluate the effects of their actions. A large factor in my reasoning for having this algorithmically managed is precisely to avoid personal ideologies or mob rule becoming a problem. Of course it can be argued that algorithms can merely convey the implicit assumptions of their creators, which I agree is the case, but I think that implementing such a thing is workable.

(8). Corporations and churches only appear to be outside of democratic control because they have been perpetuated using dysfunctional democracies. Your nominally democratic state uses your authority as a citizen to charter these organizations. Typically with lots of metaphysical bias as baggage, and no time or size limits to expansion. These kinds of groups are no different than a civic 1000-person cryptocountry or a 50-person tribal marriage.

Such an opt-in, non-coercive system as this does not attack the currently-existing institutions. But if those continue working by their existing coercive status quo - they won’t be recognized as valid groups to interact with. Not unlike how the United Nations would refuse to acknowledge one of the countries I create by not conforming to their standards. If a current country, company, church, school, etc is sufficiently small and fair, it could participate in the system unchanged. Otherwise they would need to split into many, smaller groups. You can’t very well work for or do business with a corporation which isn’t a valid business, chartered by a country which isn’t a valid country!

(9). I think laws are generally unnecessarily and deliberately complicated. If you like your current government system, does this mean that you do read up on food and building codes there? Or is it merely that you feel you don’t need to? In most of the world, even in democratic countries, ignorance of law is actively exploited even now. If you live in an area with minimal corruption then perhaps you are lucky. If ignorance equals exploitation, then there is no easy answer to how or why you should expect to be safe without being aware. It is fortunate that you have someone you trust to handle this, but does not account for others who do not - or even directly suggest that you would be precluded from doing so in the future.

In pure democratic terms, I have found that most people by far do not even read the actual laws of where they currently reside. I could be wrong, but I think the general statistical trend here is accurate. What does law mean in a democracy when even in litigious, authoritative countries less than 1% of the population care to read or know just what those laws are?

(1) Not at all! Penalty doesn’t even enter into it. Although it can seem like that from the perspective of a system where groups are encouraged to be immortal and amass power and influence. The idea is to make the basic conditions known up front so that if people decide not to adhere to them that they are effectively opting out. This puts the responsibility on people evenly. But I agree that this does function as an optimization process. In a bureaucratic culture, these problems are designed to be intractable, and involve unsavory compromises, because these groups have been founded upon or exploited into systems which make careers from obfuscation and influence. For instance, laws are actually not currently meant to be understood by the people they apply to. Because interpreting them gives somebody a job. And since this total system is, as Kafka said, for everybody - there is no opting out, as things have been.

Enough for now! Got to go check on the little one!


#3

I didn’t get too deep into the precepts laid out here, but it seems this discussion shouldn’t go too far without invoking @William_Holz and A Biggish Idea


#4

Aye, that’s what I’m getting; a bit of Holtz, a dash of Snow Crash and a soupcon of Anarcho-Syndicalism.


#5

Ok… if you must! I don’t know what it has to do with what I’ve been outlining, but would be interested in any specific comparisons.


#6

That’s me!!

Err, but I don’t own ideas or anything. I’m just a guy, I think we’ve all had some similar overlapping ideas over time, I just had an unusual impetus and got the core idea from somebody cleverer than I.

But yeah, I think we’re on a similar wavelength. I’m a proponent of using the legal shell of a corporation to create a place (though not tied to any particular chunk of dirt) where people who are willing to contribute and not be a dickhole (okay, we’ve come up with like five principles, but they’re pretty mellow stuff) can form their own societies based on who they are at that point in time.

It was a little different in that I believe I’m using ‘employment’ as a proxy for citizenship, but that’s really still just a contract. People are agreeing to raise the bar a bit in exchange for the ability to live with and move freely between groups that have already formed (and have matching agreements and such) and/or to form your own groups as long as you can collect the people.

In a nutshell, I’m liking the cut of your jib, sir! I’d love to help and think if enough of us banded together we could let a whole bunch of people just take a step to the left and pretty much rewrite the planet. :smile:


#7

I just figured that out! I read the page a while back, but hadn’t connected that with your posts here.

Ah, ok, I guess I came to a similar idea from the other way around, citizenship/statehood as employment. But to a perhaps similar effect of generalizing contracts.

Some of these are ideas I had touched on to various extents over time. But started trying to work through in a bit more detail about two years ago. What was happening with me then was increasingly doing more independent work, and getting fired from my job. So it seemed like a good time to look into what sort of organizations I could start. I have been rather mistrustful of state-run currencies, because if/when they decide that they don’t like what you do, it goes ->poof<-… And things like businesses and NPOs which were on offer as possibilities all seemed to assume a lot about my goals. Basically, they make it impossible to run a company which doesn’t have a “selfish” angle to it. Yet, if you want to make an official non-profit, they seem to make it so that you can’t change much with it. I considered expatriating from the US, but I have a parental custody situation here which prevents easily leaving (together), and most other countries still seem fairly unenlightened with regards to options for organizational structures. So, if I want to expatriate, and make a new kind of company, and use a non-national currency - why not start another country right here where I am? And make a useful framework so anybody else can do the same?

It’s not easy, but not impossible. I honestly think that there is a better chance of pulling it off by creating somewhat new kinds of social structures than convincing people to retrofit those they currently use, This way, those who are reluctant needn’t feel pressured to change until they’re ready. It depends upon making alternatives which are robust, and to what extent people really value their autonomy. Even if this slowly become a better option over decades or even 100 years could well be a better option than “business as usual”.


#8

Good to meetcha, Popobawa4…me? Did I do that right?

I was kind of flabbergasted that anyone remembered!

Yup, we definitely started from totally different points but started to converge after a bit, didn’t we? I think that’s a good sign, we’re converging on the same fundamental ideas despite that. :smile:

The advantage here is that we just have more solutions to the same problems, and that’s made of win, right?

My starting point was given to me, but it was basically to take Valve one step further and not only let people choose their own squads to work with, but also to create campuses where people can live as well. Only surrounded by those people who share those same principles and you already get along with (if you want to)

And we both know the moment you do that (surround yourself just with people who agree on the same basic things…as long as they don’t involve ruining other peoples’ days of course) life gets a LOT easier.

So, totally different starting points…however…

Again…converging on the same place. Exactly the same long term goals. A polyeconomy of sorts. Some people are better suited to live at a particular time in their lives under a different motivational system. Sometimes we want to be able to focus just on the work and it’s not particularly quantifiable…and other times we want to play for doubloons, right?

So we experiment with our own economies and every quarter or so make a system where people can move about. The various systems (living arrangements, social systems, governance, economic, etc.) that are popular get a lot of people (but never everyone because we have lots of variety in humanity) and the ones that suck (like most of our current ones) don’t have any people…because they suck.

Agreed. ‘If you build it…’ There’s NOTHING like what either of us is talking about on the table, we just want all the options to get their chance in the realm of options, right?

I DO think that we might have a bonus tool/toy then for you with the co-opernation approach, since it was designed SPECIFICALLY to be extremely competitive and grow very quickly (and also gobble up resources) until it was basically completely independent. All of the focus of the initial design was to create a massive productivity buffer to manage that growth. And there’s a LOT of good science in the design.

I bet there’s somebody on the intentional community side who sees the same basic potential and the trap we’re all stuck in, and probably in a few other places too.

Of course the really big question is how do we crowdsource some combined solution (I do love that we both use ‘framework’ a lot) and get some players involved that can help kick things into motion?

Because the alternative is pretty crappy, right? Like the worlds worst LARP ever, but we’re all forced to play?


#9

(1)
a) Yes, I get to choose my geographic location, and the people I interact with. But given the choice - would I rather live in your perfect utopia, or would I prefer to live in a flawed democracy/social market economy if I get to live in my home town, the town I grew up in, the town most of my friends live, where I have family and relations, where I can regularly see my grandmother while she’s still alive, where there’s my scout troop and the kids whose scoutmaster I’ve been for years? Well, if that’s the choice, keep your utopia, I’m happy where I am. So any mechanism that requires me to move or stop interacting with my existing friends and acquaintances in order to get my freedom is a non-starter for me.

b) I am not assuming that people in proximity have the same values or goals. (Though there is some correlation - put a small slice of America, a small slice of Austria, and a small slice of China next to each other and compare).
The only thing I have been assuming is that people in proximity will interact (because they randomly meet, bump each other, or run their cars over each other’s cats) and will want to interact (because I prefer meeting people in person over long-distance contact).

(5) Already I feel more oppressed by economic realities and private groups imposing strange conditions, and less by my government. And as Austria has a long and proud tradition of being overly bureaucratic (just ask Kafka), so that’s saying something.
I stand by my Facebook example, but I have another one:
Austria’s (sort-of democratically legitimized but coercive) copyright law gives me the right to make copies of any CD I own for giving away to personal friends and acquaintances. Stores don’t have the right to impose any additional conditions on what I do with the CDs I bought.
But we also get iTunes and all the others. They all have clauses that specifically forbid me from passing songs on to friends. I’m in a situation where I’ve got a lot of choice between different suppliers, and theoretically I’m able to “negotiate” the conditions. I don’t need to buy anything from iTunes, after all. But when physical media are finally phased out, I will have lost the freedom to give my music to my personal friends. Not because of some evil state coercion, but because of conditions I voluntarily agreed to when I downloaded a song from iTunes.

(6) How many organisations/groups can there be that make sure that if I need a complicated medical treatment, I can get it? (I’m assuming free health care, because I’m European and I won’t support any utopia where I have to do without it). I apparently have to join more than one, in case one of them gets dissolved.
Also, a group that is primarily about the people in it is never redundant and thus cannot be replaced - that only works for abstract groups that provide some service.

(9) I agree 100% on your point about unnecessary complexity, but I maintain that even without that, society is inherently complex. I’ll stick with the food and building code example - no, I have not read the Austrian food or building codes. I’d have to learn a lot about food chemistry and construction to evaluate the law on its merits. But if they were too lax, I’d notice, because buildings would fall down and people get poisoned in my area. I would find out because I interact with other local people, read local news, etc, and all shops that I enter in my area follow the same building code.
If every grocery store in my area followed a different code, I could not possibly keep track. The same flawed food safety code might be followed only in far-away places, and I’d have to read Chinese news in order to find out that I should shun any grocery store that follows that code (that’s my only legitimate way of coercing them to change their code, isn’t it?).

(10) … but you said groups that cause problems for others would have their charter revoked. I called that penalizing.
And there is, of course, the much simpler “penalty” that no one will join a truly bad group.

(2,4) I will join a group that is expressly opposed to drunk driving and excessive speeding. If any individuals disagree with me (they don’t need to form a group to do that), I can either
(a) coerce them to stop driving drunk near me
(b) make sure that I’m not near them when they’re driving drunk.
If (b), then they are coercing me to move away from my home and my friends (see 1).
So yes, there are laws/rules/conditions I want everyone near me to be coerced to follow (while I expect > 90% to be responsible enough to follow them without coercion).
Note that using an “oibjective” definition such as “not affecting others” does not really work here; when you drive your car around town at walking speed, you are a negligible risk for pedestrians; when you go at 200 kiloimeters an hour while drunk, you’re posing a significant risk for pedestrians. Just what risk a pedestrian should be required to accept if he wants to keep living near you is a matter of taste and cannot be decided objectively. Rather, a compromise has to be negotiated (“democracy”) or imposed (“dictatorship”) and everyone coerced to follow it.
(I think the above is the strongest part of my argument, please respond to this in particular)

And finally, how do you deal with antisocial individuals? Or even just plain crazy axe-murderers? No matter how perfect the society, once in a while, someone will go crazy. We will need to use coercion against him, won’t we? And once we have taken his axe away, we need to agree what to do with him. Shall we leave that responsibility to existing criminal justice systems, or can that somehow be managed by voluntary democratic groupings?


#10

Mind if I make a few observations as somebody who’s had some similar conversations on an idea with some overlap?

By definition any idea that is offering to let people create their own custom built societies is for people who aren’t stuck on a particular chunk of dirt. Not everybody in close proximity agrees on everything, and most people change quite a bit over the course of their lives.

It’s just a logistical nightmare to try to deal with, and there’s no point in starting a system like either of us are proposing by designing it around people who aren’t more than happy to hop to a different place if that’s where the people who share their particular passions/goals/defaults/etc. are.

It doesn’t mean that either approach can’t eventually incorporate such a thing, or that groups of people can’t willingly stay in proximity. It’s just that of the several billion people on the planet we’re best off addressing those who are a bit more flexible before moving on to those who aren’t. That still gives us a pool of a few billion, including most of the young ones.

And so we have, if a bit out of order.

The moment you take the ‘I refuse to move’ criteria out of there, suddenly things get REALLY easy. You just have different geographic zones with completely different rulesets and people vote on their favorite government/social system/whatever by announcing their intention to move to that zone

Sure, somebody CAN stay in the same place their whole lives, but they’d have to be really lucky…either because they’re just that zen anywhere or because they just happened to be born in JUST the right place for them and were surrounded by JUST the right people.

Besides, the people who will kick this system into high gear are those who would happily vote with their feet, and by convenient coincidence they’ll be the ones who thrive there during the early stages (it’s not like most people’s current suites of options are hard to compete with). The more people we have, the more options we create, the easier it gets to recruit other types of people, and so on.

That’s actually a pretty good question on @popobawa4u’s side (I can see a couple of mechanisms, but we’re using completely different legal frameworks so I’m not going to assume), but for my co-opernation approach it’s pretty simple. The first step is to allow people to ‘quit’ (and thereby revert to their original nationality) or else have a buffer region where they can be taken care of in exchange for useful work but have no influence over any internal operations until after a probationary period…but if somebody really just isn’t going to ever get with the program (a stealth asshole) then we’d roll to the second step and they’d just end up getting fired.

That was kind of a lucky convenience on my side though. By creating a sort of supplemental citizenship (that just happens to be way better than any regular citizenship) and not forcing people to revoke what they have we also don’t have to deal with any of that mess.


#11

Not at all. If you will just forgive me if my arguments sometimes attack that strawman that is somewhere between your and popbawa4u’s ideas. I’ve only sampled your writings so far, I hope I’m not completely off.

I understand that.
And if some people experiment with custom built societies, maybe they’ll hit on some good ideas that can be incorporated back into real societies (sorry, that was a cheap shot, but I couldn’t resist ;-))

You seem to have an American perspective on “moving”. Americans seem to be quite happy to move from coast to coast, but that’s a very uniform cultural space. Other cultures, even progressive urban European culture, seem to place more value on long-term friendships and family ties, on regional culture, on traditions. You don’t have billions of people available for your experiment. You don’t even have “most of the young people”; and many of those willing to move will either want to move “back home” at some point or would make a new home and be unwilling to give that up again.
if it’s just an experiment you’re after, then you’ll probably have enough people, anyway.

But it seems to me you want to improve society as a whole; if an experiment works, you want more and more people to either join you or start similar experiments.
Now, we have to think about the second generation of people, the children born to people living in any such new utopia. Will they be so happy to move? “Do as we say, or you’ll be kicked out of your home” doesn’t sound like freedom to me.

In many current dictatorships, and in all of our flawed democracies, people are allowed to vote with their feet. You don’t like that so many people are getting shot by police in the US? Stop complaining, leave the US and move to Austria (we have mostly non-lethal police racism here). You don’t agree that newspapers reprinted Charlie Hebdo Cartoons out of spite, thus insulting people who didn’t deserve it? Well, maybe move to Iran. You don’t like the options? Sure, they could be better. I don’t think “let them just vote with their feet” solves anything.

I’m not saying that you can’t run a societal experiment that people will vote for “with their feet”. I’m saying that there are far too high costs associated with moving from one zone/group/experimental society to another to lead to a healthy competition between the zones/groups. And they are too high to give a reasonable measure of “freedom” to individuals. Freedom has always been won by people who said “this is my home, and I want to have this freedom right here”. By the people who refused to vote with their feet.

I see how that can work. Communism failed in practice partly because (a) lazy people worked less efficiently and (b) evil people tried to be “more equal” than others. By getting to pick your people and to fire people as a last resort, you eliminate problem (a).
But I’m afraid that “you can move out of your company-provided house, take your kids away from their friends in the company-run school, say goodbye to all your friends and move out of the company town whenever you want” doesn’t really help at all against problem (b).


#12

No problem at all! Though some of these are specific so the solutions are going to have to be a bit more targeted. There are generally lots of solutions and some are compatible with the co-opernation approach, some with popobawa4u’s, some with using a NGO/charity as a shell, and so on.

But knowing solutions are there helps keep that creative process going, no?

I probably should’ve said that better.

At FIRST the ‘optimal pool’ for the co-opernation approach is basically anybody who’d be willing to travel for a job where they’re provided a very high standard of living, the ability to choose between a large number of governmental, social, and economic systems (or create their own) who also is eager, easily motivated, and skilled in whatever LOB/supply chain component is being pursued at that moment.

However, the fact that we can treat ourselves as a job and not force people to ‘give up’ their nationality (we could set up shop like franchises) is a pretty big advantage. It’s not that different from your typical corporate, college, military, or other campus at a fundamental level.

That’s also why the big advantages at first are for the mobile, they’re the ones that make the system work the best and fastest because they’ll help us optimize our Campus Standards/National Laws/Spillover Benefits systems (So various campuses are set up in places with compatible local laws and we’re spilling out benefits that the local community/host nation greatly wants…needless to say I’m a big fan of healthcare)

In the end I think as we stabilize and grow we do end up with a pretty massive pool, because we’re offering people up the chance to live a life based on who they are now and who they want to become rather than just having a birth-nation lottery. But we don’t appeal to certain parts of the population until we get much larger, and certain people will NEVER want to join up. But that’s fine. Nothing’s for everyone, but this raises the bar and starts competing for people by offering them up lives they want…and who else does that?

And again, I think that with the co-opernation approach those costs and risks are greatly minimized. We’re using the existing legal framework of a corporation, not of a nation.

And without those risks, I think there are going to be a lot of people who choose to gravitate towards Cosplay Island or even just for little improvements like being part of a government where it’s not okay for people in authority to lie.

And it doesn’t even preclude somebody setting up shop right next door, people could stay together and not necessarily move at all…but you DO see where the logistical issues happen, right? What if you and most of the people nearby want to set up a better set of rules but not EVERYONE does? Either somebody moves or somebody gets kicked out. Or you’re stuck with the same set of laws that some old dead guys who didn’t think women could make good decisions or black people weren’t entirely people came up with.

We’re starting by favoring moving heavily over kicking people out or trapping people in the past. That’s all, really.

So I’m really not seeing the big concern there. It’s all entirely optional, but for our initial growth the mobile are far more useful than the stuck-in-the-dirt.

Nah,we solve (b) by having a serious focus on principled hiring, a basic set of ethics coming in (REALLY simple stuff) and by firing your ass if your’e a dick or have no interest in doing anything useful. I mean, right off murderers and such can be dropped back on their original birth nation, but we could come up with a Finnish-style alternative or something. And we don’t really need people to work amazingly hard in the end, so we’re not terribly demanding. We should have more than a sufficient productivity buffer to take on a lot of people who can’t help themselves and nobody else is helping too…to support them even if they aren’t employee/citizens.

Except on the asshole thing. We draw a big line on thinking it’s okay to ruin somebody else’s day and there’s never going to be a reason to bring in a bunch of drama queens. They can stay outside.


#13

This topic was automatically closed after 760 days. New replies are no longer allowed.