Conversation

We talk about post-capitalism like it’s a thing, but not post-democracy. All post-democracy paths seem like reactionary paths backwards. I suspect post-capitalism seems more real because it feels like we can improve on money as a technology but not on voting as a technology.
8
63
Money and votes are both transactional technologies of ongoing consent. I give/take money from you = I consent to mutually update a contracted non-violent relationship state I vote with/against you = I consent to mutually update a contracted non-violent relationship state
1
17
The diff is money is positive-only by design. Negative monetary transactions are theft or extraction (non-consensual without value in return, whether by thieves or the state in the form of fines) But votes can be “negative” in the sense you and I can vote for competing sides.
2
8
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Sounds like it suggests a coupling *mechanism* (betting on beliefs) but does not model or design for belief processes per se. This is what I think models like those of Fukuyama achieve that those of economists generally do not, or do so in a caricatured way.
1
Show replies