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.
Conversation
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
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
1
8
Replying to
Many voting protocols like quadratic voting *could* update democracy in a big way en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic
There’s also horse trading which can be murky though can enable positive sum outcomes
2
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
There is something there but I’m wary of directly deriving political and spiritual from economic and material.
Like I said I think the former has an independent foundation and process character that must be modeled separately and then coupled in.
"must be modeled separately and then coupled in" - but that's exactly what futarchy does.
1
1
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


