Conversation

Replying to
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
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.
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
Thanks for the offer, perhaps I’ll take you up on it if this line of thought develops much more seriously for me. For the moment I need to continue in a lightweight conversational mode with those who intuitively get what I’m driving at here.
4