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
-
Show this thread
-
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.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
Many voting protocols like quadratic voting *could* update democracy in a big way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_voting … There’s also horse trading which can be murky though can enable positive sum outcomes
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
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 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
"must be modeled separately and then coupled in" - but that's exactly what futarchy does.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, what we need are good mechanisms, not models.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I disagree. We need both and and at all 3 loci: economics, politics, and the coupling between them. Otherwise you just create runaway choice pressure and mechanisms that collapse under the weight of choice complexity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I read your words, but just don't understand what you mean.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I’m fine being misunderstood/not understood/dismissed as incoherent or nonsensical for long periods by most people. I’m like Amazon that way.
Perhaps we’ll discover common ground some day in the future to discuss this more 
-
-
I'm open to a direct voice or video conversation. Text is much worse medium for getting past lack of understanding.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.