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
Conversation
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
"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
Yes, what we need are good mechanisms, not models.
1
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
I read your words, but just don't understand what you mean.
2
3
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 🙂
1
3
I'm open to a direct voice or video conversation. Text is much worse medium for getting past lack of understanding.
1
5
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.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
That’s ok. My own rate never tops 10%. I usually understand what I’m saying only 5 years later.
2


