[p2p-research] excellent contribution on flow money by Martien van Steenbergen

[Ryan Lanham]

Martien:

No system should be advanced, in my opinion, that in any way alters
fundamental human rights such as those of a persons to have
self-determination, to advance their standard of living, and so forth.  The
items in the International Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.worldinbalance.net/agreements/1948-udhr.html are the basis for
any radical political and social change in that they should not be
sacrificed and should ideally be continually reaffirmed.

I hope you will flesh out your ideas on holarchy so that they can be
considered.  Agilism worries me.  Speed and governance generally don't
combine to good effect in my experience.  Agilism as it is often used in
management theory (technocrats use the term) is criticized for being
elitist...a fault given to all technocracy.

One of the powers of democracy is that it assures an equal voice for humans
in basic expressions of public will.  I would hate to see any system put
forward that limits the voice of individuals or that rewards the loudest,
most active, most involved, most technical, etc.  People have a justifiable
suspicious of "vanguards" of anything.

Fundamentally the issue centers around eudaemonics.  If people (a large
number / majority) are willing to follow a plan because it continues to make
them more happy or because it can be shown in some logical and open way to
create happiness, I am for that plan.  But there are notorious problems with
your ethics and my life implementations.  In the end, people must choose.
Any systemic change where people did not have a voice or the opportunity to
raise a voice in protest/organization/legal rights, etc. cannot be
considered an advancement.

I would think some sort of simulation environment like Second Life or
another virtual or even systems-based environment would be the best means of
beginning to test whether your approach makes people happy.

Ryan


 Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham



On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Martien van Steenbergen <
Martien at aardrock.com> wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> On 27 May 2009, at 18:08 , Ryan Lanham wrote:
>
> Martien:
>>
>> I cannot imagine, even under extreme crisis, a democratic move to change
>> money and finance in the extraordinary ways you suggest.  Therefore, I
>> cannot imagine a feasible path to implementation.
>>
>
> I never said or maybe hinted that it would be democratic. If I did, or
> created the perception, please forgive me. That said, I also do not say that
> is will not happen in a democratic way. In fact, I have no idea how it will
> happen, but it will, and I will live to witness it (and hopefully contribute
> to it in one way or another).
>
> If it is anti-democratic, it fails of its own roots.  If it is to be a
>> democratic change,
>>
>
> Would love to see it happen in a holocratic way. For me, holocracy ==
> sociocracy + agilism.
>
> there will need to be specific proofs that such changes lead to desired
>> outcomes as well as the necessary cataclysms to convince people to consider
>> such changes.
>>
>
> Yes! Fully agree. That is why we need simulations and smaller scale
> experiments. And mathematicians and complexity experts and ecosophists and
> biologists, to name a few. Perhaps a new country with a population of one
> million or so, to be run as a open source lab. The pearls (just like the
> patterns in a pattern language) cultivated there can be picked up by others
> at will, as soon as they see and feel fit. That they may be educed.
>
> It's also the reason that I've developed and evolved de Serious Funny Money
> Game, since experiencing, feeling and observing different systems is so
> eye-opening. Playing it on all levels in the power pyramid will create
> awareness and makes people ponder. The majority of people is still unaware,
> unknowing.
>
> Perhaps we, as a p2p foundation, can find proof in nature (external
> evidence) for the things you are looking for en mimic that.
>
> To quote  Donella H. Meadows: “Systems folks would say one way to change a
> paradigm is to model a system, which takes you outside the system and forces
> you to see it whole. We say that because our own paradigms have been changed
> that way.”
>
> P2P is widely in use today.  There is nothing about it that requires
>> radical social change or radical systematic procedural change.  It quite
>> happily co-exists for the most part in Germany, Mexico, Africa, the US,
>> China and Sri Lanka with very little systematic differences.  Indeed the
>> commons of most of those places are international.
>>
>> I see nothing in P2P, even in alternative currencies, that suggests
>> radical systematic change--rather they are peacefully co-existing systems
>> with straightforward open membership where people opt in willingly and in
>> great numbers.
>>
>
> We agree to disagree here. Fine with me. Time will tell. Wanna bet?
>
> Are you moving from the democratic, evolutionary to the anti-democratic
>> revolutionary?
>>
>
> Nope. To the holacratic. Revolution may be needed, but is definitely not my
> preference.
>
> Holacracy gives the option to pick whatever ‘cracy’, depending on
> situation: democracy, autocracy, sociocracy, adhocracy. Pick the cracy best
> suited for the situation.
>
> Surely anti-democratic revolutionary ideas cannot be justified morally in
>> any legitimate movement of today.
>>
>
> Hmmm... anti-democratic not perhaps, but revolutionary? I see no problem
> with that. It doesn't imply violence per sé. To me, it just more radical.
>
> Again, I'm not anti-demcratic or revolutionary or anti-revolutionary. I am
> pro heal the Earth.
>
> Some things do need hard decision and bring on collateral damage. Triage
> goals to minimize that, but it cannot always be prevented if you want to
> maximize the number of survivors and their health. Survivors include man,
> nature and our planet.
>
> Also, just like a caterpillar metamorfoses to a butterfly, I see our globe
> metamorfose in a similar way. And in that process, caterpillar and butterfly
> each fight each other for live or death. One system makes way, althoug very
> reluctantly, for the other. It is a bloody fight. All the events and
> symptoms we're now witnessing strenghten this observation. But look at the
> results! Wonderful, right?!
>
> And what leader is going to propose untested radical systematic changes
>> unless they have acceded to some form of authoratarian/totalitarianism--like
>> a Chavez in Venezuela--whose economy is crumbling at a tremendous rate
>> versus surrounding nations--his rate of foreign exchange reserves
>> expenditure exceeds virtually any other nation, as one example.
>>
>
> If only we would know. The situation at hand will educe and evoke the
> leader required to do the job. Leader will rise and fall. Quicker, higher,
> and deeper.
>
> Better be a wise, ethical leader. One who goes before and shows the way by
> example.
>
> Let's help each other find this woman or man.
>
> Any suggestions? (Chavez probly not, right?)
>
>
> Succes en plezier,
>
> Martien.
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090527/3bcff155/attachment.html>