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

[Ryan Lanham]

This all sounds good, Martien.  I am onboard for tests and evaluations so
long as the people are ultimately in charge and the system isn't coercive.
It sounds like we agree on all that.

So, no fears from me.  When the words "radical" and "revolutionary" start
getting thrown around, I think there is justifiable concern in the world
that some minority is going to impose its ideal of morality on a larger
group in the name of "justice" or "equality."

I have my doubts your monetary system will win over supporters as a sole
approach to money, but the ideas are fascinating and appear original to me.
I hope you will keep us apprised of the details as they develop.

How would you qualify the characteristics of an ideal test site?  You talked
about size of population, what else would be involved?  Sri Lanka tries
interesting things...very vibrant open source community.

Ryan


On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Martien van Steenbergen <
Martien at aardrock.com> wrote:

> Ryan,
> On 27 May 2009, at 22:39 , Ryan Lanham wrote:
>
> 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 fully agree and concur with this.
>
> I am a bit surprised by your reactions. What have I said or done that you
> bring these points up? Please share your concerns or worries, so we can
> better understand each other.
>
> My impression is that we are on the same wavelength, but that I've said
> something that nudged the frequencies a bit. Need to harmonize again.
>
> I hope you will flesh out your ideas on holarchy so that they can be
> considered.
>
>
> Please see http://www.holacracy.org/system/files/HolacracyIntro2007-06.pdf
>
> Brian Robertson coined the term. He's an agile software guy who joined
> sociocracy and agilism at the hip. Since that is one of my backgrounds too,
> and because it resonates with me, I embraced it. It's just a nice
> combination of a number of succesful practices to evolve, dynamically steer,
> and organize a group of people. It culminates many of the practices that
> make the open source and internet developmenst so succesful. They focus
> mainly on business. TMO Holacracy (or elements from it) can be used at any
> scale organization.
>
> But, please, I invite you to read the white paper and share your thoughts.
>
> 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.
>
>
> I'd say, don't worry, be happy. Agilism's key things are courage,
> communication, simplicity, and feedback. Together: embrace change. In fact,
> everyone and every organization, and politics too, has to embrace and is
> embracing change. Agilism is a pattern language of proven practices to deal
> with that. To change the changes if you will.
>
> Agilism is not a goal. It's just a very practical way to do things, to make
> progress while proactively and reactively absorbing meaningful external and
> internal impulses.
>
> The speed is more in the capability to steer than in the speed of the car.
> You determine the car's speed. And the car stays nimble. It is, in fact,
> just like driving a car. Fixing the steering wheel will not get you at your
> goal. You have to continuously steer in order to make it there, fast enough
> and safe. And when you get there, you're in the right place (which often
> differs from the goal you had at the start of the journey).
>
> Anyway, I'm just a big fan of many of the proven practices (patterns,
> pearls) of agilism an so. Oragnizations are picking these pearls up, too.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> I very much agree. That's one of the reasons I'm fond of sociocracy.
> Decisions there are made on the basis of consent (quite different than
> consensus). So, if someone proposes an idea, it is accepted unless there are
> grounded objections. If there are, each of these objections is addressed and
> reworked into a evolved proposal until no more objections exist.
>
> The thumb protocol gives everyone a very simple voice: proposal accepted if
> at least one thumb up and none down.
>
> Sometimes, the group cannot make a decision and progress slows down as a
> result. In that case, a benevolent dictator, elected by the community on the
> basis of trust, then makes the choice.
>
> This way, solutions that are waiting to emerge, that want to emerge enyway,
> are facilitated to surface. And everyone has a voice. Very democratic
> indeed.
>
> Holacracy includes and transcends democracy and sociocracy.
>
> BTW, Sociocracy is more on the way a holarchy is organised. Please see
> whitepaper.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Sure. One if the values is openness. The other thing is that it is an
> collaborative process. So, the plan is a result of the holacratic processes,
> made by, for, and with all stakeholders.
>
> But there are notorious problems with your ethics and my life
> implementations.
>
>
> I'm confused here. Don't understand what you say. Please elaborate.
>
>   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.
>
>
> Agree fully. Please see above. It is a fully collaborative people-oriented
> thing. As opposed to many current cracies.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> How did you get to know my dreams? Scary :-)
>
> This is exactly what I'd like to see happen, yes.
>
> Again, Ryan, please share your thoughts and concerns so we can better
> understand each other. Email is sometimes a very lousy medium and poor
> communication channel. I get the impression that I've put you on the wrong
> leg by the way I communicate. Curious.
>
> 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/20090528/c65e2440/attachment.html>