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

Fri May 29 18:20:16 CEST 2009

I agree fully with what Michel is saying.  For example, we in the Cayman
Islands are starting to look at "production points" that various healthy
activities earn a person toward purchasing medical care.  Buy goods that are
healthy at the supermarket, earn points.  Go to the gym...earn points.
Document that you attended a beach walk...earn points.

It is money so far as I am concerned.  But it isn't going to replace
anything.

My point is that token experiments can be very minimal to test various
social features.

Ryan

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> I think the increasingly popular (but of course still marginal for the
> mainstream) and in my view convincing argument is that we need 'plural'
> systems of money. Say that Andreas is right and that Martien's system does
> not work for 'everything'. It can still be used by communities that have
> transactions that can fit those rules. Since transaction costs for such
> systems are now much lower, it is through experimentation, as suggested by
> Ryan, that gradually new micro-currencies may come into being.
>
> I think is to open up the possibility of experimentation by civil society,
> for the 'peer production' of various 'measurement' and/or currency systems.
>
> At the same time, classic money can be 'reformed' to balance out its most
> negative features, i.e. attach some small circulation charge which
> discourages some of the speculation, and uses the funds for socially
> positive goals. This is the aim I think of the Tobin Tax proposal.
>
> Michel
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090529/c9dca6f4/attachment-0001.html>