3 ms·

Now define “we” “have to” and “kill.” What mechanism, that is not a system vulnerable to the same ossification but with far more unilateral power, will actuall

Now define “we” “have to” and “kill.” What mechanism, that is not a system vulnerable to the same ossification but with far more unilateral power, will actually execute such a directive?

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
Imagine a union which forms in secret, strikes once, hard enough that the misbehaving institution cannot continue, then disbands. Now imagine a culture which habitually does this. You don't need continuity of leadership if the only reason your organization exists is to rid the world of a problem. Once the problem goes away, so does the organization that solves it. (And if you fail, well, disband anyway and try it again next time as a differently composed group). It would be like agriculture, but instead of selecting plants for drought resistance we're selecting institutions for human-friendliness. Perhaps there's a holiday, and a crypto thingy that handles voting. If there's not sufficient consensus, nothing happens, but if it turns out that a sufficient majority voted to disband the same institution, then on the next such holiday you meet in person with some algorithmically chosen subset of people who voted similarly to you (to verify that they're real people and not sybil accounts). If validation succeeds, then we generate proofs that indicate that yes, there are enough of us--this isn't radicalism--this is the will of the people. Then you spend the next such holiday orchestrating the demise of your target. Then you disband, problem presumably solved. If not, you'll have to try it again with a new union on the next cycle. It would create incentives for the bureaucrats to not let their organization be chosen. It's more or less what labor day should have been. Let's do it quarterly. As for "have to", you don't "have to" breathe, but you "have to" breathe in order to stay alive. It's a conditional, not an imperative. So I mean that if we want our institutions to be continually useful to us, then we have to practice some kind of hygiene of this sort. Evolution does not act on organisms or organizations which don't occasionally die. Perhaps this too would ossify and eventually have to take itself out of the meme pool, but I think it could do us some good along the way.

Now define “we” “have to” and “kill.” What mechanism, that is not a system vulnerable to the same ossification but with far more unilateral power, will actually execute such a directive?

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

Imagine a union which forms in secret, strikes once, hard enough that the misbehaving institution cannot continue, then disbands. Now imagine a culture which habitually does this. You don't need continuity of leadership if the only reason your organization exists is to rid the world of a problem. Once the problem goes away, so does the organization that solves it. (And if you fail, well, disband anyway and try it again next time as a differently composed group). It would be like agriculture, but instead of selecting plants for drought resistance we're selecting institutions for human-friendliness. Perhaps there's a holiday, and a crypto thingy that handles voting. If there's not sufficient consensus, nothing happens, but if it turns out that a sufficient majority voted to disband the same institution, then on the next such holiday you meet in person with some algorithmically chosen subset of people who voted similarly to you (to verify that they're real people and not sybil accounts). If validation succeeds, then we generate proofs that indicate that yes, there are enough of us--this isn't radicalism--this is the will of the people. Then you spend the next such holiday orchestrating the demise of your target. Then you disband, problem presumably solved. If not, you'll have to try it again with a new union on the next cycle. It would create incentives for the bureaucrats to not let their organization be chosen. It's more or less what labor day should have been. Let's do it quarterly. As for "have to", you don't "have to" breathe, but you "have to" breathe in order to stay alive. It's a conditional, not an imperative. So I mean that if we want our institutions to be continually useful to us, then we have to practice some kind of hygiene of this sort. Evolution does not act on organisms or organizations which don't occasionally die. Perhaps this too would ossify and eventually have to take itself out of the meme pool, but I think it could do us some good along the way.