3 ms·

If an experiment works, who cares how rigorous it was? For the example of a society I think a good metric would be: "How many people enjoy living in this parti

by ollerac 14y ago

If an experiment works, who cares how rigorous it was? For the example of a society I think a good metric would be: "How many people enjoy living in this particular society and don't want to move away?" We wouldn't need to make any big changes right away because we could start experimenting with what we have already: cities and towns. How about this: "Cities and towns can create some of their own laws (but only certain types of laws that have been pre-approved by the state and federal courts). These laws will supersede state and federal laws." I think this would give countries the opportunity to experiment with the effects of theoretically harmless legislation (e.g. cannabis legalization, polyamorous marriages, the invention of new types of corporations) that might make people uncomfortable if they were instantly implemented on a larger scale. There would probably be a long period of adjustment as cities and states got used to their new relationship, but I think in the end it could bring smaller communities a lot closer together and make places in general a lot more interesting and unique.

improvisations 14y ago
Ollerac is definitely onto what I was arguing in this article. Allowing people to 'opt-in' and vote with their feet in a system with greater policy experimentation through decentralized, competing jurisdictions is perhaps the closest we can get to scientific rigor (holding culture relatively constant, for example). There is a section on "Exit and Voice" which discusses this on www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory as well as a practical entrepreneurial proposal called "Free Cities" here: http://www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory/free-cities/ http://www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory/free-cities/ Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
- ollerac 14y ago
  Thank you for your thought-provoking blog post. I think wide-scale group experimentation and play is slowly becoming much more incorporated into our daily lives and I'd love to see that process speed up. Organizations like Groupon, LivingSocial, Airbnb, Kickstarter and (around where I live) The Boston Society of Spontaneity are all encouraging people to get out and make more random, meaningful connections. I look forward to the day when these organizations, ideas like thepoint.com, and the concept of something like a "sanctuary city" [1] are more commonplace and acceptable. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city
- hammock 14y ago
  Ollerac is definitely onto what I was arguing in this article. Allowing people to 'opt-in' and vote with their feet in a system with greater policy experimentation through decentralized, competing jurisdictions is perhaps the closest we can get to scientific rigor (holding culture relatively constant, for example). Sounds like Bayesian vs. A/B testing. e.g. http://blog.custora.com/2012/05/a-bayesian-approach-to-ab-testing/ http://blog.custora.com/2012/05/a-bayesian-approach-to-ab-te... or http://www.mynaweb.com/blog/2011/09/13/myna-vs-ab.html http://www.mynaweb.com/blog/2011/09/13/myna-vs-ab.html Something that's not repeatable but works in an open system full of people, not experimental objects
spitfire 14y ago
You can't determine if an experiment works or not if it isn't rigorous.

by ollerac 14y ago

improvisations 14y ago

Ollerac is definitely onto what I was arguing in this article. Allowing people to 'opt-in' and vote with their feet in a system with greater policy experimentation through decentralized, competing jurisdictions is perhaps the closest we can get to scientific rigor (holding culture relatively constant, for example). There is a section on "Exit and Voice" which discusses this on www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory as well as a practical entrepreneurial proposal called "Free Cities" here: http://www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory/free-cities/ http://www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory/free-cities/ Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

ollerac 14y ago
Thank you for your thought-provoking blog post. I think wide-scale group experimentation and play is slowly becoming much more incorporated into our daily lives and I'd love to see that process speed up. Organizations like Groupon, LivingSocial, Airbnb, Kickstarter and (around where I live) The Boston Society of Spontaneity are all encouraging people to get out and make more random, meaningful connections. I look forward to the day when these organizations, ideas like thepoint.com, and the concept of something like a "sanctuary city" [1] are more commonplace and acceptable. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city
hammock 14y ago
Ollerac is definitely onto what I was arguing in this article. Allowing people to 'opt-in' and vote with their feet in a system with greater policy experimentation through decentralized, competing jurisdictions is perhaps the closest we can get to scientific rigor (holding culture relatively constant, for example). Sounds like Bayesian vs. A/B testing. e.g. http://blog.custora.com/2012/05/a-bayesian-approach-to-ab-testing/ http://blog.custora.com/2012/05/a-bayesian-approach-to-ab-te... or http://www.mynaweb.com/blog/2011/09/13/myna-vs-ab.html http://www.mynaweb.com/blog/2011/09/13/myna-vs-ab.html Something that's not repeatable but works in an open system full of people, not experimental objects

spitfire 14y ago

You can't determine if an experiment works or not if it isn't rigorous.