By next year governments should have clear signs on how accurate this model is if food production and industrial output decrease by a significant amount which should also shock the economy.
I say governments should know by next year not the public because looking at the sources for the data it seems like there is a two year delay between the most current data and the present. We will probably be left in the dark until the collapse has already started.
Well since it seems like you like historical stuff if you are open to anime you should watch Vinland saga. The first season is really brutal but the next is all about ptsd and redemption.
To be honest I am still having a bit of trouble understanding what a firm and a pure market is but either way I think the problem that occurs when you scale these interactions to larger communities are informational problems. You start to run into problems relating to Dunbar's number and how many meaningful relationships you can maintain. That is where elinor ostrom's method would need to be improved.
However I don't believe currency would actually help resolve it because it is too detached and doesn't provide enough information to actually build meaningful relationships between communities and people therefore would still have to deal with the tendency for people to dehumanize/exploit processes that can be turned into numbers.
An alternative that I think was shown (but I'm not sure because I haven't read the second book) was something from the Monk and Robot series which is a nice solarpunk book that I recently got into. There were instances when a traveling tea monk (therapist with tea) went to a few different communities and "bought" a lot of herbs for their teas and "sold" their services as a tea monk by tapping their phones (which they called something like a box computer or whatever) together.
The thing is that it was never explicitly stated that it that they were exchanging money so I interpreted it as it just being an activity log between the people that are doing the exchange so that if you were doing business with them again you would have a pseudo-memory of your relationship so you can make the decision of whether or not it is worth interacting with them or not.
I liked that solution because it actually is tackling the root of the problem (not being able to build trust with limited memory) and doesn't have the exploitative nature of regular currency being roped in at all.
Ok maybe it I understood the article incorrectly then. I thought it was trying to setup an economic system within a community with a lot of strong ties already. In that situation I believe this system would be a detriment.
When dealing with inter-community ties I still believe that the system would need to be clarified a bit more to show how the currency wouldn't be unequally distributed. Even with non-transferable vouchers if the system of distributing them is a meritocracy then it would still lead to some community having an imbalance of power over others. But fundamentally I agree with the article that there is a problem with weak ties between communities and would need different solutions than would work inside of a community.
Edit: grammar
Edit2: Just realized you were the one that described it being able to be used between communities not the article. Brain is slow today.
Also sorry for coming off a bit antagonistic. Didn't get much sleep.
I think part of the reason why she doesn't give specific solutions is because in her research she found that the solutions that the community used was dependent on the kinds of people in that community which made the solutions to diverse to just boil down to one thing.
Instead she came up with general principles that you could see show up consistently in all the solutions that were studied.
Ok, the core of my disagreement is that they are creating a system that needs money (or some form of currency) to function even though we already have techniques to solve those problems on the scale that they are describing them without it.
And ancaps are usually more individualist but some do believe in common property. To me what makes this anarcho-capitalist is that they are making the use of the space still dependent on capital and is impersonal which makes the system exploitative since the person that has the most funds gets to decide on how a space is used.
Edit: grammar
No offense but this sounds more like anarcho-capitalism than anything else ( specifically because of the collecting fees in perpetuity part of residual rights and the idea that you might need an AI to set tax rates in a community. )
But other than that I don't trust a website that has a board member that is the founder of ethereum and is supported by the Rockefeller foundation to be a good guide to a society beyond capitalism.
Source: https://www.radicalxchange.org/about/
Edit: Also I've realized that I haven't really given an alternative so this is something more concrete
I think the fediverse already experienced what happens when those problems arise during the canvas event and yet it was still eventually resolved peacefully.
There was limited space on the board and certain structures couldn't be created somewhere else because it was in relation to something that was in that specific part of the board (the pony blast was a big attraction and the rainbow traveled through a lot of things.) So if you want to see what happens look at one of those time lapses very closely.
Edit: And what was even more interesting about that event is a lot of the negotiation happened without any direct communication where as in this hypothetical community you would be able to talk to those people.
This should be pinned or put in the sidebar at least. Its a good intro to anarchist ideas.
Conscious control and awareness over all bodily functions (when I want it if I don't then I can ignore it to the point where it is automatic again.)
Just because someone has more skills, experience or information doesn't mean that person has or should have authority over others. There are even situations where having more of those things can become a hindrance because it biases the person to doing things a certain way when someone from an outside perspective could handle the situation in a different, possibly better way.
It still should be on the individual to decide whether they want to defer to the experts depending on the situation. The reason why people can come to collective decisions and rely on other people's knowledge is because they have shared purpose and trust each other to be working to similar goals. That is what makes people's choices voluntary.
I don't believe we should uphold hierarchies in any form instead we should help teach people to reason through when to trust other people's judgements which doesn't rely on defaulting to an authority.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~