All societies mutate continuously. This is a good example of an ad campaign that went socially viral and permanently changed a culture. At least as permanently as cultures get :
Pictures of special snowflakes, very fine :
I hope to see many more losses of Israeli-Neocon power and influence, in the US, Israel and around the world :
This is what we missed by electing Trump, thank God :
Perfectly predicted by the worlds only empirically-validated religion, Discordianism. Well, maybe not the ‘getting better’ part :
Prouty and many others have stated that the combination of blowback and the loss of trust and respect produced by the CIA’s actions have been very negative for our country.
Were we genuinely self-interested, we would support the growing Russia-China Cooperation on the new Silk Road. More trade within Asia is good for everybody, we should be cooperating fully with that effort, contrary to Kissinger. Because the US is riddled by factions of the oligarchy that runs it, we can’t be trusted, e.g. the peace negotiations in Syria were done without us, because the CIA and Army Special Forces are supporting 2 different foreign policies, the State Department perhaps a 3rd, but the State Department cannot bind actions of the other 2 groups. Thus, personal trust between leaders is important until the US government is separated from the mafias which currently control pieces of it.
One of the strongest arguments for Royalty vs elected officials is that Royalty, at least in the old days, had skin in the game, their decisions affected their individual lives, not just their historical legacy. We should take advantage of Trump’s “Conflict of Interest”. Trump should put at least one hotel and casino in every one of the nations transited by the new Silk Road, skin in the game and a personal guarantee by our leader that the US will deliver on any deals.
The current noble propaganda idea of the leader ‘serving the national interest’ is mere facade. Nobody can define ‘the national interest’, it is a rhetorical device only, good for a President’s address to the Nation and politician’s 4th of July Speeches.
However, it is easy to tie people’s opinions to their interests, their skin in the game. If we want people’s opinions to be more guided by peace than war, we need to change incentive systems. As an example, we could have investments managed by the people directly, a Decentralized Autonomous Corporation*, limits on sizes of investments so as to prevent control by wealth, votes proportional to the money we put in to prevent control by ideology, and a 4/5ths majority needed for decisions to ensure careful consideration. That should be the foreign policy, to be guided solely by investment decisions. No, don’t invest much in countries with diminished human rights because they have much higher risks. Yes, of course you would allow competing policies by competing funds, that is a positive sum game, everything in the open.
We already have a system that runs foreign policy based on economic considerations (Butler and Prouty yesterday), although the current one is run for oligarch’s interests, this will be more effective and efficient as it removes several bureaucracies and oligarch’s funding apparatuses. In fact, the major difference is that people would finally have some inputs to all policies and minorities much more veto power as compared to now.
I see no reason not to run everything in public life that way. With no bureaucracies and open accounting and decisions, it will be more effective and cheaper. Everyone isn’t interested in everything, so proxies will allow people to allow others to represent their interest and to specialize. The requirement of an 80% majority gives veto power to minorities on particular decisions, but is also a guarantee of effectiveness in decisions made, as any 20% of intelligent critics can finally wear enough objections down to get an 80% majority, and intelligent opinion leaders of all of the many factions will work to get positive-sum agreements, why risk loss? We think strife in public decisions is normal, but tradeoffs are normal, the issue is they aren’t local enough to be optimal in our very centralized systems of control.
As a basis for all of large-scale social coordination, the many plans for utopia have only lacked trust. In this particular case, trust in software is the major problem, but even that is partly an issue of trust in people, e.g. that they are being honest when they say ‘no backdoors’. It seems so obviously beneficial for us all. If trust could be established across large-enough social units, the entire society could play exclusively positive-sum games, courtship through street repair, business deals and providing for their older members and society’s lame and halt.
The Generalissimo has been filling me in on his ‘design of civilization’ projects, assures me that universal trust is the goal, and the requirement for trust is better social units.
States grow and shrink simultaneously and for different reasons :
Lots of interesting links, if you like the kind of links BoingBoing has :
*DAOs are an interesting concept, and I think will become very important. However, the world is a few generations of software away from secure systems. This is some of the intellectual ferment around that topic, another thing I would like to follow, but can’t do everything. ‘Proof of stake’ is ‘proof of significant skin in the game’, which you can lose if you are wrong, and thus a serious incentive to be correct. Gameable, but at least you know how much being correct is worth to the entity making a claim, and you merely need be certain their possible wins are not larger. Way better than poker :