I am proposing that this is the fundamental challenge that Game B has to address.
I’m absolutely convinced that the solution is participation income, but I also think that this community has been infected with the notion that competition is actually the fundamental problem.
It’s like if you show a person a cylinder from a specific angle, they’ll see a rectangle, or a circle, or some combination of ellipses and parallel lines. Without depth perception you cannot see the cylinder.
As such, some people here are only seeing the problem of competition (the circle side), and people who you might call on the right or centre left, characterised in the most favourable light by Steven Pinker, think that everything is fine and dandy we just need to keep on keeping on – competition is good, inequality is natural.
But inequality directly leads to disorder because of enough is accrued on a narrow domain the winners get to make the rules.
The solution is participation income: reddit.com/r/participationincome
PI allows for competition with a natural dampening impact to pay for the cost of externalities via a combination of taxes and inflation.
The primary criticism is that PI requires a centralised administrative system, which would be really expensive and easily corrupted.
This is not true, PI can be implemented such that validation (was the contribution good?) and verification (did it happen?) are decentralised and distributed amongst the civic players.
This will provide a foundation to reward contributions to the commons, for activities in care and culture not serviced by the market.
This can be implemented governmentally, as a trial in a small jurisdiction, or non-governmentally in a content curation network on a blockchain.
I’ve written about this a lot over the past 4 years but nobody gives it serious thought or critique. Hopefully this community is capable of considering it.
Tagged with :