the design pattern for a better world k, i'm gonna lay it…
2 reactions
the design pattern for a better world
k, i'm gonna lay it out. i'll try to be brief but i have a tendency to ramble. sorry, lol, but not sorry.
you can't have a system where folks don't have the same basic understanding of the rules. because then there'd be no actual consistent rules. and there'd be no actual application of consistent rules.
so one of the first things that you need is everyone needs to understand the rules. how do you do this? you need tests of understanding. if folks don't meet those tests, then they don't understand. that's the demarcation line of membership.
it doesn't help if those rules are vague. or if the purpose of a rule (ie. why does it exist? what is it trying to solve?) is not clear. so rules therefore need tests of what they are doing. they need to be measurable. if you have a rule that says "drive on the right side of the road", it needs both an intention for why it exists, and a measure of whether someone is following it. you drive on one side so that you don't hit traffic coming from the other side. that's why it exists. and the test of whether the rule is broken, is if ur not driving on the right side of the road.
a rule needs a why - because if it doesn't have a why then it can be abused by folks applying different whys. and it needs a test that can be consistently interpreted. and the folks doing the interpretation need themselves to be tested on whether they can interpret things correctly. and this all has to be measurable, or it's meaningless.
so that's how you do rules. there's more to it, but that's the gist.
you can see right away that if folks don't interpret the rules in the same way, ur gonna have a problem.
next thing.. not all folks are gonna agree on what those rules should be. because one size does not fit all. so ur gonna need different systems of rules. that means different governances. ok. there's no way around this.
so now we have different governances, each having different rules. this is unavoidable, and must happen, or you are always trying to shoehorn folks into the same rules, and that will never actually work, ever.
so we need the ability to have different govs.
next thing. what you want at any given point in your life will change. that means one gov may work for you when ur young, but it won't when you are older. think of this like how a parent raises a child. you don't give a kid responsibilities (ie. rules) they can't handle if they're not ready for them.
so you need the ability to move between different govs, freely. you'll age out or change or wise up, or whatever...and decide you want a different set of rules to live under.
so now you need the ability to leave a system for another system. again. unavoidable. if you don't facilitate this, you have coercion. the person is being put under rules they don't want. you have to allow them to move.
ok...so now we have freedom of movement, or freedom of selection of gov as basic human rights.
ya follow?
now let's step back and realize what we have achieved here. we have removed coercion of the rule system. there is no more coercion. you willingly select the rules you want to be under. if you don't like them, you select another system. at no point are you forced.
ok, so now we've addressed coercion.
what would this pattern provide? you can move around to find what fits. when ur a member of a system, you are accepting what it imposes upon you. now you don't have any excuses. you are responsible for your choice. and you know what the rules are, because that's part of the test of membership of the new gov. if you don't pass the test of understanding, you can't join. and if you don't pass the test of understanding when ur in the club, you're no longer fit for the club.
what would this look like, on scale? you'd allow folks with the same mindset to find each other and to operate in the lowest possible social friction environment.
since you allow freedom of movement, you'd avail a kind of annealing effect. where folks could find where they fit.
but wait, there's more! if ur the type who can't fit in to any of these systems, that's a problem, right?
so now you need this meta-system of systems to be able to spawn new clubs. you'd need for folks who have novel ideas to be able to select to be governed under them. and if you don't do this, then ur stuck with a world that never changes.
so now we have a path for change baked in. right?
ok, so let's say ur a bad actor. well you'd keep getting kicked out of clubs.
but these would be few. this design pattern would out the bad actors. they'd be the ones who can't self-govern, and who can't fit into any other system.
ok have fun. there's an unseen iceberg of design i have yet to articulate. but this is the general idea.
#politics
k, i'm gonna lay it out. i'll try to be brief but i have a tendency to ramble. sorry, lol, but not sorry.
you can't have a system where folks don't have the same basic understanding of the rules. because then there'd be no actual consistent rules. and there'd be no actual application of consistent rules.
so one of the first things that you need is everyone needs to understand the rules. how do you do this? you need tests of understanding. if folks don't meet those tests, then they don't understand. that's the demarcation line of membership.
it doesn't help if those rules are vague. or if the purpose of a rule (ie. why does it exist? what is it trying to solve?) is not clear. so rules therefore need tests of what they are doing. they need to be measurable. if you have a rule that says "drive on the right side of the road", it needs both an intention for why it exists, and a measure of whether someone is following it. you drive on one side so that you don't hit traffic coming from the other side. that's why it exists. and the test of whether the rule is broken, is if ur not driving on the right side of the road.
a rule needs a why - because if it doesn't have a why then it can be abused by folks applying different whys. and it needs a test that can be consistently interpreted. and the folks doing the interpretation need themselves to be tested on whether they can interpret things correctly. and this all has to be measurable, or it's meaningless.
so that's how you do rules. there's more to it, but that's the gist.
you can see right away that if folks don't interpret the rules in the same way, ur gonna have a problem.
next thing.. not all folks are gonna agree on what those rules should be. because one size does not fit all. so ur gonna need different systems of rules. that means different governances. ok. there's no way around this.
so now we have different governances, each having different rules. this is unavoidable, and must happen, or you are always trying to shoehorn folks into the same rules, and that will never actually work, ever.
so we need the ability to have different govs.
next thing. what you want at any given point in your life will change. that means one gov may work for you when ur young, but it won't when you are older. think of this like how a parent raises a child. you don't give a kid responsibilities (ie. rules) they can't handle if they're not ready for them.
so you need the ability to move between different govs, freely. you'll age out or change or wise up, or whatever...and decide you want a different set of rules to live under.
so now you need the ability to leave a system for another system. again. unavoidable. if you don't facilitate this, you have coercion. the person is being put under rules they don't want. you have to allow them to move.
ok...so now we have freedom of movement, or freedom of selection of gov as basic human rights.
ya follow?
now let's step back and realize what we have achieved here. we have removed coercion of the rule system. there is no more coercion. you willingly select the rules you want to be under. if you don't like them, you select another system. at no point are you forced.
ok, so now we've addressed coercion.
what would this pattern provide? you can move around to find what fits. when ur a member of a system, you are accepting what it imposes upon you. now you don't have any excuses. you are responsible for your choice. and you know what the rules are, because that's part of the test of membership of the new gov. if you don't pass the test of understanding, you can't join. and if you don't pass the test of understanding when ur in the club, you're no longer fit for the club.
what would this look like, on scale? you'd allow folks with the same mindset to find each other and to operate in the lowest possible social friction environment.
since you allow freedom of movement, you'd avail a kind of annealing effect. where folks could find where they fit.
but wait, there's more! if ur the type who can't fit in to any of these systems, that's a problem, right?
so now you need this meta-system of systems to be able to spawn new clubs. you'd need for folks who have novel ideas to be able to select to be governed under them. and if you don't do this, then ur stuck with a world that never changes.
so now we have a path for change baked in. right?
ok, so let's say ur a bad actor. well you'd keep getting kicked out of clubs.
but these would be few. this design pattern would out the bad actors. they'd be the ones who can't self-govern, and who can't fit into any other system.
ok have fun. there's an unseen iceberg of design i have yet to articulate. but this is the general idea.
#politics
1
1
| 13,000 mlx | |
| 3 | |
| 2 |
comments
Will wait for it 😼
By the way,everywhere in every country , there's more than one government to control the seen and known government.
To make sure the system don't fail , but it's failing...
By the way,everywhere in every country , there's more than one government to control the seen and known government.
To make sure the system don't fail , but it's failing...
