Capitalism. Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Labour and all the rest of the prescribed rule-sets for humanity fail. Over and over again they fail and all we do is ping-pong between them. Some weeks the yellow shirts win and gloat then the blue shirts take back the crown. In each case all that happens is people get control, power and ultimately self-interest corrupts each system beyond recognition.
We all know this happens, we watch it and some of us partake in the game of X and O’s that we all know has no winner. What is it we are trying to do here in all these systems?
The answer is a fair society, a society where work is rewarded and value to society is recognised appropriately.
The answer to these issues may be right in front of our noses and about to jump onto the scene. This answer is:
Proof of Resource
This key reason allows people to build or do something of value. Have the value recognised mathematically and rewarded. This is a simple proposition that requires an advanced way of thinking to carry out. So what does it all mean?
Examples are always good, so lets take health. If there was a health ‘system’ that could recognise the purpose was to prolong healthy and productive life then we can make proof of resource. All that is required is a person does something, say take a person to hospital, offer primary care, prepare a meal and bed or whatever. All these things go to make up the resource of a health service.
So ultimately the service has to run at an ideal ‘cost’ and this is where proof of resource changes this world. The system values all actions by all actors in the scene based on the outcomes. So actions that lead to a positive and measurable treatment are rewarded (all actions, meaning even the smallest positive influence). The reward is based on a fraction of the total that everyone provides. So what does everyone provide? Well we identified a small list of players and they all offer something, time, ability and maybe even raw materials (food, drugs etc.). All of this ‘time’ is the system total. If the person who needed treatment then ‘got some’ and ‘paid’ for the treatment with some ‘proof of resource’ the system could balance based on the total of everyone’s effort and actions. This seems slightly recognisable and it should be, it is what all the isms above try to achieve but fail. They fail because they alter politically the ‘proof of resource’ for political and self interest, but if maths controlled this system then greed and self interest vanishes, interesting!
Utopia is a dream
Yes it is and this is not a utopian model. Until recently there was not a maths based system that was so prevalent and available as the current reach of the Internet is. As we see the power of a connected system unveiling itself in recent years, then we see corruption already being noted and in some cases even stopped. What we have not done though is to allow the system to be planned for society. This is what we must do. Let the system measure, balance and reward effort. We have the raw materials in front of us today!
Small efforts cannot be measured
This is true, a system that catalogues and tries to measure every little action will fail. We are not clever enough to do this and again self-interest programming this will be harmful. The answer is remarkably simple, measure outcomes and not actions. So instead of measuring each action for each patient, measure the outcomes of all the health system in this example. That’s easy, we measure life expectancy and work towards that. This gives us the system totals.
Now as we calculate all the smaller actions they must only add up to this total. This is the beauty of ‘proof of resource’ you cannot go past this total, no billionaire money jugglers here, no point lobbying congress, they do not do maths and cannot influence the laws of physics. Those days are numbered and rightly so.
As we recognise the system value, all we have to do is recognise all the parts that make it up and let the system reward each part. Importantly the system should evolve to recognise every small part, so we sub divide ‘proof of resource’ to all the smaller parts. So for instance the ambulance part is a measurable resource it becomes a smaller system in itself with easily measured outcomes. Never mind the value in terms of dollars or pounds, that’s silly. All we need do is recognise the value as a total and sub divide this. If we do this with every system then it’s value will be subdivided into constituent parts with an overall total.
In the next post I will outline a system that does this in great detail. It’s not simple, but it should be truly ground-breaking. It is time to show the world that fair is the new success story and once and for all stop this success by cash total nonsense. A billionaire only represents a system imbalance, we should not see that as a success, but a failure to balance. This is what proof of resource should achieve. No isms any more just total value divided into constituent parts and awarded to actors in the system. People will call it an ism, but that will be short-sighted and easily proved incorrect. The world is about to change and it will be irreversible and fair. Money will become a mechanism to feed society and all its needs efficiently. It’s not easy, but it is completely logical. More importantly its calculable and repeatable as well as able to improve based on inference based maths.
From the article: “In each case all that happens is people get control, power and ultimately self-interest corrupts each system beyond recognition.”
This statement, along with the paragraph in which it is incorporated, suggests that some form of socialism is what is needed. Why? It suggests that “self-interest” is wrong or bad. In fact, self-interest is the most important part of everything. Even the selfless people are that way because it is in their self-interest to be that way.
The thing that the articles seems to be referring to is greed. And the kind of greed it is talking about is the kind that harms other people to fulfill itself.
While the article DOES go on to suggest that there are ways that can reward people honestly and fairly for the work and the good that they do, the article has a feel that seems to slant towards society importance over the importance of the individual.
Society is important. But if I am NOT important, how can society be important to me? Self-interest doesn’t corrupt. Greed corrupts, if it is not corruption in itself already.
Love reading your blog, David.
“A billionaire only represents a system imbalance, we should not see that as a success, but a failure to balance. This is what proof of resource should achieve.”
What if someone is an extremely efficient provider of resources, and what if this someone chooses to shun consumption and instead continually reinvests in his resource-providing infrastructure? Isn’t it possible that this person/node could become wealthy? I don’t see this as a negative development, as long as the overall system is performing an accurate and fair measurement of resources. I don’t see why this would need to be “balanced.” On the other hand, if this person/node got so powerful as to corner the market on storage or CPU or network hardware, then that would be an undesirable outcome.
Also, what will happen with all the unproductive people who are currently nursing on the government teat, once their true value to society becomes measured and is found to be zero? With no value in their votes and no (or little) value to offer society, will they experience a sort of digital Darwinism?
Thanks for that.
I think wealth generation is a good thing, but immense wealth is not a sign of a good thing as money is out the system. If it’s mostly re-invested then great, but when it is at rest in somebodies bank account it is a failure. So in the case of extreme wealth owning farms, islands and paintings etc. is a waste to me. Investment is a great thing though and essential, so that is great and success here is great. I just mean the billions in folks accounts and sitting overseas is bad. This is really the imbalance.
As for people who refuse to work, then I think there is a huge issue. As a species we seem to be going against nature here. I feel everyone needs to contribute and this is a tough one. If every opportunity is made available, a great education and good food etc. and it does not change, then we have a problem. I think we need to be able to be tough.
I sometimes say that the best charity worker is the one who has food for 9, but is presented with 10 starving children with zero hope of rationing and they choose or at least are able to watch the 10th child die. The worst charity worker is the one who always sees good and professes to do good and would not be able to cope with this situation. With morality we require humanity and reality and to me there is not enough honesty about these issues. It is not always easy and should not be, otherwise we are going backwards.