A question I have is 'which comes first?' Do you decentralize and then decide policies, or decide policies at a centralized level that allow you to implement decentralized solutions? I tend towards the former economically, but it's good to think about what your alternatives would be. Thanks, Gabe!
I'm very much in favor of the "decentralize first" approach for most things these days. More and more the classic centralized approaches are feeling more like temporary "nice to haves" (to the degree they are) rather than actually reliable systems.
That said, I'm not against working with centralized systems as they exist. I wrote this policy proposal for the USA which presumes very little changes but pitches a radically different set of priorities.
I've always seen myself as a radical who wants better reformers. I definitely straddle the line and see the merits of both sides of that divide.
What I'm enjoying about your book so far is that it's really helped me conceptualize what I call "brokering legitimacy", which is how reformers ultimately fall short and sell out the rest. Specifically in the economic realm I've found it very helpful for raising questions I hadn't contended with in that realm.
"Brokering legitimacy!" That's a great phrase, Gabe. I think it's what I mean by NDGs or Naive Do-Gooders. It leaves power where it is but begs for concessions that then make it seem reasonable or even benevolent.
Another way of saying 'policy changes to centralized systems' would be 'system changes.' The question is, "What are the fewest, smallest and easiest system changes you can make that will enable the biggest and most resilient decentralization, while taking the least away from the smallest number of people who can best afford it?"
My answer is taking the power to create new money from the bankers. It doesn't take anything away that they have now, it's a handful of people and they can certainly afford it. It's an administrative change that doesn't require changing the law or the Constitution. And it would change everything. Using existing banking laws and eminent domain, you wouldn't need to force anyone to do anything--just lure them with better interest and tax rates and absolute security for their money.
Any one of the policy changes for the people would take as much organizing to implement and could be changed back with little effort on their part, since they still hold all the power. But I'm open to other answers to the question.
The point of bringing them up was to point out that a lot of good could come out of assigning these organizations a different (less paternalistic) mission. While I can understand why many would simply eliminate CISA (among other agencies) I wanted to make an argument for how those resources can be use to unlock opportunities for a better future.
wondering if you would have an opinion on this site, like is the cost high? is all the subjects enough to cover the main point or is it ameteurish? you know i know not a lot in comp. and i'm curious of a first impression from you. a friend asked me if this is a worth investment.
Lots of unknowns that make it hard for me to give a definitive answer. Though, there is no doubt you could learn all that for free on YouTube given enough time.
The main benefit of the course is that you're being given an overview by somebody who (seems) experienced enough to have some informed opinions that can save people time.
Considering the total cost works out to just under 20$ a class I wouldn't really say the price is crazy, it just depends a great deal on the host. Given that it's three hours a class I would expect a lot of useful info by the end of it.
That said, I have no familiarity with the host so I can't comment on the overall value and if the host has a good track record or not.
Incredible work, Gabe. Thank you so much for contributing your expertise!
A question I have is 'which comes first?' Do you decentralize and then decide policies, or decide policies at a centralized level that allow you to implement decentralized solutions? I tend towards the former economically, but it's good to think about what your alternatives would be. Thanks, Gabe!
I'm very much in favor of the "decentralize first" approach for most things these days. More and more the classic centralized approaches are feeling more like temporary "nice to haves" (to the degree they are) rather than actually reliable systems.
That said, I'm not against working with centralized systems as they exist. I wrote this policy proposal for the USA which presumes very little changes but pitches a radically different set of priorities.
I've always seen myself as a radical who wants better reformers. I definitely straddle the line and see the merits of both sides of that divide.
What I'm enjoying about your book so far is that it's really helped me conceptualize what I call "brokering legitimacy", which is how reformers ultimately fall short and sell out the rest. Specifically in the economic realm I've found it very helpful for raising questions I hadn't contended with in that realm.
"Brokering legitimacy!" That's a great phrase, Gabe. I think it's what I mean by NDGs or Naive Do-Gooders. It leaves power where it is but begs for concessions that then make it seem reasonable or even benevolent.
Another way of saying 'policy changes to centralized systems' would be 'system changes.' The question is, "What are the fewest, smallest and easiest system changes you can make that will enable the biggest and most resilient decentralization, while taking the least away from the smallest number of people who can best afford it?"
My answer is taking the power to create new money from the bankers. It doesn't take anything away that they have now, it's a handful of people and they can certainly afford it. It's an administrative change that doesn't require changing the law or the Constitution. And it would change everything. Using existing banking laws and eminent domain, you wouldn't need to force anyone to do anything--just lure them with better interest and tax rates and absolute security for their money.
Any one of the policy changes for the people would take as much organizing to implement and could be changed back with little effort on their part, since they still hold all the power. But I'm open to other answers to the question.
Correction - CISA is no friend of freedom!
The point of bringing them up was to point out that a lot of good could come out of assigning these organizations a different (less paternalistic) mission. While I can understand why many would simply eliminate CISA (among other agencies) I wanted to make an argument for how those resources can be use to unlock opportunities for a better future.
Yes, if I remember correctly Matt Taibbi uncovered some of that darkness in the Twitter Files
wondering if you would have an opinion on this site, like is the cost high? is all the subjects enough to cover the main point or is it ameteurish? you know i know not a lot in comp. and i'm curious of a first impression from you. a friend asked me if this is a worth investment.
https://howtobecomethetruemedia.com/
in a way i find my noob question relevant with the title good governance in cyberspace hehe
Lots of unknowns that make it hard for me to give a definitive answer. Though, there is no doubt you could learn all that for free on YouTube given enough time.
The main benefit of the course is that you're being given an overview by somebody who (seems) experienced enough to have some informed opinions that can save people time.
Considering the total cost works out to just under 20$ a class I wouldn't really say the price is crazy, it just depends a great deal on the host. Given that it's three hours a class I would expect a lot of useful info by the end of it.
That said, I have no familiarity with the host so I can't comment on the overall value and if the host has a good track record or not.
Thanks 🙏 your answers are always appreciated. Str8 honest and carefull. ✌️😇👍