35 Comments
Dec 6, 2022Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers

Love this! Are you following the Global Walkout? Different but related.. seems to have some momentum. Keep Cash Alive is one aspect of it. Personally I do not watch TV any more and choose my Banking relationships carefully. Lots more to do.. not patronizing corrupt businesses is a start.

Expand full comment
author

We are not following that, but we will check it out. Thanks so much for your feedback! We wish there was a place TO follow that Walk Out movement (like the Super Colaborator platform that we wrote about here: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/why-doesnt-this-exist-building-a )

Another thing we can do is all leaders of all things can decentralize their leadership. It is an amazingly powerful tool. We have successfully done it in several very successful businesses. We plan to write about our experiences soon.

Again thanks so much for participating. We need more of this.

Expand full comment

Please tell us what is the next step? Locally? Get the town to put all their expenditures on line, as well as all their meetings in a form WE decide?

Expand full comment
Jan 16, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers

To make an online bill transparent to me the average American, we need "plain language" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_language) not leageleze.

It would also be useful to have a software solution that categorizes bills using a standard rating system e.g., Pork spending 0 - 100%, Single party interests, Total dollar amount involved, etc. These custom categories would be in addition to the standard governmental categories found at https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/leg_laws_acts.htm.

The main idea here is a simple interface for me to understand convoluted legalese. Chat GPT might be able to do the conversion from the original bill to Plain Language and codify the various categories stated above.

Hopefully this post was in Plain Language ;)

Expand full comment
author

We love the idea of using AI to our advantage. The problem we see is that as long as the core operating system of government remains corrupt, we cannot make any of these changes. This is why we need a plug in, like for example a blockchain direct democracy plug in, like this:

https://joshketry.substack.com/p/weaponized-direct-democracy-the-kryptonite

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2022Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers

Goes right along with my mantra...good intentions = unintended consequences

Expand full comment
author

Exactly! But sometimes good intentions have good results. So our mantra for that is simply now “Results matter most. “

Expand full comment
Jul 15, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers

I followed your link on Caitlin Johnstone. Good post!

Expand full comment
Dec 7, 2022·edited Dec 7, 2022Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers

You believe the path to system corrections is to dive into the culture war? The PTB want the confrontation to happen in the culture war space because they already have it on lockdown.

Expand full comment
author

Also what is the PTB?

Expand full comment
author

Why do you think the PTB is trying to control culture? because it is vital.

Culture matters.

We don't need to go to "war" with anyone. We simply need to set our own culture and live by it ruthlessly.

Expand full comment

Requirements for "ruthlessly":

-- geographical ownership or possession of large land area, state-size

-- independence from US Fed gov't

-- money(LOTS), firepower(all kinds, and big stuff)

-- independent news of MSM, independent internet and electrical infrastructure.

In one word: W-A-R

Expand full comment
author

This is not how decentralization works. There doesn't need to be violence. Study up!

https://joshketry.substack.com/p/embrace-decentralized-systems-fear

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

The answer isn't "Bitcoin"

Bitcoin is merely an example of decentralization. Anyone with even a low IQ can understand this if you put the effort in. The super short book The Starfish and The Spider is a good place to start. Or our article on the topic.

But don't just go all curmudgeon because you haven't put the effort into understanding it. Try. Ask us questions. Sounds like you browsed the article but made no attempt to understand the principle in it. Maybe that is because you don't know or trust us. Or maybe that is just because you are set in a way of thinking.

But if you think there is a real problem, then we assure you this is the way out.

Maybe give this a more fair chance:

https://joshketry.substack.com/p/embrace-decentralized-systems-fear

Expand full comment
Dec 12, 2022·edited Dec 13, 2022Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers

OK, I will look at it more closely.

Did so. . .

I did not read the book, but looked over a few comments and read a bit of your tranche. Yes, you have some reasonable ideas but Some folks pointed to problems with your system and I agree in many cases.

-- In order to engage your "system" it has to have a genesis or opportunity for genesis. The explanation proffered is it only requires that you "plug into" the existing system to take it over. This jargon is so ambiguous as to put people off and make your argument easy to walk away from. Maybe the book makes it clearer but, like me, most folks cannot engage in this discussion with so much time as it takes to read a "book."

-- decentralization DOES make sense. But the PTB with all its tentacles engaged(as one guy puts it) makes any transition virtually impossible(it seems to me) without, uh, WAR-- again, my answer to moving away from the system we have. Sorry, I can see no way to transition short of a violent one. I don't believe any political system has transitioned peacefully over many millenia.

-- If your rational ideas had a concise explanation, ie not a book, and an example of what you may consider an ideal "working" analogous system, you may get traction.

-- Apparently you are sold on bitcoin because you own some and have used it and have basic knowledge. However, most of your audience has not done so and is highly skeptical of such. Using this as an example can only appeal, easily, to bitcoin users. This makes for a small audience.

-- After 3 yrs of this totally F'd fake pandemic, I have learned a LOT about the immune system-- God-like in its capability and its decentralized nature.

On the other hand. . . if GOD is its author, he is CENTRAL. There may actually NOT be a way to decentralize. I figure if even God uses this, then maybe we have not found the right Centralized system, yet. But, I can be full of crapp too!

All this being said you have a noble cause and I applaud you for that. At least you are trying to further humanity and the horrible situation in this world.

Expand full comment

The first thing to fix is the election system, if we don't have a trustworthy and transparent voting system nothing else will change

Expand full comment
author

The elections are one of the systems for sure. But we think if we change the culture first, elections will just be part of that. What society doesn’t want fair and trustworthy and transparent elections? Only those corrupting it would want less

Expand full comment

One of the first thing I find interesting when discussing systems is the way that there's two behaviors that people present: either they understand why the system has constraints and they respect those, or they don't and they seek to undermine them. It doesn't really matter the system of governance or laws. Once people get into a position where the constraints are biting them, the default behavior is to resist or undermine those restrictions. If the law says you need a certain amount of evidence, at some point the people being constrained by lack of evidence will find a way to work around that restriction. In our government this is called like Parallel Construction or Plausible Deniability or whatever else.

So when we were hunter gatherers there were people violating the rules - stealing, killing, etc, because they didn't see how these rules would benefit them. In Feudalism people seemed to find every possible shortcut around morality and righteousness. Buying indulgences is pretty amazing. In Communism, despite the outward constraints about the party being for the workers and everyone being equal, in practice it works quite differently. And in Capitalism people try to break every law possible that won't result in serious consequences.

In all these systems, people sort of exist within them, but they didn't agree to the constraints in thatsystem, or buy into the reasons they are necessary. Even when they do like in religious systems, they still try to cheat as much as possible. Over time these systems get undermined and lose their purpose.

So I think that's a really good starting point. How do you get people to participate in something without trying to undermine it at every level? I think it involves a fundamental buy in as to why the 'rules' are important and we want a society that doesn't spend most of their time trying to undermine the system they live in. But that sounds very authoritarian. I imagine it to be much more of an opt-in cooperative type thing. We all agree to uphold these values. If a time comes that we cannot uphold these values, we will find a different way of life.

I would like to see a start with a society that is not at war with itself, and where the citizens don't feel that rules are imposed on them by some ruler or system they didn't choose. I'd like to see a society where the citizens agree to the moral, legal, and cultural rules they will be bound by, and that it's a liberating and healing experience. And where these chosen beliefs help the people live the life they would like to have.

Expand full comment
author

Good stuff Alex.

The rules (constraints) that you talk about would exist inside the system, right? As long as everything stays transparent people will usually trust a system and it will run well for a variety of people. Without transparency that trust is lost and then people treat the system as such - and they undermine or game the system.

That’s why we should find the common ground. It won’t exist with everyone, but that’s okay. Right now we aren’t on anyone’s common ground except the authoritarians. And it’s dangerous.

We are going to relentlessly call for transparency, even if we stand alone.

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2022Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers

Yes, the rules / constraints should exist within the system and be completely transparent. An example of this that I think is a good way of doing it, is the Amish. This is simply a community that chooses to live differently - they separate themselves physically, but they live in traditional ways, with a specific faith, and avoid modern technology.

People are not coerced into living this way, and if anything, their desire to live that way is tested with Rumspringa. If all one has ever known is the Amish life, you are given the opportunity to experience the other type of modern life and choose whether to reaffirm their Amish beliefs or continue living in modern society.

If people could choose to live in other profound ways, as the Amish do, and see their choice to live that way an important part of their beliefs and identity, rather than smartphones being taken away from them, then it's a completely different vibe.

Most of our modern systems would involve people rebelling against Amish life, as it would be forced on them by the state. And yet when it's a community that people willingly choose to live by those beliefs and constraints, it's a very powerful and stable system.

Expand full comment
author

Have your read or listened to anything about Balaji's Network State?

It's up this alley. He did an 8 hour podcast on Lex Fridman that was epic recently.

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2022Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers

Or, they do understand them, disagree with them, & actively work to destroy them. I've met people w that perspective, & the progressives seem to be in that camp (but I'm unsure how many actually understand the system, it's constraints, & the reasons for them, & how many would just claim they understand them).

Expand full comment
author

Twztid13 it’s not just progressives. We need to rise above the dividing talk and simply talk about the cultural change we want to see. Progressives who care should demand transparency. So should conservatives. So should problem solvers like us. Transparency first.

If we can’t see we can’t drive.

Expand full comment

The problem with that utopian vision is we don't have a uniform set of values, principals and goals and we are constantly flooded with new groups with divergent values. The idea that society can find common ground while being led by the nose by a political class that uses wedge issues to actively divide the people with the power of a controlled and compliant media.

Expand full comment
author

We should mostly have some values we should agree on. How about living under systems that aren’t corrupted? I bet we could start there.

Expand full comment

We must have a cooperative spirit guiding us forward. The We in altruistic action. The Us in compassion. Understanding that our individual happiness factor is effected by the whole.

Expand full comment

"systems that aren’t corrupted" is a description of a single state, what we need are systems that are incorruptible, otherwise we have the same result as other revolutions where the new systems are instantly as corrupt as the old systems. Animal farm described this in a great simplistic story.

Expand full comment
author

Well okay, we are referring to the current state of corruption. But if you want to get semantical, sure, systems that are "incorruptible" moving forward. But is anything really incorruptible? It's a goal rather than a perpetual state.

Expand full comment

Nice theory but I don’t see it happening on a grand scale. Too many ppl simply going about their lives, living day to day, struggling to survive and feeling powerless. And do you think these institutions would ever want to disclose their corruption? They’ll just make up some law for you to break and toss you in prison.

Expand full comment
author

Culture changes first. You can naysay, or you can be part of the movement. That's up to you.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

but point is very valid. Later on we need to coach them. First on Carnivore diet. Then on societal systems.

Expand full comment
author

We don't need to worry about them. We need to worry about the people who see the problem and want to align to fix it. Create our own Network State like what Balaji Srinivasan talks about.

Expand full comment