Dec 20, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
The problem is really about money and power. People used to serve in the government out of a sense of duty as much as anything else. Private industry always paid better. Now it pays so well that gov’t has been corrupted....they love the power too! The entire DMV (DC, MD and VA) area is FULL of people sucking off the teat of gov’t. How do you change that? We must also have a balanced budget and accountability for all spending. More referendums so we can actually have a say in our governance. As far as testing for psycopaths, if you take the money and power out of the equation you won’t attract those types. Gov’t contractors need to be slashed and the war machine severely cut. Politicians spend like money grows on trees. They need to spend it like it is their own household budget and not a never ending supply of $ to throw around. It really is disgusting. If a massive number of people stopped paying taxes we’d get their attention don’t you think? They can’t arrest us all.
We are all for fixing the money too. Bitcoin is a great pathway. But also swarmed businesses can give advantages over the corrupted ones. This much we know for certain. Our upcoming articles we dive into swarm run businesses
What are your thoughts on the vulnerabilities of the hardware and telecommunications systems that cryptocurrencies depend on to function to things like extreme geomagnetic storms (CMEs) or manmade EMPs?
All entire economy - credit cards to amazon - run on electric. Everything is dependent upon them. So we can either assume we have power or assume we don't. If we don't, everyone will raid the billionaire houses first.
Not me, I have a faraday cage with a few important devices (off grid energy production tools , back up drives with cherished memories, water purifiers, arch lighters, lights etc) and a large garden that produces all we need to live happily. If the lights go out, it will impact me just about as much as it impacts the Amish people.
In a swarm psychopaths would be drown out by the other voices. Also in a high trust society how many people are going to voucher for a psychopath? Seems like more would leave bad reviews
A few years ago I would have agreed with you. But not now
Given that The vaccines and the 72 childhood vaccines on the childhood schedule cause brain damage..one of the worst things they do is wreck the empathy in people..and we are all slowly becoming psychopaths. Like maybe between 40 to 60 percent now
I didnt until recently..toby Roger's writes a substack and in one of them he writes about vaccinations in general..that they all leave damage...and we are now up to 72...and combining that with dr beggin testifying th as t brain damage gets worse not better and that it tends to damage the capacity to feel first...I'm just guessing..but I do know we need to discard our old assumptions now and take fresh looks
To install horiz. governance is not easy. First, the citizens need to learn about it and want it. Second the constitutions need to be rewritten to include horiz. governance. 3. nations need to be confederated to ensure that every city and village has autonomy within the limits of the new, agreed-upon constitution.
If we lived how the constitution was written there wouldn’t be this massive centralized behemoth that could be easily corrupted. The forefathers never wanted the federal govt to get like this and wanted states to have much more say in the daily lives of its citizens. FDR took 4 simple words “for the benefit of” and made an argument that the federal govt was to give its citizens what they were missing in their lives. It’s how Social Security started and others do good agencies that are constitutionally illegal. If we still had civics in schools we might have more leaders than the lemmings that are being churned out nowadays.
We cannot enforce what we do not have control over. The corruption is in control now. We need a new system. A new digital country called a Network State where we all join and turn it into a force for change.
My opinion is that the first and fundamental step is to ban the funding of political campaigns, at all levels and of all elected positions, by corporations or any kind of private interests.
Place a limit on contributions, say 1000 USD and only to be made publicly by private citizens who want to support a candidate.
Let candidates win popular support with his resumé and on the campaign trail. No more multimillion dollar contributions to campaigns, parties and candidates that result in making them puppets of corporate interests.
Without that all others reforms could be reversed easily and in a short time.
Bitcoin would be a great start. Having a currency that isn’t controlled by a “central bank” ie; government is a great start but if we have to give up our wallets to them it becomes a moot point. CBDC’s also create a massive surveilence state with other controls that take away even more civil liberties. The argument that Bitcoin and others are being used to fund terrorists is laughable as every transaction is public for everyone to see. The media narrative is just talking points fed straight from the government. Governments hate anything they can’t control. Even a country that is supposed to be “free”. While we are fewer than most all countries if everyone really looked at the bill of rights and other inalienable rights we are given by being citizens of this country it would downright disgust them on how many have been trampled and the few we have left have so many restrictions on them it’s basically gone too. Take the second amendment. Why do we need serial numbers on any weapon? It’s so it can be tracked by the govt. that’s not how it was written. The right to bear arms isn’t with having the govt say it’s ok after you give us the serial number or when we say you can have one. It’s the right to have them period. Why was it written that way? To let us keep the government at bay. From getting too much power. To overthrow should they not do the will and work of the people. To fight aggression from them. Those four words “for the benefit of” and how FDR bent the meaning of them created big govt and now we can’t stop it with the beauracracy that has entrenched itself and the power given to them by congress is why nothing gets done. Not showing us the budget until a day before it gets signed is illegal yet because it’s 5.000 pages long we get the talking points from our biased media and each side is pissed about what the other got. Our journalists could also help if we had any independent ones left. Sure we have a few who do investigative journalism but they get mocked and cancelled to the point of being irrelevant except to the few who still care about the fate of this country. None of how we live was supposed to be this way. An open market based society is supposed to have LIMITED GOVT. Does this look or feel that way? Sure doesn’t to me. Also, what’s with this .ai thing to join to? Is this whole thing just a machine? Or are people involved here? I’d like an answer to that before I send my ideas and arguments as I don’t need FBI agents knocking at my door because I’m truthful.
….continuing. The forefathers knew that big federal govt and an only two party system would lead to exactly what we are living in now. There is most likely a constitutional congress coming as there are I believe 24 of the 34 needed to form one. I’m not saying any of the ideas will ever become laws as the ideas need to get to the floor after they are created and blue states will want different things than red states. I’d also add that term limits would go a long way to getting rid of the corruption. You wouldn’t have lifers who imo will always find someway to be corrupted. Many new people come into congress with bright eyes and a fire they want to change what they see as unjust but if you watch them after several terms they become creatures of that swamp. If they only has two terms to get done what they went there to do I think you’d see the people being more represented than we are now. I still go back to the constitution though as the federal govt was NEVER supposed to be this. If we don’t trim these illegal agencies and the lifers in congress and those who work there NOTHING will ever change. I’d also add we need our journalists back. Not these opinionated talking heads who spout their political ideals as law and never ask the hard questions unless it someone they hate. Social media needs to die too
If the Constitution cannot be enforced, it is just paper. The corruption is the law now. But we can do something about it and it does not require violence. It requires building a high trust place to fix this. Join the discussion at SwarmAcademy.ai
Love the idea. It might just be me, but I don’t like the word swarm. Assemblages might be better or similar. Swarm indicates one hive mind controlling all others. What makes us unique is our ability to have group consciousness, but still be individuals.
We didn’t name it. It is a realm of science. We can rebrand if we want. Or, we can embrace it. A swarm is not controlled by a queen.
In a swarm of bees they all help make the decisions and stick together as one unit. You are right, a swarm requires fierce individualism. But the negative connotation about a hive mind needs to be changed. Because it is wrong. When bees look for a new hive location they all spread out - as individuals - and return to the group and do a “waggle dance.” The more excited the dance is the more they like the spot. And there are many variables needed when picking a hive location. As more bees visit the excited locations they compare and choose a spot together.
I understand. As long as the problems with humans is addressed. I mean here we are trying to get people to think for themselves,……what do they SEE. There are hundreds of papers on how we “go with the crowd”, “with whatever is popular” , “What the “experts” say”. How do we overcome this, and do the ‘swarm’ thing. We need more self confidence that we have been more right than wrong and our thoughts alone matter.
Thanks for sharing these interesting ideas with us all.
In your optimal vision for a society where government is run by a transparent and decentralized "Network State" democracy would you envision that system would involve involuntary taxation ?
As in, if I was living in the society governed by ideal vision you have for a state, and I was not interested in the services that nation-state was claiming to provide it's citizens, could I say "no thanks, I am okay without those services, I will just grow my own food and do my own thing" ? Or would that result in some kind of enforcement agency coming to collect taxes from me involuntarily if I did that?
If we had to wager a guess we think the swarm would gain control of taxes, make all spending transparent, and then keep the essentials and remove the rest. A swarm will not operate in a way that benefits a few and hurts the rest of the swarm, if it can maintain high rung thinking like Tim Urban explains in his book: What's Our Problem?
"A swarm will not operate in a way that benefits a few and hurts the rest of the swarm" Okay, but what about if a "swarm" operates in a way that benefits the many but hurts and forces the will of the many onto the few through violent coercion ?
That is essentially what a democracy is when it functions as advertised. Personally, I think violent coercion and involuntary taxation are things that are inherently immoral and unethical (regardless of whether or not a majority believes they are imposing their will onto a minority for the "greater good" or not). What you and most humans deem as "essentials" may be things that I have no interest in contributing my time and energy towards, and in that case, would your ideal form of democracy involve forcing me to contribute towards paying for those "essentials" or not?
In what way are we not already paying for all of that and more? The hell you just described is already our reality -- but worse. It is controlled by a tyrannically sociopathic minority.
The Constitution and Individualism need to be at the forefront of education when using swarms. We already are very aware of the dangers that exist in groups. But there is also amazing wisdom and problem solving. The question is, can we achieve the good without the bad?
We have found the answer to be yes. At least so far.
Doing so requires having a code. Also, not everyone needs to be part of the swarm society. You are free to join, free to leave, or free to start your own. That is the beauty of a Network State. It is truly a free market.
The other option is to continuing living in the world you already described. But even worse, the elite few are impose their will on the many.
You are missing the third option. I can take decisive action to boycott all corporate tyranny, banksters and complicit involuntary governance structures by creating decentralized food and medicine production systems that align with the health of local ecosystems. I can starve the sociopathic minority and contribute towards resilient communities that will be immune to their parasitism, rendering them obsolete and leaving them behind.
I do not subscribe to the statist belief system. I advocate for human beings to trust the inherent wisdom, compassion and intuition they were born with to use their own unique gifts, of their own free will, to leave this world a little bit more beautiful than it was then when we got here for future generations.
“The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The Individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.” - Gandhi
It is for times such as these that Gandhi used Satyagraha – the force of truth to resist unjust laws and empires peacefully and non violently. In nature one of her most innate truths and constants is her irrepressible capacity for regeneration. We can align with this innate facet of the living planet that sustains us and become irrepressible as well. We can empower our communities to be able to rise from the ashes like the phoenix and embody a template for regeneration which others can adopt as well.
We will create such abundance and emergent resilience that it will spill over into the neighborhoods and communities around us, sending ripples out that shift the tide from fear to hope and render their toxic centralized systems of dependence and oppression obsolete to one day leave them behind. We will do this without the need for high tech quick fix solutions or involuntary governance structures.
You have been sold the story that we need to be threatened and coerced into cooperating and behaving well by an institution that has a monopoly on violence coercion. That story is a fallacy.
It is time to move past the era of followers and leaders, peasants and princes, worshipers and saviors, minions and tyrants, corporations and consumers and usher in the age of self governed and self reliant human beings which collaborate of their own free will to leave this world a little more beautiful than it was before.
That is a fallacy. Violent coercion is an inherent component of Statist governments (involuntary governance structures such as "democracy").
Thus, unless you deem violently coercing other human beings to submit to your will (because you think you know what is better for them than they do) those systems of governance are obviously unethical and immoral.
Taxes are supposed to help us with solutions to societal problems, but instead they are the avenue for theft. Did you get to the idea of Bitcoin Swarms near the end of the article? That is one possible way that taxes could work.
If we change our epistemology around what taxes are, and what they are for, we can use collective intelligence to solve these problems in more ways than just by throwing money at it.
Step one would be changing the culture. In history, technology follows culture. For example at the turn of the 1900s the culture went from "The Wild Wild West" to "Cleanliness is next to Godliness." That culture change spawned some of the greatest technological inventions of all time: Running water, waste removal, and sanitation.
We need a new culture change with our systems where all of our systems are based on results.
But, what we should do is say "I don't know" and try many different solutions to see which ones have the best results.
What we do know is that well trained highly aligned people can problem solve this better than waiting for corrupted governments to do it for us. We need a seat back at the table.
I think it is worth highlighting that period you describe as "Cleanliness is next to Godliness." also involved the genocide of indigenous peoples and the mass destruction of ecosystems moving forward full steam ahead (thanks to some other "breakthrough technological inventions").
Long before the so called "wild west" era indigenous peoples had developed highly advanced methods for food cultivation, regenerative ecosystem management (food forest farming), fresh water management and effective natural medicine. I do not hear you championing (or even mentioning) their highly effective, equitable and health promoting technologies, scientific methodologies or ways of living here? Why is that?
Have you read a book called “The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity” (2021)
Crow Qu’appelle (of NEVERMORE MEDIA) describes the book by saying:
“It basically completely revolutionizes the history of the Western intellectual tradition, including the Enlightenment, natural law theory, and much, much more. I’m not exaggerating..
..The major achievement of Graeber and Wengrow is to restore what they call The Indigenous Critique (of Western Civilization) to its proper place in history.
Prior to reading The Dawn of Everything, I was not aware of the term the indigenous critique, and I definitely hope that it enters the vernacular.
What is the indigenous critique, you ask? Well, basically, when Europeans arrived to Turtle Island (aka “North America”) they encountered very different societies than those they were accustomed to. Those societies had very different cultures, each with their own intellectual tradition.
The collision of two completely separate intellectual traditions led to the creation of an indigenous critique of European society, which Graeber and Wengrow call THE INDIGENOUS CRITIQUE.
The Indigenous Critique refers to critiques of European society which were developed by Turtle Islanders.
Elizabeth Whitworth explains:
In the late 1600s, European colonists in North America became engaged in philosophical discussions with the indigenous peoples of that land. Some of the indigenous people and the colonists learned to speak one another’s languages fluently. Graeber and Wengrow explain that the native North Americans had strong philosophical traditions and skilled orators who challenged European colonial officials in debates.
This is really wonderful, because for all the talk of decolonizing academia, the standard narrative is still of a vastly technologically superior civilization overrunning much more primitive societies in the New World.
In some cases, indigenous intellectuals travelled to Europe in order to study and understand feudal society. One such person was a Huron-Wendat leader named Kondiaronk, also known as Le Rat, who seems to have impressed everyone he ever met with his great brilliance.
Whitworth continues:
In New France, Wendat leader Kandiaronk raised scathing critiques of European social customs and values, particularly criticizing monarchical rule, social hierarchies, emphasis on the accumulation of wealth and materialism, and punitive justice systems. These descriptions then made their way back to Europe, where they were widely distributed among the intellectual class and, Graeber and Wengrow argue, became the inspiration for much Enlightenment thought.
In other words (according to Crow Qu’appelle) one of the most important thinkers in the history of the Western intellectual tradition was an indigenous anarchist from what’s now called Canada.
One of the major cultural differences the Europeans and indigenous people found they had was the notion of equality and its connection to freedom. Indigenous ideas about equality and freedom directly conflicted with the European notions of social status and a natural hierarchy.
Graeber and Wengrow say that Europe before the 1700s lacked a notion of social equality. They believed that some people are naturally higher or lower in status and authority than others. They lived in monarchies and they derived that system from biblical notions of nobility and authority. In other words, God (or rather some human’s declarations of what ‘God’s will’ is in religious institutions) decided one’s station in life.
By contrast, many of the Native American cultures had no notion that anyone could be born higher or lower in status than anyone else or that anyone could have authority over anyone else. In such cultures, status might be gained with age or according to merit. But the notion that people are inherently unequal or that any status could give someone the right to dominate someone else would not have existed in this kind of cultural worldview.”
————–
I am about 1/3 of the way through the book now myself. While discovering the historical details of the so called “indigenous critique” has filled in some important pieces of the puzzle for me, I am also seeing that as I have gotten to the part of the book talking about the indigenous peoples that lived along the Mississippi River, what is now called California, Northeastern Canada and Northwestern Canada and referring to them as “hunter/gatherers and/or foragers” the authors appear to know nothing about how many indigenous people cultivated food.
I have seen evidence from multiple sources that people who called those lands home actually had extremely advanced food cultivation and farming systems that seamlessly blended with existing forest ecology.
Thus, they did not simply forage, but rather actively managed (and even enhanced ecosystems biodiversity) in order to produce an abundance of nutrient dense food (and in a way that expresses an advanced understanding of botany, the interdependence of species and soil ecology).
Here is a link to a video presentation that explores of those ancient methods
“Architects of Abundance: Indigenous Food Systems and the Excavation of Hidden History” by Dr. Lyla June
Even so, based on what I have read so far, I think the book is worth a read. Despite having some gaping omissions with regards to effectively describing the indigenous societies of North America it offers well referenced glimpses into other areas that desperately need illumination and discussion.
What about the highly advanced forms of democracy and even completely voluntary community organizing methods that existed on this continent long before Europeans arrived? I would like to hear you explore their actionable solutions to some of the problems we face as a species and civilization.
We were referring to just technological advances following culture, not the entire settling of a new country with people stealing lands from each other. Ethic cleansing happened at the same tame, but wasn't part of that cultural movement.
In order to illustrate how putting technology on a pedestal is not necessarily a wise approach to trying to solve the challenges we face as a species I present the following hypothetical.
There are many suppressed and emergent forms of energy generation technologies that could theoretically be put to use to balance the scales between the haves and the have nots and to end pollution and environmental destruction. However, it is also possible that we could scale up fusion (cold or hot) and get access to unlimited clean energy, only to use it to destroy what is left of the natural world in the name of “progress” and turn the whole planet into one big Ecumenopolis.
Thus, rather than diving into depending on technology and leaning into anthropocentrism further, I would suggest that the more underlying and fundamental imperative before us is to educate the human beings that are deciding what to do with that technology to value the sacredness and intrinsic value of wilderness places and intact ecosystems.
The term "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" is born of a worldview that deemed some human beings as "savages" that needed to be converted or murdered and nature as just another foe that needs to also be conquered and pacified. The results of that backwards adversarial and arrogant mentality can be directly perceived if you look at the industrial contamination of our fresh water sources all over North America. You may want to draw a line of separation between those technologies you described and the ones that were used to kill and contaminate, but that defies the reality that they are born of the same mentality, the came culture of hubris and an irrational and futile attempt to wage war on and conquer nature.
What about the highly advanced forms of democracy and even completely voluntaristic community organizing methods that existed on this continent long before Europeans arrived? I would like to hear you explore their actionable solutions to some of the problems we face as a species and civilization.
Volunteerism seems to work at smaller scales. But breaks down in larger ones. Trust needs to be the focal point of larger systems. This is why we like decentralized trust like Amazon or Ebay use to determine who are good and bad sellers.
Amazon and Ebay are owned by transhumanists that have an irrational fear of death and engage in business in a way that wreaks havoc and mass destruction on the living Earth and involves the exploitation of human beings. Thus, if it was me, I would avoid using them as an example worth emulating in any way.
Volunteerism seems to work at smaller scales. But breaks down in larger ones. Trust needs to be the focal point of larger systems. This is why we like decentralized trust like Amazon or Ebay use to determine who are good and bad sellers.
Volunteerism seems to work at smaller scales. But breaks down in larger ones. Trust needs to be the focal point of larger systems. This is why we like decentralized trust like Amazon or Ebay use to determine who are good and bad sellers.
Thank you for this article. I have subscribed to follow the progress of the swarm and educate myself regarding replacing corrupt systems. As I become more educated in this effort, I expect I will become a more active participant in the process and upgrade to paid subscriber, as well as contributor to the effort as a swarm member and contributor. Finally, there appears to be a way forward in addressing the unbelievable corruption at all levels of our daily life. Peer to Peer trust is the only place I still have confidence in and even that is much smaller than it used to be. I wish you great success in this pursuit.
Thank you Herb! We do not take paid subscribers here as this Substack will always be free. However once we have the Network State running we will be starting a nonprofit called the Uncorruptors. And there we will take donations and anyone who donates will be able to control the entire nonprofit and spending as part of the swarm. Thanks for being our aly!
Thanks for giving this so much time and thought. I apologize if you feel that you have adequately addressed my concerns and with give your piece additional time and consideration it deserves but I have a few concerns.
Exclusion filters always present a problem. Definitions of "psychopath" or other diagnostic cetegories can be gamed and stretched to exclude people that might have important, though possibly "disruptive" input. I am not sure that disagreeable or sociopathic people are necessarily or even more commonly wrong about a given topic although they are likely to be unpleasant. They are likely to have poor scores, but they are probably also immune to "safe" group-think. How do you prevent the swarm from being "the sum of all fears?" Some unpleasant personality styles may be needed to innovate and upset the status quo or permit paradigm shift. How do you cultivate a desire to participate, to motivate a variety of individuals, and to sustain them towards certain tasks, even if it means including people who can and would be caustic given the proper conditions?
What we are witnessing now is a spontaneously evolving and competing "swarm of swarms" that is much more robust, harder to game, harder to control, easier to abandon if "infected." The platforms then engage in inter-platform gaming and competition. Any universal scoring system tends towards dominance and control. Promises of "openness" and "transparency" have seemed to prove themselves to be pretty universally among the most corrupt. The "fact checkers" and "ministry of truth" represent themselves as arbiters of and enforcers of the narrative. How can we be assured that a single system, composed of humans and human designed elements will ever reliably elevate above the inherently human demons?
One of the problems of central design, single algorithms, universal scores is the planning and management component which seems to be the inherent downfall of these systems. Look at the scores that academics and "experts" give each other. Why are scientists and physicians and academics such demonstrable failures at overcoming problems even within their respective confines? Those scores are not looking very reliable for sensemaking or rule making or openness to ideas or true tolerance. The rating systems of the platforms you point out are routinely gamed and increasingly unreliable, as are the "rating systems" made up of expert disciplines mentioned. They are not robust enough to earn our trust, which is why their trust is evaporating.
Competing platforms, competing rating systems, competing regulatory entities, competing accreditation systems will help erode the tenacious hold that has us all chafing at the bit of the corrupt and annointed systems. An encouraged/incentivized, loosely controlled "rolling revolution" in these loci of control seems necessary to bring us forward. The framework must be grounded in the constition, law, and a real committement to free speech/idea diversity.
We will have a code, as all Network States do. All of the failures you mentioned are because of corruption. And this will be the hardest system to corrupt. It will run on Bitcoin, decentralized and transparent systems. None of what you mentioned does that at all.
The problem we are solving for is corruption.
The design is not central. It is being designed by a swarm.
By Bitcoin I trust you mean BSV not BTC as the BTC system is already corrupt. Looks like Epstein may have been heavily involved in the 'hard fork' splitting BTC and BSV as a way to continue funding his nefarious practices.
There was a fork from the original (White paper) bitcoin. BTC formed from this fork. In doing so there were features of the original bitcoin that were lost. The BTC fork is not secure, and has been used for illegal financial activities.
5th Feb 2024 there is a court case Dr C Wright vs COPA ( a group including Coinbase, META and others)
Dr Wright made an offer to COPA whereby they would accept his proposals and there would be no need for a trial. They turned the offer down. So court case will go ahead.
BTC is too slow and has become very expensive - it cannot be a person-to-person transaction system, which is what BSV still is. This link explains how transaction speed will be increased and gives examples of what this might be used for.
BSV as a form of currency can handle large numbers of micropayments at speed and low cost. As the maximum amount of BSV is set there cannot be inflation so it is a more equitable system and would be beneficial towards humanity as a whole. It is also possible to use it without access to phones/computers.
I admire your optimism and look forward to further discussion.
My concern is in considering the reality of human nature/behaviour. Our understanding of ourselves and our relationship with each other and the universe/nature was hijacked thousands of years ago and has been manipulated since. There is an absurd amount of unhealed trauma infecting the hearts and minds of millions, and it has been happening for generations. Without healing occurring, all of these wounds distort the ability to see and hear the truth.
The “hive”, or the collective/group/team/mob/masses, is only as strong as the individual. This is the reality of the situation. As long as the individuals that make up the hive are confused about the nature of reality, the hive will behave confused.
I don’t believe there is anyway around it. We must each take on the responsibility to heal and learn. We must each conquer our fears and complete our hero’s journey. This one chance at life we have must be valued and honoured for all that it is.
As long as the individual continues to look for another person to lead them, we are denying ourselves our truth and freedom.
We absolutely do need to take responsibility. But when we do so together it is exponentially more powerful. We look forward to you seeing it in action.
The problem is really about money and power. People used to serve in the government out of a sense of duty as much as anything else. Private industry always paid better. Now it pays so well that gov’t has been corrupted....they love the power too! The entire DMV (DC, MD and VA) area is FULL of people sucking off the teat of gov’t. How do you change that? We must also have a balanced budget and accountability for all spending. More referendums so we can actually have a say in our governance. As far as testing for psycopaths, if you take the money and power out of the equation you won’t attract those types. Gov’t contractors need to be slashed and the war machine severely cut. Politicians spend like money grows on trees. They need to spend it like it is their own household budget and not a never ending supply of $ to throw around. It really is disgusting. If a massive number of people stopped paying taxes we’d get their attention don’t you think? They can’t arrest us all.
We are all for fixing the money too. Bitcoin is a great pathway. But also swarmed businesses can give advantages over the corrupted ones. This much we know for certain. Our upcoming articles we dive into swarm run businesses
What are your thoughts on the vulnerabilities of the hardware and telecommunications systems that cryptocurrencies depend on to function to things like extreme geomagnetic storms (CMEs) or manmade EMPs?
For more info on the data regarding the vulnerabilities of our current technological infrastructure to Coronal Mass Ejections (large solar storms) see: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/preparing-for-the-100-year-storms
All entire economy - credit cards to amazon - run on electric. Everything is dependent upon them. So we can either assume we have power or assume we don't. If we don't, everyone will raid the billionaire houses first.
Not me, I have a faraday cage with a few important devices (off grid energy production tools , back up drives with cherished memories, water purifiers, arch lighters, lights etc) and a large garden that produces all we need to live happily. If the lights go out, it will impact me just about as much as it impacts the Amish people.
Also the problem isn't about money and power. There will always be money and power and crooks.
The problem is that we have systems that are corruptible way easier than they should be.
I love all the ideas, but I want to add one. We need to screen people for psycopathy. The psycopaths must be isolated from any of these systems.
In a swarm psychopaths would be drown out by the other voices. Also in a high trust society how many people are going to voucher for a psychopath? Seems like more would leave bad reviews
A few years ago I would have agreed with you. But not now
Given that The vaccines and the 72 childhood vaccines on the childhood schedule cause brain damage..one of the worst things they do is wreck the empathy in people..and we are all slowly becoming psychopaths. Like maybe between 40 to 60 percent now
Ask toby rogers
You think 40% of the population is psychopaths? Do you have a link to reference this? That is wild.
I didnt until recently..toby Roger's writes a substack and in one of them he writes about vaccinations in general..that they all leave damage...and we are now up to 72...and combining that with dr beggin testifying th as t brain damage gets worse not better and that it tends to damage the capacity to feel first...I'm just guessing..but I do know we need to discard our old assumptions now and take fresh looks
Be careful throwing babies out with the bathwater!
Why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywMhg604W8 this is an animation about horizontal governance made in 2020. Love what you are doing. I wish to participate.
To install horiz. governance is not easy. First, the citizens need to learn about it and want it. Second the constitutions need to be rewritten to include horiz. governance. 3. nations need to be confederated to ensure that every city and village has autonomy within the limits of the new, agreed-upon constitution.
Wouldn’t it be easier to make our own systems and plug them in than trying to change the existing ones?
Maybe so. But it needs to be from the top down.
You mean a centralized system? Or how we change it?
No, decentralized. Did you see the animation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywMhg604W8
Top down is essential to rid us of corrupt government.
It isn't possible to know such things.
If we lived how the constitution was written there wouldn’t be this massive centralized behemoth that could be easily corrupted. The forefathers never wanted the federal govt to get like this and wanted states to have much more say in the daily lives of its citizens. FDR took 4 simple words “for the benefit of” and made an argument that the federal govt was to give its citizens what they were missing in their lives. It’s how Social Security started and others do good agencies that are constitutionally illegal. If we still had civics in schools we might have more leaders than the lemmings that are being churned out nowadays.
We cannot enforce what we do not have control over. The corruption is in control now. We need a new system. A new digital country called a Network State where we all join and turn it into a force for change.
My opinion is that the first and fundamental step is to ban the funding of political campaigns, at all levels and of all elected positions, by corporations or any kind of private interests.
Place a limit on contributions, say 1000 USD and only to be made publicly by private citizens who want to support a candidate.
Let candidates win popular support with his resumé and on the campaign trail. No more multimillion dollar contributions to campaigns, parties and candidates that result in making them puppets of corporate interests.
Without that all others reforms could be reversed easily and in a short time.
Great article. I’d like to learn more
Good article. Best of luck.
Really appreciate the focus on decentralization, trust, and incrementalism. We've written about similar concepts and how they might help solve other problems. For example, spaceflight: https://open.substack.com/pub/tamingcomplexity/p/the-real-reason-behind-the-success?r=2c58qa&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
But many other topics as well!
Very cool. We will pass this around and check it out.
Bitcoin would be a great start. Having a currency that isn’t controlled by a “central bank” ie; government is a great start but if we have to give up our wallets to them it becomes a moot point. CBDC’s also create a massive surveilence state with other controls that take away even more civil liberties. The argument that Bitcoin and others are being used to fund terrorists is laughable as every transaction is public for everyone to see. The media narrative is just talking points fed straight from the government. Governments hate anything they can’t control. Even a country that is supposed to be “free”. While we are fewer than most all countries if everyone really looked at the bill of rights and other inalienable rights we are given by being citizens of this country it would downright disgust them on how many have been trampled and the few we have left have so many restrictions on them it’s basically gone too. Take the second amendment. Why do we need serial numbers on any weapon? It’s so it can be tracked by the govt. that’s not how it was written. The right to bear arms isn’t with having the govt say it’s ok after you give us the serial number or when we say you can have one. It’s the right to have them period. Why was it written that way? To let us keep the government at bay. From getting too much power. To overthrow should they not do the will and work of the people. To fight aggression from them. Those four words “for the benefit of” and how FDR bent the meaning of them created big govt and now we can’t stop it with the beauracracy that has entrenched itself and the power given to them by congress is why nothing gets done. Not showing us the budget until a day before it gets signed is illegal yet because it’s 5.000 pages long we get the talking points from our biased media and each side is pissed about what the other got. Our journalists could also help if we had any independent ones left. Sure we have a few who do investigative journalism but they get mocked and cancelled to the point of being irrelevant except to the few who still care about the fate of this country. None of how we live was supposed to be this way. An open market based society is supposed to have LIMITED GOVT. Does this look or feel that way? Sure doesn’t to me. Also, what’s with this .ai thing to join to? Is this whole thing just a machine? Or are people involved here? I’d like an answer to that before I send my ideas and arguments as I don’t need FBI agents knocking at my door because I’m truthful.
You get it. And you have identified the problem. So what is the peaceful solution?
Decentralization. Transparency. New systems we migrate to in order to solve problems in high trust (or no trust) groups.
The rebellion is decentralization.
….continuing. The forefathers knew that big federal govt and an only two party system would lead to exactly what we are living in now. There is most likely a constitutional congress coming as there are I believe 24 of the 34 needed to form one. I’m not saying any of the ideas will ever become laws as the ideas need to get to the floor after they are created and blue states will want different things than red states. I’d also add that term limits would go a long way to getting rid of the corruption. You wouldn’t have lifers who imo will always find someway to be corrupted. Many new people come into congress with bright eyes and a fire they want to change what they see as unjust but if you watch them after several terms they become creatures of that swamp. If they only has two terms to get done what they went there to do I think you’d see the people being more represented than we are now. I still go back to the constitution though as the federal govt was NEVER supposed to be this. If we don’t trim these illegal agencies and the lifers in congress and those who work there NOTHING will ever change. I’d also add we need our journalists back. Not these opinionated talking heads who spout their political ideals as law and never ask the hard questions unless it someone they hate. Social media needs to die too
If the Constitution cannot be enforced, it is just paper. The corruption is the law now. But we can do something about it and it does not require violence. It requires building a high trust place to fix this. Join the discussion at SwarmAcademy.ai
It isn't possible to know whether violence may be unavoidable/needed.
You’ll need a school of rational ethical economics to replaces the Marxist crowd for step 3.
We will have an academy (swarmacademy.ai) that people will be required to graduate from to join our swarms. We will have a code of ethics.
Love the idea. It might just be me, but I don’t like the word swarm. Assemblages might be better or similar. Swarm indicates one hive mind controlling all others. What makes us unique is our ability to have group consciousness, but still be individuals.
We didn’t name it. It is a realm of science. We can rebrand if we want. Or, we can embrace it. A swarm is not controlled by a queen.
In a swarm of bees they all help make the decisions and stick together as one unit. You are right, a swarm requires fierce individualism. But the negative connotation about a hive mind needs to be changed. Because it is wrong. When bees look for a new hive location they all spread out - as individuals - and return to the group and do a “waggle dance.” The more excited the dance is the more they like the spot. And there are many variables needed when picking a hive location. As more bees visit the excited locations they compare and choose a spot together.
Humans can do this time a billion.
I understand. As long as the problems with humans is addressed. I mean here we are trying to get people to think for themselves,……what do they SEE. There are hundreds of papers on how we “go with the crowd”, “with whatever is popular” , “What the “experts” say”. How do we overcome this, and do the ‘swarm’ thing. We need more self confidence that we have been more right than wrong and our thoughts alone matter.
How do you know that is necessary?
How do you know who is anonymous and who isn't?
You may have explained if so I withdraw my comment.
Thanks for sharing these interesting ideas with us all.
In your optimal vision for a society where government is run by a transparent and decentralized "Network State" democracy would you envision that system would involve involuntary taxation ?
As in, if I was living in the society governed by ideal vision you have for a state, and I was not interested in the services that nation-state was claiming to provide it's citizens, could I say "no thanks, I am okay without those services, I will just grow my own food and do my own thing" ? Or would that result in some kind of enforcement agency coming to collect taxes from me involuntarily if I did that?
Thanks for your time.
If we had to wager a guess we think the swarm would gain control of taxes, make all spending transparent, and then keep the essentials and remove the rest. A swarm will not operate in a way that benefits a few and hurts the rest of the swarm, if it can maintain high rung thinking like Tim Urban explains in his book: What's Our Problem?
"A swarm will not operate in a way that benefits a few and hurts the rest of the swarm" Okay, but what about if a "swarm" operates in a way that benefits the many but hurts and forces the will of the many onto the few through violent coercion ?
That is essentially what a democracy is when it functions as advertised. Personally, I think violent coercion and involuntary taxation are things that are inherently immoral and unethical (regardless of whether or not a majority believes they are imposing their will onto a minority for the "greater good" or not). What you and most humans deem as "essentials" may be things that I have no interest in contributing my time and energy towards, and in that case, would your ideal form of democracy involve forcing me to contribute towards paying for those "essentials" or not?
In what way are we not already paying for all of that and more? The hell you just described is already our reality -- but worse. It is controlled by a tyrannically sociopathic minority.
The Constitution and Individualism need to be at the forefront of education when using swarms. We already are very aware of the dangers that exist in groups. But there is also amazing wisdom and problem solving. The question is, can we achieve the good without the bad?
We have found the answer to be yes. At least so far.
Doing so requires having a code. Also, not everyone needs to be part of the swarm society. You are free to join, free to leave, or free to start your own. That is the beauty of a Network State. It is truly a free market.
The other option is to continuing living in the world you already described. But even worse, the elite few are impose their will on the many.
You are missing the third option. I can take decisive action to boycott all corporate tyranny, banksters and complicit involuntary governance structures by creating decentralized food and medicine production systems that align with the health of local ecosystems. I can starve the sociopathic minority and contribute towards resilient communities that will be immune to their parasitism, rendering them obsolete and leaving them behind.
I do not subscribe to the statist belief system. I advocate for human beings to trust the inherent wisdom, compassion and intuition they were born with to use their own unique gifts, of their own free will, to leave this world a little bit more beautiful than it was then when we got here for future generations.
“The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The Individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.” - Gandhi
It is for times such as these that Gandhi used Satyagraha – the force of truth to resist unjust laws and empires peacefully and non violently. In nature one of her most innate truths and constants is her irrepressible capacity for regeneration. We can align with this innate facet of the living planet that sustains us and become irrepressible as well. We can empower our communities to be able to rise from the ashes like the phoenix and embody a template for regeneration which others can adopt as well.
We will create such abundance and emergent resilience that it will spill over into the neighborhoods and communities around us, sending ripples out that shift the tide from fear to hope and render their toxic centralized systems of dependence and oppression obsolete to one day leave them behind. We will do this without the need for high tech quick fix solutions or involuntary governance structures.
You have been sold the story that we need to be threatened and coerced into cooperating and behaving well by an institution that has a monopoly on violence coercion. That story is a fallacy.
It is time to move past the era of followers and leaders, peasants and princes, worshipers and saviors, minions and tyrants, corporations and consumers and usher in the age of self governed and self reliant human beings which collaborate of their own free will to leave this world a little more beautiful than it was before.
What are your thoughts on the concepts and data presented in this article?
https://www.corbettreport.com/government-itself-is-immoral/
government is a system. like any system it has no morals until they are assigned
That is a fallacy. Violent coercion is an inherent component of Statist governments (involuntary governance structures such as "democracy").
Thus, unless you deem violently coercing other human beings to submit to your will (because you think you know what is better for them than they do) those systems of governance are obviously unethical and immoral.
Taxes are supposed to help us with solutions to societal problems, but instead they are the avenue for theft. Did you get to the idea of Bitcoin Swarms near the end of the article? That is one possible way that taxes could work.
If we change our epistemology around what taxes are, and what they are for, we can use collective intelligence to solve these problems in more ways than just by throwing money at it.
Step one would be changing the culture. In history, technology follows culture. For example at the turn of the 1900s the culture went from "The Wild Wild West" to "Cleanliness is next to Godliness." That culture change spawned some of the greatest technological inventions of all time: Running water, waste removal, and sanitation.
We need a new culture change with our systems where all of our systems are based on results.
But, what we should do is say "I don't know" and try many different solutions to see which ones have the best results.
What we do know is that well trained highly aligned people can problem solve this better than waiting for corrupted governments to do it for us. We need a seat back at the table.
I think it is worth highlighting that period you describe as "Cleanliness is next to Godliness." also involved the genocide of indigenous peoples and the mass destruction of ecosystems moving forward full steam ahead (thanks to some other "breakthrough technological inventions").
For more information read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-anthropocentrism-bright
Long before the so called "wild west" era indigenous peoples had developed highly advanced methods for food cultivation, regenerative ecosystem management (food forest farming), fresh water management and effective natural medicine. I do not hear you championing (or even mentioning) their highly effective, equitable and health promoting technologies, scientific methodologies or ways of living here? Why is that?
Have you read a book called “The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity” (2021)
by David Graeber and David Wengrow ?
( Full digital copy of the book can be accessed here: https://archive.org/stream/graeber-wengrow-dawn/The%20Dawn%20of%20Everything%20-%20David%20Graeber%20%26%20David%20Wengrow_djvu.txt )
Crow Qu’appelle (of NEVERMORE MEDIA) describes the book by saying:
“It basically completely revolutionizes the history of the Western intellectual tradition, including the Enlightenment, natural law theory, and much, much more. I’m not exaggerating..
..The major achievement of Graeber and Wengrow is to restore what they call The Indigenous Critique (of Western Civilization) to its proper place in history.
Prior to reading The Dawn of Everything, I was not aware of the term the indigenous critique, and I definitely hope that it enters the vernacular.
What is the indigenous critique, you ask? Well, basically, when Europeans arrived to Turtle Island (aka “North America”) they encountered very different societies than those they were accustomed to. Those societies had very different cultures, each with their own intellectual tradition.
The collision of two completely separate intellectual traditions led to the creation of an indigenous critique of European society, which Graeber and Wengrow call THE INDIGENOUS CRITIQUE.
The Indigenous Critique refers to critiques of European society which were developed by Turtle Islanders.
Elizabeth Whitworth explains:
In the late 1600s, European colonists in North America became engaged in philosophical discussions with the indigenous peoples of that land. Some of the indigenous people and the colonists learned to speak one another’s languages fluently. Graeber and Wengrow explain that the native North Americans had strong philosophical traditions and skilled orators who challenged European colonial officials in debates.
This is really wonderful, because for all the talk of decolonizing academia, the standard narrative is still of a vastly technologically superior civilization overrunning much more primitive societies in the New World.
In some cases, indigenous intellectuals travelled to Europe in order to study and understand feudal society. One such person was a Huron-Wendat leader named Kondiaronk, also known as Le Rat, who seems to have impressed everyone he ever met with his great brilliance.
Whitworth continues:
In New France, Wendat leader Kandiaronk raised scathing critiques of European social customs and values, particularly criticizing monarchical rule, social hierarchies, emphasis on the accumulation of wealth and materialism, and punitive justice systems. These descriptions then made their way back to Europe, where they were widely distributed among the intellectual class and, Graeber and Wengrow argue, became the inspiration for much Enlightenment thought.
In other words (according to Crow Qu’appelle) one of the most important thinkers in the history of the Western intellectual tradition was an indigenous anarchist from what’s now called Canada.
One of the major cultural differences the Europeans and indigenous people found they had was the notion of equality and its connection to freedom. Indigenous ideas about equality and freedom directly conflicted with the European notions of social status and a natural hierarchy.
Graeber and Wengrow say that Europe before the 1700s lacked a notion of social equality. They believed that some people are naturally higher or lower in status and authority than others. They lived in monarchies and they derived that system from biblical notions of nobility and authority. In other words, God (or rather some human’s declarations of what ‘God’s will’ is in religious institutions) decided one’s station in life.
By contrast, many of the Native American cultures had no notion that anyone could be born higher or lower in status than anyone else or that anyone could have authority over anyone else. In such cultures, status might be gained with age or according to merit. But the notion that people are inherently unequal or that any status could give someone the right to dominate someone else would not have existed in this kind of cultural worldview.”
————–
I am about 1/3 of the way through the book now myself. While discovering the historical details of the so called “indigenous critique” has filled in some important pieces of the puzzle for me, I am also seeing that as I have gotten to the part of the book talking about the indigenous peoples that lived along the Mississippi River, what is now called California, Northeastern Canada and Northwestern Canada and referring to them as “hunter/gatherers and/or foragers” the authors appear to know nothing about how many indigenous people cultivated food.
I have seen evidence from multiple sources that people who called those lands home actually had extremely advanced food cultivation and farming systems that seamlessly blended with existing forest ecology.
Thus, they did not simply forage, but rather actively managed (and even enhanced ecosystems biodiversity) in order to produce an abundance of nutrient dense food (and in a way that expresses an advanced understanding of botany, the interdependence of species and soil ecology).
Here is a link to a video presentation that explores of those ancient methods
“Architects of Abundance: Indigenous Food Systems and the Excavation of Hidden History” by Dr. Lyla June
youtube.com/watch?v=UxxRV44-wZ0
Even so, based on what I have read so far, I think the book is worth a read. Despite having some gaping omissions with regards to effectively describing the indigenous societies of North America it offers well referenced glimpses into other areas that desperately need illumination and discussion.
What about the highly advanced forms of democracy and even completely voluntary community organizing methods that existed on this continent long before Europeans arrived? I would like to hear you explore their actionable solutions to some of the problems we face as a species and civilization.
We were referring to just technological advances following culture, not the entire settling of a new country with people stealing lands from each other. Ethic cleansing happened at the same tame, but wasn't part of that cultural movement.
In order to illustrate how putting technology on a pedestal is not necessarily a wise approach to trying to solve the challenges we face as a species I present the following hypothetical.
There are many suppressed and emergent forms of energy generation technologies that could theoretically be put to use to balance the scales between the haves and the have nots and to end pollution and environmental destruction. However, it is also possible that we could scale up fusion (cold or hot) and get access to unlimited clean energy, only to use it to destroy what is left of the natural world in the name of “progress” and turn the whole planet into one big Ecumenopolis.
Thus, rather than diving into depending on technology and leaning into anthropocentrism further, I would suggest that the more underlying and fundamental imperative before us is to educate the human beings that are deciding what to do with that technology to value the sacredness and intrinsic value of wilderness places and intact ecosystems.
The "cultural movement" you describe is intrinsically tied to the colonialism and mass destruction of the ecosystems I outlined in this essay https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-anthropocentrism-bright
The term "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" is born of a worldview that deemed some human beings as "savages" that needed to be converted or murdered and nature as just another foe that needs to also be conquered and pacified. The results of that backwards adversarial and arrogant mentality can be directly perceived if you look at the industrial contamination of our fresh water sources all over North America. You may want to draw a line of separation between those technologies you described and the ones that were used to kill and contaminate, but that defies the reality that they are born of the same mentality, the came culture of hubris and an irrational and futile attempt to wage war on and conquer nature.
What about the highly advanced forms of democracy and even completely voluntaristic community organizing methods that existed on this continent long before Europeans arrived? I would like to hear you explore their actionable solutions to some of the problems we face as a species and civilization.
Volunteerism seems to work at smaller scales. But breaks down in larger ones. Trust needs to be the focal point of larger systems. This is why we like decentralized trust like Amazon or Ebay use to determine who are good and bad sellers.
Amazon and Ebay are owned by transhumanists that have an irrational fear of death and engage in business in a way that wreaks havoc and mass destruction on the living Earth and involves the exploitation of human beings. Thus, if it was me, I would avoid using them as an example worth emulating in any way.
Do you consider yourself to be a transhumanist?
Volunteerism seems to work at smaller scales. But breaks down in larger ones. Trust needs to be the focal point of larger systems. This is why we like decentralized trust like Amazon or Ebay use to determine who are good and bad sellers.
Volunteerism seems to work at smaller scales. But breaks down in larger ones. Trust needs to be the focal point of larger systems. This is why we like decentralized trust like Amazon or Ebay use to determine who are good and bad sellers.
Thank you for this article. I have subscribed to follow the progress of the swarm and educate myself regarding replacing corrupt systems. As I become more educated in this effort, I expect I will become a more active participant in the process and upgrade to paid subscriber, as well as contributor to the effort as a swarm member and contributor. Finally, there appears to be a way forward in addressing the unbelievable corruption at all levels of our daily life. Peer to Peer trust is the only place I still have confidence in and even that is much smaller than it used to be. I wish you great success in this pursuit.
Thank you Herb! We do not take paid subscribers here as this Substack will always be free. However once we have the Network State running we will be starting a nonprofit called the Uncorruptors. And there we will take donations and anyone who donates will be able to control the entire nonprofit and spending as part of the swarm. Thanks for being our aly!
Thanks for giving this so much time and thought. I apologize if you feel that you have adequately addressed my concerns and with give your piece additional time and consideration it deserves but I have a few concerns.
Exclusion filters always present a problem. Definitions of "psychopath" or other diagnostic cetegories can be gamed and stretched to exclude people that might have important, though possibly "disruptive" input. I am not sure that disagreeable or sociopathic people are necessarily or even more commonly wrong about a given topic although they are likely to be unpleasant. They are likely to have poor scores, but they are probably also immune to "safe" group-think. How do you prevent the swarm from being "the sum of all fears?" Some unpleasant personality styles may be needed to innovate and upset the status quo or permit paradigm shift. How do you cultivate a desire to participate, to motivate a variety of individuals, and to sustain them towards certain tasks, even if it means including people who can and would be caustic given the proper conditions?
What we are witnessing now is a spontaneously evolving and competing "swarm of swarms" that is much more robust, harder to game, harder to control, easier to abandon if "infected." The platforms then engage in inter-platform gaming and competition. Any universal scoring system tends towards dominance and control. Promises of "openness" and "transparency" have seemed to prove themselves to be pretty universally among the most corrupt. The "fact checkers" and "ministry of truth" represent themselves as arbiters of and enforcers of the narrative. How can we be assured that a single system, composed of humans and human designed elements will ever reliably elevate above the inherently human demons?
One of the problems of central design, single algorithms, universal scores is the planning and management component which seems to be the inherent downfall of these systems. Look at the scores that academics and "experts" give each other. Why are scientists and physicians and academics such demonstrable failures at overcoming problems even within their respective confines? Those scores are not looking very reliable for sensemaking or rule making or openness to ideas or true tolerance. The rating systems of the platforms you point out are routinely gamed and increasingly unreliable, as are the "rating systems" made up of expert disciplines mentioned. They are not robust enough to earn our trust, which is why their trust is evaporating.
Competing platforms, competing rating systems, competing regulatory entities, competing accreditation systems will help erode the tenacious hold that has us all chafing at the bit of the corrupt and annointed systems. An encouraged/incentivized, loosely controlled "rolling revolution" in these loci of control seems necessary to bring us forward. The framework must be grounded in the constition, law, and a real committement to free speech/idea diversity.
If you have a control of a business or department - try swarming it with polls and voting. See what happens.
We will have a code, as all Network States do. All of the failures you mentioned are because of corruption. And this will be the hardest system to corrupt. It will run on Bitcoin, decentralized and transparent systems. None of what you mentioned does that at all.
The problem we are solving for is corruption.
The design is not central. It is being designed by a swarm.
By Bitcoin I trust you mean BSV not BTC as the BTC system is already corrupt. Looks like Epstein may have been heavily involved in the 'hard fork' splitting BTC and BSV as a way to continue funding his nefarious practices.
Please share some links and show your work with explanatory knowledge for everyone. 1) how is Bitcoin corrupted?
There was a fork from the original (White paper) bitcoin. BTC formed from this fork. In doing so there were features of the original bitcoin that were lost. The BTC fork is not secure, and has been used for illegal financial activities.
https://x.com/ColinTCrypto/status/1656500956136189952?s=20
https://x.com/ColinTCrypto/status/1658172706515214348?s=20
5th Feb 2024 there is a court case Dr C Wright vs COPA ( a group including Coinbase, META and others)
Dr Wright made an offer to COPA whereby they would accept his proposals and there would be no need for a trial. They turned the offer down. So court case will go ahead.
This was the proposal https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/dr-craig-wright-issues-settlement-offer-to-copa-members-and-all-parties-in-upcoming-intellectual-property-litigation/
BTC is too slow and has become very expensive - it cannot be a person-to-person transaction system, which is what BSV still is. This link explains how transaction speed will be increased and gives examples of what this might be used for.
https://coingeek.com/new-teranode-features-to-push-bsv-blockchain-capabilities-beyond-the-limits/
BSV as a form of currency can handle large numbers of micropayments at speed and low cost. As the maximum amount of BSV is set there cannot be inflation so it is a more equitable system and would be beneficial towards humanity as a whole. It is also possible to use it without access to phones/computers.
Absolutely fantastic points, particularly about excluding *seemingly* bad actors.
I admire your optimism and look forward to further discussion.
My concern is in considering the reality of human nature/behaviour. Our understanding of ourselves and our relationship with each other and the universe/nature was hijacked thousands of years ago and has been manipulated since. There is an absurd amount of unhealed trauma infecting the hearts and minds of millions, and it has been happening for generations. Without healing occurring, all of these wounds distort the ability to see and hear the truth.
The “hive”, or the collective/group/team/mob/masses, is only as strong as the individual. This is the reality of the situation. As long as the individuals that make up the hive are confused about the nature of reality, the hive will behave confused.
I don’t believe there is anyway around it. We must each take on the responsibility to heal and learn. We must each conquer our fears and complete our hero’s journey. This one chance at life we have must be valued and honoured for all that it is.
As long as the individual continues to look for another person to lead them, we are denying ourselves our truth and freedom.
If you have a control of a business or department - try swarming it with polls and voting. See what happens.
We absolutely do need to take responsibility. But when we do so together it is exponentially more powerful. We look forward to you seeing it in action.
You are confused about the nature of reality.