How to get the power back to the people from the colluding special interest groups that have corrupted our system, prevent voter fraud, & the lessons we've learned from the Sunflower Revolution.
I prefer easily audited paper ballots that must be preserved forever until we get the technology up and running...with maybe a purple ink dyed finger to boot!
But I am also in favor of having your vote transparent...you can see (no one else) and verify that your vote was properly recorded in the columns of the people you voted for..down to the town elections. If wrong, they have to change it.
If they got yours wrong, they probably got others wrong, too. You either need to have all voters verify their votes, or when one is shown to have been recorded incorrectly, redo the entire election.
You could put this on chain, and have a paper ballot sent to your physical address with a code on it that represented your address. Voting districts are done by address. Then when you received this you would put the code into the system, but also sign it and have it sent back to a place to be physically stored as well. Easy. Simple. Super hard to corrupt.
Recently discovered you, so got some catching up to do, but what I have read so far is exactly in line with many of the thoughts I have had regarding the need for rational problem solving.
Would be useful for you to "steelman" your proposal though - what would be the strongest arguments your opponents could make against this? I can come up with two:
1) "National Security" - This all-encompassing excuse would be trotted out endlessly and be abused. Just consider how much redacting is allowed on FOIA requests on topics there is clearly no national security risk. Would need to thoroughly buttress this argument.
2) Lack of faith in the technology (re: blockchain voting). Most old people don't understand it, most young people just got burned by it. The promise of blockchain is still waiting for real world examples to sway public opinion.
That said, it is incredible to me that every person in a 1st world country (and most even in 3rd world countries) has a device in their pocket which can verify their identity through a combination of biomarkers including voice, fingerprint, and facial recognition and we are still having a hard time figuring out how to have efficient elections. We look like idiots.
These are good steelman arguments. When you decentralize, we believe that would circumvent problem #1. We don't need permission just like Bitcoin doesn't need permission.
As for the fear of technology, we have written about this many times. It all comes down to understanding the difference between centralized and decentralized systems. For example, you are right to fear CBDCs (central bank digital currencies), especially programmable ones. However, there is nothing to fear with Bitcoin (except centralized entities selling them using fractional reserve banking like FTX did).
Thanks for reading and joining in the solutions. If you go on to read another may we suggest this one:
Eventually we are working to find a better meeting place than just this comment section. Do you have any ideas? We were thinking possibly starting with a discord group.
It seems that Discord would be a fine place to start for now, unless anyone has any objections. Has anyone started a discord group before, and would anyone like to start this one? We also could start one, if it would be helpful.
Systemic rhetoric these days has, not by any fault of this author, become by operations practice - inverted. For example, principles of “inclusivity” have been used to actually marginalize employees for legally protected behavior and self-identification. The Trust & Safety offices branded people in secret, occluded their communications and manufactured sanctions blacklists for US citizens at the recommendations of the US government. Needless to say but the Trust and Safety legal team was untrustworthy and protected no one but the corrupt.
So printing definitions of an operations taxonomy for “open” “democratized” and “parallel” is needed. It would necessitate clear, concrete non-malleable definitions. This is so technologists’ legal departments have less latitude for Orwellian doublespeak. Thanks.
Thanks for reading and for your well thought out comments.
There is no doubt that technology can be used for both sides of this war - and make no mistake this (as you put it) is an Orwellian-like war. But as you stated, the corrupt need to operate in secret in order to brand people. This is why we advocate relentlessly for transparency in the systems that govern over us (for example here: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/demanding-transparency-our-systems).
As for definitions - we 100% agree that they need to be clearly defined. So does our code (and making clear societal definitions should be part of that code). The major Orwellian push is always to blur definitions and thus lose confidence in all systems.
Here, we are purposing ideas assuming it is with like-minded individual problem solvers like yourself. We are assuming we don't need these definitions quite yet because our ideas and our plan isn't fully formed yet. This is still the think tank and brainstorming phases.
Also, we believe we can bypass a lot of the worrying about definitions simply by making sure the control of all systems are decentralized and transparent in the end. Orwellians (for lack of a better term) need centralized and secretive control to operate.
Anyone who shows fears of technology need to understand the basic systemic principles of decentralization vs centralization. As long as a good portion of the people understand decentralization and fight for it (and it takes a bit of study to actually understand it) those orchestrating the Orwellian push will be powerless to even make the definitions blurred.
To us the solution of making a unified dictionary of definitions is something we should do. Words like "open-sourced" "parallel" and even words like "woman" and "peaceful protestor" and "science" and "trust" need concrete and unwavering definitions (might be time for a new truly decentralized dictionary - unlike Wikipedia which has been recentralized and now corrupted). But to us, there is an order of problem solving this. Transparency comes first - we need to see the problems first. Then decentralization - to avoid attacks by the monolithic empires. Then collaboration - to maximize our force. Then definitions - to reconstruct society around.
Speaking of definitions, we really like to focus on "transparency" and shun using the much harder to define word of "truth." Why? Because "truth" even under its best definition can be changing, a moving target. But transparency is a clearly definable goal.
Have you read this Sheila? If you have time please check this out. Also the Book we cite often called The Starfish and the Spider:
I think a small sordid convention on taxonomic language takes place among collective NGOs/Global cult daily beatings. So the one additional vector that was presumed, but not presented in your conveyance (good render, BTW) is a type of style guide. We know what the AP means when they use language. They may not buy into our style, but at least it is plain to the world as we intend it to be. So when the other team screws and chops external comms, you’re not sputtering back on your heels. You’re in command of the language and you shout back.
Radical transparency is an essential principle. At this point I’m more invested in principles than methods. How do we get there? Over the years we’ve been allowed to know less and less about what government does. Those in charge like it that way.
I LOVE this!! I've been saying forever blockchain is the way to go and these technologies they want to use to surveil us can be used to surveil them! I just have no idea how to get something like that going but you do!!👏👏 I think it could work. If it worked well enough at a few smaller elections it would just catch on with the people and eventually the politicians. How do we get it going??
This may be of help or interest. What we mush do as a species is transition away from a world dominated by 'Individual' intelligence to a world dominated by a 'Collective' Intelligence.
I love the DAO elections concept. We start with the universe of living adults, culled of deaths quarterly. A voter registration allows one to secure a token that in turn allows them to cast one and only one vote. We may need 50 individual state DAO's to account for each state, and one could allow for party affiliation within the definition of the token and the DAO rules would allow for self management of said party affiliation.
One could simply validate the election by truing up the number of votes against the role of living adults, total minus non-votes, then divided among the candidates, and subtracting the lesser amounts from the total and it should solve to zero. This would all be public, transparent and anonymous.
We currently lack even the most basic audit trail to validate elections. I could not get a $25 expense report approved or paid with the system we have in even a mediocre accounting department.
Love the problem solving aspect of improving our world. Anyone can complain, it takes courage to create.
Good stuff here Nick. There are so many interesting and awesome solutions that exist if we put our mind to it. Do you know who Balaji Srinivasan is? Have you checked out his book The Network State or any of his recent podcasts, like this one? https://joshketry.substack.com/p/the-single-best-podcast-of-all-time
No but I will. I have been studying the global regulations of blockchain, DAO and crypto from the perspective of an attorney and an accountant and I see a lot of potential beyond the thievery we have seen in the market. There are legitimate, valuable uses for the technology that have not been fully developed.
True dat, communalism sounds a lot like communism for those who don't discern closely. Also, agree, transparency is key. Now, what is you opinion about promoting the animation to get the idea out to the public?
This is exactly what I believe and what I have been working on as a long-time activist. It is what I am trying to make happen in Ecuador where I live. My strategy is to suggest to all the indigenous tribes here to agree on a single demand, horizontal governance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywMhg604W8. Most of them already use this form of governance in their tribes. If they agree (3 day conference at the end of Jan.), the public will finally get a chance to understand what horizontal governance means. Because, currently, very few people have ever considered this possibility. I hope that we can work with you. After Ecuador, it is important for it to spread to as many countries as possible, maybe starting in S. America.
Gracias! If you agree, you might wish to promote this video as an easy explanation of horiz. governance for the public. Since most people are unaware of this option and will just continue voting for Criminal number 1 vs. Criminal no. 2.
Yes, bitcoins might be helpful. I am not sure exactly what I wrote to you, but now, I am working on helping the Shuar people of Ecuador (the largest indigenous tribe) to extradite themselves out of monumental problems with Amazon One, (Bill Gates is an investor) and eventually to recommend that all the Ecuadorian indigenous tribes unite around this one demand; to restructure the Ecuadorian government from vertical to horizontal.
The US dollar and bitcoin are fiat, an entry in the computer. When the power goes out, a tornado, a hurricane, fire, bitcoin is out. This is while the 'government' is working. Any disruption in government and the internet goes down, no bitcoin. On the other hand, gold, silver, and natural physical resources can be held in the hand and stored, and open for trade in difficult times.
Sure. If the power goes out everything is gone. But as soon as the power comes back on Bitcoin is still safe on a cold wallet. Also, imagine trying to pay someone in Australia $500,000. You need permission for dollars, gold or silver. Try getting on a plane with a half million in gold. Bitcoin is permissionless.
The name "communalism" is probably a turn off for many people though. Too close to communism (which is centralized, thus bad). Horizontal is a better name. We also like decentralized government. And we think a key ingredient for it to work without being corrupted is transparency in the systems. Like this:
Since the police, to a fair extent, have body cameras, why shouldn't a politician, off the floor of the House of Representatives, where it is likely against the rules. That is fairly common off the shelf technology. People should ask their representatives if they are willing to do it, and if not, why not.
Ill be honest . I have to research Taiwan. If what you claim above is accurate we should see zero population taking the covid bioweapon shots. If a substantial % took the shots the premise that they re created a decentralized model which was transparent is false. Im open to anything as long as voting is done via paper ballot only with a blockchain approach to prevent cheating via tabulation. The other issue is making sure uncorrupted citizens have equal access to running for office. Lastly the money we all pay in taxes must be removed by a huge % until we can defund all the agencies hell bent on destroying us. My father is famous for creating Lobbying in the early 70s. He never envisioned earmarks turning into the disaster it has .
It’s very well summarizes ideas that I’ve had for over the past decade and working in the activism industries. I certainly have discovered how they can be  improved with blockchains.
I’m working on the very idea myself and looking for Partners. You can see what I’ve started to summarize on this website although it’s ready for a complete makeover and my partner has since passed away but I’m still moving forward full steam ahead.
Someone pointing to solutions rather than just the problems. Thank you! Such a relief.
I prefer easily audited paper ballots that must be preserved forever until we get the technology up and running...with maybe a purple ink dyed finger to boot!
But I am also in favor of having your vote transparent...you can see (no one else) and verify that your vote was properly recorded in the columns of the people you voted for..down to the town elections. If wrong, they have to change it.
If they got yours wrong, they probably got others wrong, too. You either need to have all voters verify their votes, or when one is shown to have been recorded incorrectly, redo the entire election.
You could put this on chain, and have a paper ballot sent to your physical address with a code on it that represented your address. Voting districts are done by address. Then when you received this you would put the code into the system, but also sign it and have it sent back to a place to be physically stored as well. Easy. Simple. Super hard to corrupt.
Recently discovered you, so got some catching up to do, but what I have read so far is exactly in line with many of the thoughts I have had regarding the need for rational problem solving.
Would be useful for you to "steelman" your proposal though - what would be the strongest arguments your opponents could make against this? I can come up with two:
1) "National Security" - This all-encompassing excuse would be trotted out endlessly and be abused. Just consider how much redacting is allowed on FOIA requests on topics there is clearly no national security risk. Would need to thoroughly buttress this argument.
2) Lack of faith in the technology (re: blockchain voting). Most old people don't understand it, most young people just got burned by it. The promise of blockchain is still waiting for real world examples to sway public opinion.
That said, it is incredible to me that every person in a 1st world country (and most even in 3rd world countries) has a device in their pocket which can verify their identity through a combination of biomarkers including voice, fingerprint, and facial recognition and we are still having a hard time figuring out how to have efficient elections. We look like idiots.
These are good steelman arguments. When you decentralize, we believe that would circumvent problem #1. We don't need permission just like Bitcoin doesn't need permission.
As for the fear of technology, we have written about this many times. It all comes down to understanding the difference between centralized and decentralized systems. For example, you are right to fear CBDCs (central bank digital currencies), especially programmable ones. However, there is nothing to fear with Bitcoin (except centralized entities selling them using fractional reserve banking like FTX did).
Thanks for reading and joining in the solutions. If you go on to read another may we suggest this one:
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/embrace-decentralized-systems-fear
Will read that next, listening to podcast with Drew Weatherhead right now.
Would love to help, how can we do so and exchange contact info?
Eventually we are working to find a better meeting place than just this comment section. Do you have any ideas? We were thinking possibly starting with a discord group.
A discord group sounds good, is there a platform preferred to discord or shall we start there?
Do you have any in mind? We are open to all ideas.
It seems that Discord would be a fine place to start for now, unless anyone has any objections. Has anyone started a discord group before, and would anyone like to start this one? We also could start one, if it would be helpful.
Systemic rhetoric these days has, not by any fault of this author, become by operations practice - inverted. For example, principles of “inclusivity” have been used to actually marginalize employees for legally protected behavior and self-identification. The Trust & Safety offices branded people in secret, occluded their communications and manufactured sanctions blacklists for US citizens at the recommendations of the US government. Needless to say but the Trust and Safety legal team was untrustworthy and protected no one but the corrupt.
So printing definitions of an operations taxonomy for “open” “democratized” and “parallel” is needed. It would necessitate clear, concrete non-malleable definitions. This is so technologists’ legal departments have less latitude for Orwellian doublespeak. Thanks.
Thanks for reading and for your well thought out comments.
There is no doubt that technology can be used for both sides of this war - and make no mistake this (as you put it) is an Orwellian-like war. But as you stated, the corrupt need to operate in secret in order to brand people. This is why we advocate relentlessly for transparency in the systems that govern over us (for example here: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/demanding-transparency-our-systems).
As for definitions - we 100% agree that they need to be clearly defined. So does our code (and making clear societal definitions should be part of that code). The major Orwellian push is always to blur definitions and thus lose confidence in all systems.
Here, we are purposing ideas assuming it is with like-minded individual problem solvers like yourself. We are assuming we don't need these definitions quite yet because our ideas and our plan isn't fully formed yet. This is still the think tank and brainstorming phases.
Also, we believe we can bypass a lot of the worrying about definitions simply by making sure the control of all systems are decentralized and transparent in the end. Orwellians (for lack of a better term) need centralized and secretive control to operate.
Anyone who shows fears of technology need to understand the basic systemic principles of decentralization vs centralization. As long as a good portion of the people understand decentralization and fight for it (and it takes a bit of study to actually understand it) those orchestrating the Orwellian push will be powerless to even make the definitions blurred.
To us the solution of making a unified dictionary of definitions is something we should do. Words like "open-sourced" "parallel" and even words like "woman" and "peaceful protestor" and "science" and "trust" need concrete and unwavering definitions (might be time for a new truly decentralized dictionary - unlike Wikipedia which has been recentralized and now corrupted). But to us, there is an order of problem solving this. Transparency comes first - we need to see the problems first. Then decentralization - to avoid attacks by the monolithic empires. Then collaboration - to maximize our force. Then definitions - to reconstruct society around.
Speaking of definitions, we really like to focus on "transparency" and shun using the much harder to define word of "truth." Why? Because "truth" even under its best definition can be changing, a moving target. But transparency is a clearly definable goal.
Have you read this Sheila? If you have time please check this out. Also the Book we cite often called The Starfish and the Spider:
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/embrace-decentralized-systems-fear
Thanks again!
I think a small sordid convention on taxonomic language takes place among collective NGOs/Global cult daily beatings. So the one additional vector that was presumed, but not presented in your conveyance (good render, BTW) is a type of style guide. We know what the AP means when they use language. They may not buy into our style, but at least it is plain to the world as we intend it to be. So when the other team screws and chops external comms, you’re not sputtering back on your heels. You’re in command of the language and you shout back.
Radical transparency is an essential principle. At this point I’m more invested in principles than methods. How do we get there? Over the years we’ve been allowed to know less and less about what government does. Those in charge like it that way.
I think we have the technology, except it is jealousy guarded by our Dept of Defense...and they only want Twitter to have access to their servers.
Flipping us to a direct democracy is one way to get there.
I LOVE this!! I've been saying forever blockchain is the way to go and these technologies they want to use to surveil us can be used to surveil them! I just have no idea how to get something like that going but you do!!👏👏 I think it could work. If it worked well enough at a few smaller elections it would just catch on with the people and eventually the politicians. How do we get it going??
You might like this too: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/why-doesnt-this-exist-building-a
We don't have a formualted plan yet with the right people in place. But hopefully stay tuned!!
This may be of help or interest. What we mush do as a species is transition away from a world dominated by 'Individual' intelligence to a world dominated by a 'Collective' Intelligence.
https://medium.com/@whmilk
Beautiful article. Everyone please forward this to their state officials
I love the DAO elections concept. We start with the universe of living adults, culled of deaths quarterly. A voter registration allows one to secure a token that in turn allows them to cast one and only one vote. We may need 50 individual state DAO's to account for each state, and one could allow for party affiliation within the definition of the token and the DAO rules would allow for self management of said party affiliation.
One could simply validate the election by truing up the number of votes against the role of living adults, total minus non-votes, then divided among the candidates, and subtracting the lesser amounts from the total and it should solve to zero. This would all be public, transparent and anonymous.
We currently lack even the most basic audit trail to validate elections. I could not get a $25 expense report approved or paid with the system we have in even a mediocre accounting department.
Love the problem solving aspect of improving our world. Anyone can complain, it takes courage to create.
Good stuff here Nick. There are so many interesting and awesome solutions that exist if we put our mind to it. Do you know who Balaji Srinivasan is? Have you checked out his book The Network State or any of his recent podcasts, like this one? https://joshketry.substack.com/p/the-single-best-podcast-of-all-time
No but I will. I have been studying the global regulations of blockchain, DAO and crypto from the perspective of an attorney and an accountant and I see a lot of potential beyond the thievery we have seen in the market. There are legitimate, valuable uses for the technology that have not been fully developed.
True dat, communalism sounds a lot like communism for those who don't discern closely. Also, agree, transparency is key. Now, what is you opinion about promoting the animation to get the idea out to the public?
This is exactly what I believe and what I have been working on as a long-time activist. It is what I am trying to make happen in Ecuador where I live. My strategy is to suggest to all the indigenous tribes here to agree on a single demand, horizontal governance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywMhg604W8. Most of them already use this form of governance in their tribes. If they agree (3 day conference at the end of Jan.), the public will finally get a chance to understand what horizontal governance means. Because, currently, very few people have ever considered this possibility. I hope that we can work with you. After Ecuador, it is important for it to spread to as many countries as possible, maybe starting in S. America.
Very cool! I think adopting Bitcoin as national currency like El Salvador did would be huge for decentralization too.
Gracias! If you agree, you might wish to promote this video as an easy explanation of horiz. governance for the public. Since most people are unaware of this option and will just continue voting for Criminal number 1 vs. Criminal no. 2.
Yes, bitcoins might be helpful. I am not sure exactly what I wrote to you, but now, I am working on helping the Shuar people of Ecuador (the largest indigenous tribe) to extradite themselves out of monumental problems with Amazon One, (Bill Gates is an investor) and eventually to recommend that all the Ecuadorian indigenous tribes unite around this one demand; to restructure the Ecuadorian government from vertical to horizontal.
We look forward to your progress and will share the video on our Twitter!
The US dollar and bitcoin are fiat, an entry in the computer. When the power goes out, a tornado, a hurricane, fire, bitcoin is out. This is while the 'government' is working. Any disruption in government and the internet goes down, no bitcoin. On the other hand, gold, silver, and natural physical resources can be held in the hand and stored, and open for trade in difficult times.
Sure. If the power goes out everything is gone. But as soon as the power comes back on Bitcoin is still safe on a cold wallet. Also, imagine trying to pay someone in Australia $500,000. You need permission for dollars, gold or silver. Try getting on a plane with a half million in gold. Bitcoin is permissionless.
The name "communalism" is probably a turn off for many people though. Too close to communism (which is centralized, thus bad). Horizontal is a better name. We also like decentralized government. And we think a key ingredient for it to work without being corrupted is transparency in the systems. Like this:
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/demanding-transparency-our-systems
Please define "DAO". Did you mean "decentralized autonomous organization", or perhaps "the way"?
Yes decentralized autonomous organizations, aka "smart contracts"
Since the police, to a fair extent, have body cameras, why shouldn't a politician, off the floor of the House of Representatives, where it is likely against the rules. That is fairly common off the shelf technology. People should ask their representatives if they are willing to do it, and if not, why not.
Ill be honest . I have to research Taiwan. If what you claim above is accurate we should see zero population taking the covid bioweapon shots. If a substantial % took the shots the premise that they re created a decentralized model which was transparent is false. Im open to anything as long as voting is done via paper ballot only with a blockchain approach to prevent cheating via tabulation. The other issue is making sure uncorrupted citizens have equal access to running for office. Lastly the money we all pay in taxes must be removed by a huge % until we can defund all the agencies hell bent on destroying us. My father is famous for creating Lobbying in the early 70s. He never envisioned earmarks turning into the disaster it has .
It’s very well summarizes ideas that I’ve had for over the past decade and working in the activism industries. I certainly have discovered how they can be  improved with blockchains.
I’m working on the very idea myself and looking for Partners. You can see what I’ve started to summarize on this website although it’s ready for a complete makeover and my partner has since passed away but I’m still moving forward full steam ahead.
https://ballot.now.site