NCN Chat 12 Nov 95
Social laws and legal systems in a new civilization

<ffunch> Well, let's talk about "Social laws and legal system in a new civilization"

<Bobster> ok.

<ffunch> Why would we need any kind of a legal system at all?

<Bobster> has any culture ever found it viable to not have one?

<ffunch> I suppose some native cultures. At least they wouldn't have it written down.

<Bobster> from a systems perspective, an important consideration is the issue
+of the commons.

<ffunch> What I mean is: Do we need detailed dos and don'ts, or can we live by
+universal principles?

<ffunch> Right, needs to be something about that.

<ffunch> What I would have in mind would be something very simple. Respect the
+commons, do what you want in your own life, but don't stop others from acting
+freely also. Don't screw up the common resources.

<Bobster> You could. I might, stacy might, but i'm not so sure about groups
+larger than a few people... And explicit principles are another way of saying
+"laws."

<ffunch> I think it would have to be based on small groups and then grow. Not imposed
+from the top on everybody.

<ffunch> I'd like to have laws that everybody in society would be able to recite by
+heart.

<dreamsyn> What if what you want interferes with others wants? I also think
+this is easier with small groups than larger.

<Bobster> like the 10 commandments?

<dreamsyn> Can any group agree 100% with all principles and not feel like they
+are being handed down?

<ffunch> Well, if there is interference we might need some kind of mediation. But
+that would be mostly on a case by case basis. We can't sort it all out in
+advance and put it in books.

<ffunch> I more have principles in mind rather than fixed behavior rules like the 10
+commandments, but a bit along those lines.

<ffunch> No group can agree 100% on everything. However, they might agree that we all
+ought to be getting mostly what we want in life.

<Bobster> Well, I think we need to look at why this is easier in small groups
+than large ones?

<ffunch> Right. Well, people all know each other. And you have to stay and deal with
+whatever the outcome of anything is.

<dreamsyn> I believe that in larger groups you will find people with such a
+diversity of backgrounds, beliefs, etc. it would be difficult to find common
+principles.

<ffunch> I don't think really there should be law makers setting rules for people
+they don't know and who might live totally different than them. Except for as
+it deals with common resources.

<Bobster> One thing is that social mores have a much stronger impact when
+you're tight-knit. How can you translate that personal familiarity to bigger
+groups? (stacie: right)

<ffunch> Diversity itself is kind of a principle. Respect for diversity, tolerance of
+others who are different.

<Bobster> What about direct democracy? I have this idea brewing....

<dreamsyn> A larger group can easily break into factions when there are
+disagreements.

<ffunch> The difficulty in finding common agreements is exactly why law makers
+shouldn't try to impose their own biases on everybody.

<ffunch> Direct democracy in local communities. I don't see 200 million people
+agreeing by percentages on what rules to impose on everybody.

<Bobster> You have it so that people can vote electronically on any issue they
+like, and you also set up a revocable proxy system, so you could hand me your
+vote for certain categories of votes, or vice versa...

<ffunch> I think we need to come to terms with that there already are many factions.
+It is ok to be a faction, unless you insist on imposing your way of living on
+everybody else.

<ffunch> Why would we need to decide things for everybody. The only things I see in
+that category would be out collective relation to other countries.

<dreamsyn> But that seems to be what happens; the factions try to grow larger
+so they can impose their way.

<Bobster> Then direct demo could possibly work--I don't have to know about
+everything, but I can know who I'd like to represent me for certain things.
+And I could revoke that proxy on a keystroke.

<ffunch> I think one purpose of common laws would be to stop any faction from
+imposing on other factions.

<ffunch> I think the role of government has been twisted to being a rule making body,
+where I think it should be representative representing us externally, and
+otherwise mainly being concerned with common resources, and conflict
+resolution between sub-groups.

<Bobster> Well, maybe so, but at what point does one group pull out there guns
+'cause they're tired of all the 'idiots' who refuse to go along?

<ffunch> I think it is fine to choose representatives. Not everybody in a group can
+be concerned with everything.

<ffunch> If there are enough strong independent groups around they will step in to
+defend violations they see around them.

<Bobster> Yes, but think of the power of representation that's immediately
+revokable!

<ffunch> All representation should be immediately revokable. Nobody should get into
+any semi-permanent position of power.

<ffunch> No group should be powerful enough to dominate all the rest.

<Bobster> Problem is, what about the tyranny of the majority? Mobs get
+excited. Do things that are wrong too!

<ffunch> Enough power and wherewithal should be placed locally so that no group has
+to be dependent on a higher governing group.

<ffunch> I don't think things should be decided by majority. Local groups should
+govern themselves by some kind of majority, but I don't see it making sense
+with millions of people.

<ffunch> Mabs get mad because they don't have meaningful roles in life and they don't
+have local communities they are part of. They are alienated.

<dreamsyn> Why should local groups govern by majority? Why not work until
+there's an agreement, with mediation between those who disagree?  This seems
+more possible in smaller local groups.

<ffunch> I think power should come from the bottom up.

<Bobster> maybe. But that's a tough issue. Another thing I think makes sense
+it to forget about this in terms of current political boundaries. How
+relevant are they today anyway?

<ffunch> Yes, local groups don't have to be by majority. They should decide a system
+that works for themselves. It might be picking a few people to take major
+decisions, or whatever they choose.

<ffunch> I believe ad-hoc mediation will replace fixed pre-written laws to a great
+degree.

<ffunch> Political boundaries will become irrelavant.

<ffunch> It is about making things work, not about riding hobby horses.

<Bobster> I'm in a bit of a cynical space right now about getting along. I
+think sometimes people just won't. And they're not going to budge or agree
+with anything but what they want...

<Bobster> hobby-horses?

<ffunch> Groups get together based on some common agreements, they work out between
+themselves how to live and how to decide things. Smaller groups can group
+into bigger groups. Representatives in the bigger groups might help with
+conflict resolution among sm

<ffunch> Representatives in the bigger groups might help with conflict resolution
+amongst the smaller groups, and might represent the whole externally.

<Bobster> One other ingredient to help make it work (nice segue), is that
+things must be and feel abundant, so that what you do with resouces isn't
+perceived as threatening to me, and you have no incentive to hoard or
+withhold things for profit...

<ffunch> Hobby horses: having fixed ideas that one is pursuing, disregarding the
+actual situation at hand. 

<ffunch> Yes, if there are enough resources, there would be less reason to fight
+about them or hoard them.

<dreamsyn> Will we ever have enough resources considering how many of us there
+are on Earth now?

<ffunch> I think we in many ways DO have enough resources, but our economic systems
+are wasting a lot of them, making them unavailable.

<ffunch> If we really went for making the world work for everybody I think we would
+find that we COULD do that with the resources available on the planet.

<Bobster> I'm melting! BRB..

<ffunch> The widespread scarcity thinking is to some degree keeping things scarce.
*** Bobster has left channel #ncn
*** Bobster (bobhilt@tia1.eskimo.com) has joined channel #ncn

<ffunch> Melting?

<dreamsyn> I definitely agree that our economic systems are wasting our
+resources.  I do worry about the future (not too far away) that the resources
+will be scarce and there willl be more folks.  Then there may be conflicts
+and difficulty in working together.

<Bobster> my screen was getting messages interlaced. Seems the tech isn't
+perfect yet....

<ffunch> I think on a local community basis it is possible to share and use resources
+better and be more self-sufficient. That can then grow to higher levels of
+more people.

<Bobster> One thing that Bucky Fuller and Kirby Urner and others talk a lot
+about is our great endowement from the Sun.

<dreamsyn> Not familiar with these names.

<ffunch> We need to develop new economic ways of relating to each other rather
+quickly. Start using a system that takes better care of resources, and
+rewards making things work for everybody.

<ffunch> Resource based economies.

<Bobster> We have mostly reusable resources on the earth, but we focus on
+those that are NOT reusable like petroleum and end up centering our society
+around them. It's based upon profit-driven lies.

<ffunch> Really it is silly to go around putting values on a lot of things that we
+got from nature.

<Bobster> Yes, resource-based. What if we focused on quality-of-life-based
+economies?

<ffunch> We get free investments of air, sunlight etc. Silly that we then need to go
+and charge each other for what we do.

<ffunch> Yes, increased quality of life should be what was economically rewarding.
+And creative use of resources, in sustainable ways.

<ffunch> Likewise, our common legal system could center around resources.

<Bobster> a quote from R. Buckminster Fuller (great stuff, by the way, stacie,
+worth checking out) is that we get more solar energy hitting this planet
+every minute than mankind uses in an entire year.

<Bobster> So why is energy so "scarce"?

<ffunch> Somebody puts up articial toll booths, trying to profit from that which the
+planet really gets for free.

<ffunch> Our economy is based on focusing on what is scarce and exchanging
+scarcities. It should rather be based on making things abundant in viable
+ways.

<Bobster> (I haven't check his figures, but this was said in the 60's). So now
+maybe we're up to two minutes worth to satisfy our needs. (2 out of 60 * 24 *
+365) We've HAVE plenty of energy.

<dreamsyn> Few want to look into abundant energy because too many are
+profiting for the energy we use currently.

<ffunch> right

<ffunch> We can't expect those who profit from the artificial scarcities to support
+removing them.

<Bobster> both: correct. There's no profit in giving things away in our
+current economy. And we all know that "PROFIT" is the key to life!!!!!!

<dreamsyn> Not mine :)

<Bobster> Stacie, since you don't know me well, I should add a smiley. :-)

<ffunch> Likewise we can't expect politicians to simplify or scale back the political
+system.

<ffunch> We need an economy where it has great value to give things away in ways that
+help many people improve their quality of life.

<ffunch> We need a new word for profit.

<Bobster> OK. If we solve that small problem of scarcities, does it make it
+natural for everyone to get along, negating needs for large amounts of laws?

<ffunch> Profit is in the current economy the hoarding of stuff, making something
+seem so scarce that people will pay extra for it, and then keeping that extra
+energy for yourself.

<dreamsyn> This may be overly simplistic, but how do we educate, etc. so that
+our society's mindset changes from the profit - driven.

<ffunch> Yes, abundance would do away with much need for laws, but not all of it.

<ffunch> There is still the issue of different preferences of living.

<ffunch> Buckminster Fuller defined wealth as the amount of future time we can
+survive in. That is, we are rich if we have things arranged so that we will
+have the resources we need for a long time.

<Bobster> I don't think anyone (myself included) would be too excited to jump
+over the abyss and leave our current economic system cold-turkey. There must
+be an easy, satisfying and rewarding gradient.

<ffunch> Profit would need to be replaced with a viability, sustainability,
+quality-of-life enhancing something.

<ffunch> The hard part is how to make a gradient out of a system that by its
+mechanics will resist the change.

<ffunch> We need to make quality of life more profitable, even in the eyes of the
+current system.

<Bobster> Yes. it's interesting though, companies in high-demand industries
+are making quality of life for their empl. a very high priority, and are
+beginning to find profitibility in that.

<ffunch> Somehow we need to get the current system to boot-strap us into a more
+workable system.

<ffunch> Yes, I think it actually IS happening.

<Bobster> I'm not naive enough to think that they'd carry on if they didn't
+see profit in it, but is there some way to parlay that success?

<ffunch> Also, it is beginning to make sense business-wise to give high quality
+products away. Like Netscape.

<dreamsyn> I'm sorry -- I gotta go.  Good meeting you and  I've got things to
+think about.  Talk to you later.

<ffunch> It makes business sense to provide what people want, albeit not too quickly
+and not too abundantly.

<ffunch> See you Stacie!
*** dreamsyn has left channel #ncn

<Bobster> True. IBM buys Lotus for $BB, only to discover within 6 months that
+many companies are beginning to use the net for free to get the same bennies
+they get from buying notes....

<Bobster> (belated "bye" to stacie... :-\)

<ffunch> Right. There is a free -factor that is becoming increasingly important.

<Bobster> I think it's hilarious in some ways, and very encouraging.

<ffunch> Companies will have to take into consideration the economic power of that
+which is already free.

<ffunch> They have to support it, even, like with the web.

<Bobster> Big headline in today's times: **WHEN JOBS GO SOUTH** ... more
+scarcity-think for boeing ...

<ffunch> Well, the defense industry can go south all it wants for my sake.

<Bobster> :-)

<Bobster> I think it will be quite interesting to watch what happens with the
+net. It's really going to demonstrate the value of cooperation on a big
+scale.

<ffunch> I think actually that economy will increasingly be driven by what people
+actually want, and big companies will have to play catch-up to follow along
+with where the population is headed.

<Bobster> It will also allow small-time benefactors to have large impacts by
+creating universal wealth-producing tools and giving them away.

<ffunch> The net is changing a lot of things.

<ffunch> It is much less of an advantage being big.

<Bobster> But someone still has to plow the potatoes.

<Bobster> I could do that myself, but geez, that's *real* work! :-)

<ffunch> A move towards local control, but universal open connectivity. Big companies
+have a hard time with that.

<ffunch> Can't we just have a web site for potatoes? :-)

<Bobster> True. Microsoft, our fealess leader is also playing catch-up. And I
+don't think they're gonna do it, cause the ground is shifting too fast. Big
+companies need bigger patches of stable ground to stand on.

<ffunch> I think Microsoft will be falling behind soon. Their strategy can not keep
+working.

<Bobster> LINUX will take over (bold prediction). Software will begin to be
+universally free.

<ffunch> I think so too.

<ffunch> Java is really interesting in that regard.

<Bobster> Then what? It's practically free now!

<ffunch> Web sites can provide more and more functionality.

<Bobster> Yes, I still haven't jumped in to check it out, but what an exciting
+time with JAVA!

<ffunch> Then we need some more different resources to become more free.

<ffunch> Connect time, software, information, more and more stuff go free.

<Bobster> Well, if it starts with data and computers and we have universally
+(big quotes there) accessible information, then we move on to CONENT, which
+is also headed toward free and high-quality.

<Bobster> conent ==content

<ffunch> More work is getting free also. Like, take Linux. It was a good enough idea
+so that many people worked very hard to be able to produce it and give it
+away.

<ffunch> Right, content is becoming more free.

<Bobster> The irony is that the most successful industry is going to work
+itself into complete free-commodity framework.

<ffunch> The hard things to make free at this point is housing, energy and food. And
+that would be what would really make a difference.

<ffunch> How can we trick industry into moving towards free food, free energy?

<Bobster> Yah. So will "some guy in his garage" be able to produce a $.04/kwh
+solar cell that goes on your rooftop and make it available?

<ffunch> What if electricity companies moved towards charging for access, but not per
+unit of energy?

<ffunch> Yes, that would do it.

<Bobster> That would be perfect, like common carriers.

<ffunch> We probably need to out-compete the big monopolies. Provide something that
+is cheaper and locally controlled.

<Bobster> But at some point, we're going to need 10,000 mi^2 of solar panels
+to grab the energy.

<ffunch> If any of us could produce electricity, then the electricity net becomes
+just a distribution channel for excess capacity amongst us.

<Bobster> It's funny. We TOTALLY have the resources to be able to do
+that--probaby within 3 years if we put our hearts into it, and we'd never pay
+for energy again! What's so damn hard about getting up the political will to
+do this!?

<ffunch> I'd say we don't need all that many solar panels to cover all of our needs.
+Somebody caluclated a 40x40km setup could cover all of the US, I think.

<Bobster> Maybe it will have to begin as a rooftop thing, but that's way less
+efficient.

<ffunch> I think it will ahve to come from the ground up. We will do it locally and
+the politicians will wonder what suddenly happened.

<Bobster> Good. I'd like to know for sure--simple math really. I wonder where
+the figures are available for total energy usage, and for current efficiency.

<Bobster> Just like with the net!

<ffunch> How about food? How to make that abundant or at least locally controlled. We
+are too dependent on supermarkets.

<Bobster> They not only don't know what happened, they don't know what is
+*happening*. They still think this is about 500 channels of three's company!

<ffunch> Ha

<Bobster> Big thing food. Answer could be automated hydroponic greenhouses,
+but that is damned expensive (relatively) at the moment.

<ffunch> Can we do something about food with local high tech? Self-regulating
+hydroponic gardens in our basements?

<Bobster> brb

<ffunch> Hey, we said the same thing.

<Bobster> just a sec.
*** Bobster has left channel #ncn
*** Bobster (bobhilt@tia1.eskimo.com) has joined channel #ncn

<Bobster> ok. back

<Bobster> missed your last couple lines.

<ffunch> MAybe somebody should invent something in the area of hydroponics. Is it
+really that expensive?

<Bobster> something about local high-tech for food....

<Bobster> There's a successful local operation. They say yes.

<ffunch> Yes, same as what you said. Could we have some kind of local high-tech food
+production deveice? Automatic hydroponic gardens in our basements?

<Bobster> It's done under large greenhouses, totally computerized. They say
+that the computers have to be extremely reliable (no more than a couple hours
+down-time).

<ffunch> So, is that economically viable?

<Bobster> Why not? if I could grow food in my basement with my rooftop solar
+energy, I definitely would.

<ffunch> It needs to somehow be cheaper than going to the supermarket.

<Bobster> More likely though, we in our neighborhood would.

<ffunch> If you have enough free energy, that might be the stepping stone to making
+the food production cheap. You can have heated greenhouses with lots of
+lighting.

<Bobster> The other thing is, I spend time working every day, and personal
+energy and time is at a premium after that. Maybe I could cut my work-work in
+1/2?

<ffunch> You work probably for housing, food and transportation mostly, I'd guess.

<Bobster> These greenhouses in the article looked pretty standard
+(rectangular)

<Bobster> Well, I'm getting a premium above that now. About 1/2 can go to
+savings

<ffunch> Yes, it could make sense for a community. It could possibly be presented so
+that it would make sense for one street to have one.

<Bobster> So, I figure I can do that 1/2 the year, then have time, but it
+doesn't work quite that way now.

<ffunch> Wow, I don't really have anything left over. But I don't work very hard at
+work either.

<Bobster> There is a strong food bank network here in seattle, Wouldn't THAT
+be the best place to start?

<ffunch> Is it cheaper than regular shopping?

<Bobster> Geez, these folks HAVE time, they would just need a start (and time
+to get to the harvest).

<Bobster> And motivation? I think *some* will, and some are out of it at the
+moment, but work-to-eat might be a good jump-starter to get them back on
+track too...

<ffunch> What if we could add up the costs of setting up totally self-sustainable
+communities, and it actually added up to making very good economic sense.

<ffunch> What if we can define systems where the efforts circulate inside them. That
+is, work to eat, essentially. If the economics of it could be explained
+clearly enough, it could work.

<Bobster> I dunno. I think you can easily prove that prevention is 10x cheaper
+than punishment, but "LAW AND ORDER!" types still get heard and elected.

<ffunch> For a while yet.

<Bobster> yes. that makes sense. And it gives a local gov't type of seed a
+chance too.

<ffunch> I think there will be a recognition that the elected law and order people
+aren't effective at all.

<Bobster> RBF was really worried about "real" government involvement in his e.
+st. louis project. Figured they'd kill it by accident and meddling.

<Bobster> I guess that happened.

<ffunch> If we can establish local zones that actually work, and they provenly
+compare favorably with top-down control, that could make a difference.

<ffunch> Yes, I don't see much solution in government at all. Only a catching up
+function in the near future. We need to recognize the power we have locally.

<ffunch> Anyway, I'm getting hungry.

<Bobster> yes. We are now spending $300m on a new baseball stadium for a
+BILLIONAIRE team owner. Perhaps we could get seed money for enough land to
+develop such a project?

<Bobster> Maybe better to keep them out of it.

<ffunch> I'm gonna go down to my subterranean hydroponic solar drive abundant food
+production device :-)

<Bobster> OK... I should get on with a few things I need to accomplish today
+too. Nice talking with you. Next week?

<ffunch> Sure, see yo unext week.

<Bobster> Mr. Hydro Plant?

<Bobster> ok. bye.

<ffunch> Just kidding. Would be nice.
*** Signoff: Bobster (Bobster)