Confused, force is.
First the good.
In My piece, The End of Entropy I propose the following:
With a central website, in forum style, to address major issues – divided into local sections, regional sections and global sections, with “votes” at a certain level elevating the problems and solutions to the next level to be voted on by a greater number – we can collectively coordinate to solve the issues of this planet. Social responsibility will be seen as spending 15 minutes a day (or more) reviewing the issues on this site. This seed parameter will see an emergence of human unity as a race and as a planet.
What is there proposed is a stigmergic governance – a way to govern society without a governMENT. In a system with no money or need for exchange, stigmergic governance will work – as long as there are money interests, it is unlikely to, with votes bought, up or down, and other disruptive aspects. This is what I propose in a free energy/robot system where no money is needed (read The End of Entropy for a picture of how this works). If You are unfamiliar with the term, stigmergy, a good place to get a handle on the term is here.
A very good illustration of stigmergy is Linux. In this case, one Individual created a basic program and offered it freely in open source. Others came along and began to improve upon it, create software to run on it, and so on. There was no “leader” in this group – those who wanted to get involved did so – and from the initial basic program, a whole creative “empire” came to be…all entirely free and freely.
and now the bad.
TEDx: James B. Glattfelder: Who controls the world?
James Glattfelder studies complexity: how an interconnected system — say, a swarm of birds — is more than the sum of its parts. And complexity theory, it turns out, can reveal a lot about how the economy works. Glattfelder shares a groundbreaking study of how control flows through the global economy, and how concentration of power in the hands of a shockingly small number leaves us all vulnerable. (Filmed at TEDxZurich.)
Arkady Grudzinsky: What this talk seems to imply is that to change the system at the macro level, we need to change the way we interact at individual level. Perhaps, the paradigm of ownership must change if we want to decentralize economic control. I wonder, in what ways and if it’s possible.
Phi Beta Iota: Inter-locking board memberships were a common concern in the 1970’s. The problem is that government refused to be serious about what the academy could discover, with the result being that from the assassination of JFK onwards, government, academy, and all other elements of society have been in a down-ward death spiral led by financial interests funding the burial of useful knowlege, the proliferation of confusing and entertaining mish-mash, and the total loss of understanding, engagement, and integrity across the board.