As a specie we are territorial. And violent force is the most effective form of influence in nature. As for monopoly - I hope it will be harder to achieve with sound monetary system.
That's my point. A currency like bitcoin will destroy the monopoly that the State requires. 
Topic: What if you had something else instead of money? (Read 973 times)
As a specie we are territorial. And violent force is the most effective form of influence in nature. As for monopoly - I hope it will be harder to achieve with sound monetary system.
I guess it depends on definition of state.
Violent territorial monopoly on force.
I guess it depends on definition of state. Is it a state if it has no border? And maybe by some definitions the state is defined not by the territory but by used currency.
Damn right! We can see bitcoin at work replacing all the payments book keeping bureaucracy with all its fancy hierarchy. Putting people out of equation and letting machines do what they do best. Pure efficiency improvement and I am looking forward for more.
One world currency ≠ One world state. 
If anything, the opposite will apply: the one currency will kill the state.
Damn right! We can see bitcoin at work replacing all the payments book keeping bureaucracy with all its fancy hierarchy. Putting people out of equation and letting machines do what they do best. Pure efficiency improvement and I am looking forward for more.
That is right as well. However we do not know the optimal scale for yet unknown future efficiency levels. And the Earth is not that big really.
The necessities of bureaucracy place an efficiency limit that is actually much smaller than even the modern Nation State. They only maintain their large size because they have a monopoly on the use of force.
That is right as well. However we do not know the optimal scale for yet unknown future efficiency levels. And the Earth is not that big really.
Eventually running the circles of efficiency improvements (something evolution is all about) may indeed lead to world state.
I strongly doubt that. Economies of scale only go so far.
You right. If something gives a hint of possibility to overcome the trust scalability, those are bitcoin, bittorrent and other p2p structures. Perhaps we will see more of the like succeeding in the future.
Eventually running the circles of efficiency improvements (something evolution is all about) may indeed lead to world state. And I bet from the individual perspective it will work something like that "fair share index".
Eventually running the circles of efficiency improvements (something evolution is all about) may indeed lead to world state. And I bet from the individual perspective it will work something like that "fair share index".
Something similar was used in Eric Frank Russel's story, "And Then There Were None"
Of course, what you suggest would require a world state to pull off successfully, as you admit. A system like this requires a level of trust to work smoothly, and in large societies (above the Dunbar number), trust is hard to come by. That's why we use money. It allows transactions without trust - in fact, explicitly with people you don't trust - "Cash on the barrelhead."
Of course, what you suggest would require a world state to pull off successfully, as you admit. A system like this requires a level of trust to work smoothly, and in large societies (above the Dunbar number), trust is hard to come by. That's why we use money. It allows transactions without trust - in fact, explicitly with people you don't trust - "Cash on the barrelhead."
Okay, we all are taught to measure how much we can get from the world by using money.
But what if instead you had something like your "fair share index". If you did not use it all up it would grow gently and if necessary you could overuse it but then you'd had to justify it somehow. For example by contributing more than others to the global society.
This thing is currently implemented with fiat money and debt system but they got some things wrong. Like your share "is not fair" because of depreciation of unused (saved) resources. It is relatively trivial to steal money while your "fair share index" is inherently yours.
Surely implementing the said approach would require total computerization, surveillance and globalization of economy, but we are heading that way anyway.
But what if instead you had something like your "fair share index". If you did not use it all up it would grow gently and if necessary you could overuse it but then you'd had to justify it somehow. For example by contributing more than others to the global society.
This thing is currently implemented with fiat money and debt system but they got some things wrong. Like your share "is not fair" because of depreciation of unused (saved) resources. It is relatively trivial to steal money while your "fair share index" is inherently yours.
Surely implementing the said approach would require total computerization, surveillance and globalization of economy, but we are heading that way anyway.
Jump to: