Social Sharing Economy

The difference between political and social networks is that the former are absolute within the collective while social relations are relative to the individual, as one cannot replace someone in the latter as in the former. Only humans can conceive of absolutes, and relations in nature aren't hierarchic but "anarchic" or rather heterarchic (incl. those between our own neurons). Heterarchic relations are therefore the most complex ways of information processing that evolved, and hierarchic relations are a devolution towards lower complexity, hence while social relations work towards a need, political relations need work.
In an apolitical, social economy, currency would be based social capital rather than political capital, i.e. one that could be created by anyone rather than the state: like a state, everyone could create their own currency when giving it to someone, its value depending on how often they've traded. Each currency could have its own rules (incl. taxes) whose users could vote about. Fake accounts could be prevented by associating one account with one home address, or, later, one identification number.
Any data about users' trade could be shown on their account, e.g. how much they given back to the people that gave to them (“payback”), and how much they traded with people other than that (“payforward”). These values could themselves be a currency, and rather than an amount, could be a ratio, which would be equal to the chance that trading with them would give them payback or payforward. The former is barter value, increasing one's value in goods, and the latter is market value, increasing the value of one's currencies.

No comments:

Post a Comment