On 10 June 2012 14:42, Michael Hrenka <metahorse@googlemail.com> wrote:

If 6. turns out to be a major factor in the true explanation of the phenomenon there's a real chance for Zero State to exploit the current situation by designing effective interactive market procedures. There are just no good places for producers and consumers to meet each other. In other words there are no good forums - and "forum" is simply the Latin word for "market". With our modern online technology the time and resource requirements for an interactive participation of consumers in the production process might be minimized drastically. Some companies start to reach out for customers on platforms like Twitter and Facebook and try to get into a real conversation with them. However, Twitter and Facebook look like very suboptimal forums for interactive markets. I'm rather looking for something that changes our production processes like Khan Academy changed our education processes. There might be a serious amount of cash behind an idea like this.

I've stayed out of this conversation so far, but there are a couple of points here I can't resist. This first is the idea of developing a ZS-affiliated trading forum that could end up being of tremendous value, even if your arguments are incorrect, Michael. You may remember that in Munich we talked about setting up some kind of trading forum as part of project RES-2: https://sites.google.com/site/zsorg2/10-res-2-bitcoin/res-2-b-implementation That was envisaged as a way to encourage use of Bitcoin, and also probably anonymous. Right now I have 2 questions: (1) Are these two features compatible with the idea of an interactive market, do you think? (2) What other features would be good or necessary?

P.S.: Furthermore I propose that we refrain from using terms like "capitalist", "socialist", "free markets", "centralised", "decentralised", "planning", and so on, because those terms come with too much ideological baggage! Please try to use other words that actually describe what you mean. Otherwise we really land in a situation where capitalism = socialism = planning = centralised = markets = free markets = capitalism.

I second this wholeheartedly. At first I had hoped that we could talk about the big ideological poles or trends in a detached way, but we are being distracted by ingrained thought habits and preconceptions. In fact, I think that insisting that people focus upon specifics rather than shorthand would be very much in the spirit of our Principle of Construction - well said, and many thanks Michael! http://transhumanpraxis.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/37-pillars-4-the-principle-... - A -- Zero State mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/DoctrineZero ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE