Comments on: Thinking Like a Dandelion

By: Internet Discoveries For the Week @ DAPancost.com

Internet Discoveries For the Week @ DAPancost.com — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:01:03 +0000

[...] Thinking Like a Dandelion — Aubundance is not quite here. But that can change. In the case of government, it’s time for everyone to start thinking like dandelions. [...]

By: patrissimo

patrissimo — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:40:24 +0000

I agree in general, the one concern I have is that we need to make sure that governments can fail gracefully. One theory on why people accept such inefficient states is that they value stability hugely because government instability can lead to rioting and looting, which is a pretty awful result. So an essential element of thinking like a dandelion is to explicitly consider how a failed government can exit gracefully and include this in the initial government design.

Modular ocean cities, if they are feasible from an engineering standpoint, help this a lot because a bad government can fail by having all its territory sail off into the distance.

By: Mike Gibson

Mike Gibson — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:02:30 +0000

Thanks Michael. The Haywood-Frazier article makes for interesting reading. It’s funny the way concepts seem to stick together in the human mind: sovereignty and religion, morality and the law and so on. Freedom seems to be about untangling this mess. Tho I’m still puzzled as to why it seems so clear that religion and politics ought to be cleaved apart, whereas many find it difficult to separate their pet views on distributive justice from state authority. What I take for granted–a freedom of conscience–why is this so apparent with religion, but not for other forms of association, like city and state? I found this bit from Haywood edifying. Perhaps it’s better to reinvigorate the similarities with freedom of religion:

“humanity’s very conception of sovereignty must return to its pre-1648 sense: universal assertion of authority and universal assertion of supremacy, but in a non-territorial way. (For example, religious doctrine generally asserts universal authority and supremacy over the faithful, wherever they may be located.) The question arises of how this can possibly be achieved today. Our suggestion looks to non-state sovereign (civil society and commercial) entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. This refers to trans-boundary, non-state actors as they impinge on and aim to supplement, even supplant, certain powers of sovereign states.”

Sounds very similar to a polycentric legal order. I suppose there ought to be a polycentric communitarian order as well. Just a thought. Wish that would stick! Thanks again for the comment!

By: Michael Strong

Michael Strong — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:01:26 +0000

Excellent post, Mike. These principles are so obvious to me that it is frustrating that the world at large (including the worlds of intellectuals, academics, and even libertarians) seems incapable of imagining the incredible opportunities that we are describing. We need to keep providing new and different ways to communicate our point until bit by bit more people get it.

The concept of existing nation-state sovereignty as the default global political operating system seems to be stuck like firmware in the brains of most living humans (the concept of nation-state sovereignty as ROM). How do we insinuate a new and better conceptual frame, our frame, into these minds? The concept of nation-state sovereignty can (and should) be questioned just as anything else can be questioned.

Bob Haywood, from whom I learned much of what I know regarding free zones (along with Mark Frazier), is running a foundation devoted to the creation of world peace. Bob’s starting point for the foundation is to question Westphalian concepts of sovereignty. While his focus is different than ours, ultimately it is complementary. For an early sketch of where he is going, see this article at the United Nations University,

http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/newsletter/articles/en_GB/05-09-brauer-haywood/

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:22:31 +0000

Ok Mike – here’s how I “think like a dandelion.”

To prevent another financial crisis like the one we are just emerging from, conventional wisdom seems to be increased power and authority to a central agency. This has been tried many times before without success. IN the 1980’s the DIDMCA, a federal banking act increased the power and authority of the Federal Reserve by forcing more financial institutions to be subject to the FED’s regulation. It enabled the FED to create a truly national financial crisis which no bank could avoid.

Thinking like a dandelion suggests that all 300 million+ people in the U.S. should simply engage in voluntary financial transaction in any way they see fit. If they are unsure how to do this they can hire experts of their chosing to assist them but no one can force a one-size fits all solution. All transactions must be voluntary. Only one rule – no stealing.

Stop trying to find the superman regulator who can make everything OK in the financial world, he doesn’t exist. The active self interest of 300 million+ people engaged in voluntary transaction will result in greater financial discipline and fairer transactions than could ever exist under a central authority. Embrace the truth of “Wisdom in Crowds” and think like a dandelion.