Debt to Intention
debt to intention meta-information system for emergent resource allocation.
"money" in this system are units of debt towards intention.
they can be created by any participant of the meta information system by issuing a "request for support".
Such "request for support" becomes the "debt to intention".
The debt cancels itself when it is met. Yet as some requests demand higher complexity of interdependent support, the "intentional request units" can continue circulating, until they are met ( and dissapear ).
Supported requests gain "support credits", which gain to the one that supported, and increase the potential for the one that supported to issue further requests with higher visibility ( through reputation of participation ) note: it is still not clear if accumulation of participation credits have a form of demurrage, encouraging circulation/support of participation credits to other requests to increase visibility
Intentional request units can lead to other requests created. "Intentional request units" can contain several layers of metainformation regarding their relation to requests. ( when requests create further requests )
Requests for support gain higher visibility ( enabling increased priority ) according to "demand" for support to intention
- will give further details in near future on wiki -
Dante
Copyleft Sharealike Non Commercial
further explanations / brainstormings
Thanks Michel !
Yes, in the last years I experimented in such an approach, modifying and adapting my lifestyle,
using mediums accessible to me to live it
( highways, countryside roads, city streets, public transportation, public libraries, events, the internet, ecovillages , spaces I was hosted... )
and share it with others, through the power of inspiration of non coercive mutual empowerment.
It lead me to get in touch with all of you.
The information systems ( blog, wiki, mailing list, ... ) you set up for converging examples and questions facilitate such process.
I now look forward to further converge individuals, and use existing tools to progressively set available an information system that can easily connect anyone interested in participating through daily life. When the "code" of the multiple suggested architectures are created, one could imagine implementing through existing tools ( certain softwares, certain hardware infrastructure - mobile phones,internet... ).
I know I share such vision with a number of you, and some of us have been brainstorming together on various architectures. This last step of sharing a brainstorming is part of this quest.
I guess for me now this step attempts to define it better. I tend to brainstorm in a way that leaves unanswered questions for anyone to fill, and tries to find words or sentences to express it better.
You are already helping in defining better the information system I try to describe :
- I guess that having the reputation aspect included into the system makes it indeed a non-reciprocal exchange system.
- And giving according to intention does not make it fully unconditional, as units loose any "credibility/trust/value" for "requests" in non-reciprocal exchange when they do not apply to the license of the unit.
The license of the unit being created on the initiative of the entities that ( want to ) initiate and/or act.
I still perceive various layers of such resource allocation system.
An entity can initiate an action, and complete it, without expressing a "request".
Yet as there is interdependence, an entity willing to initiate an action and complete it may in many cases still needs support from other peers in the system to converge resources needed to develop the intended initiative.
For example, a mother raising children may want to set a request for food and shelter for her children. She may also set forward a request for socializing further the rearing of her children as she may spend a certain amount of her time providing to other contributions ( for example, when she leaves to attend a conference without her children , spends time providing learning to others in relation to the community permaculture garden - or simply, when she wishes to spend some time with her new boyfriend )
If this lady, who is also a mother, does not contribute according to what she can and likes to contribute to ( if she leaves behind her children and spends the whole day on drugs ), it will be visible on her profile, and others may want to support her in understanding how they can contribute in enhancing her intrinsic motivation and enthusiasm for interdependent life and mutual empowerment. Most of this would not need to go through the information system, but if needed, others can set up requests for support in relation to a specific initiative they want to accomplish. Such "request" units can flow by being met by others who decide to contribute to it, and enriches both the one who contributed and the one that set the request, and could then , based on such convergence of contributions, further participate in contributing.
Such system could lead to make people realize that if they care for others in a way that they can, they themselves will be cared after when there is a need. It also opens up the capacity to meet requests and offers across a broader system.
The met requests allow for accumulation of credits of participation, which increase the potential to donate such credits of participation to other requests ( increasing prioritization of requests, hence integrating a decision making system into it ) , donations of such participation requests again adding further participation credits.
Hence one is always recognized for ones contributions to requests.
Although ideally, the information system only needs to be used when the tasks can not be completed through the information system we have access to through our direct network of friends.
In other words, "monetization" would be kept to whenever there is a need for a "request". And accepting and contributing to such requests
It "feels" very simple, but when expressing it verbally, it sounds complicated. Its already happening
Would be nice to simulate it with friends, and make a video footage, although ideally it would need some programming and networked computer interfaces to see how each of these pieces of information ( requests ) puch and pull on each other to facilitate a broader picture of priority making in resource allocation.
The next big thing, as I tried to express for a number of months,
and that a few others seem to intuitively feel ( perhaps Sam ? Marc ? ... ) ,
will be "Gift Based Economics", or "Gift Based Information systems",
or to put it another way "Intentional Gift Based Stigmergic Information Systems"
What I think about is not merely a gratitude information system ( "Thank you's" ),
but a intentional information system allowing offer and demand transactions through the flow of meta information units.
Meta information units representing offer and demand of initiatives towards an intention, and needs for initiatives towards an intention.
Ontologies can also be created, to link metainformation between each other, and understand how each metainformation itself creates offer and demand for other metainformation,
as metainformation representing offer or demand for towards certain intentions might need to build on other intentions that need to be realized to fulfill intentions.
For example, spending the whole day behind my computer browsing the internet requires access to the intention of food , a roof, access to internet and to electricity...
Access to internet can be related to other intentions ( which represents some kind of metainformation ), etc...
What is the total amount of individual units of each metainformation, and equivalent measurable units of resources related to such intentions to which the system of peers can contribute to ? ...
---
"Gift based economics" has Two ( 2 ) entries on google :
"Gift Economics" has almost two and a half thousand entries :
over then times less then Michel Bauwens :
---
Current mainstream economics is debt based, and sets the conditions of a debt system to anyone participating into activities related to exchanges and interactions using debt based monetary systems.
As many parts of the economy have been monetized, most people in most parts of the world are subject to the dimension and conditions of debt, and the hierarchy of accumulation of other peoples debt as a way of accumulating controlling powers, and its inherent scarcity. Inherent scarcity, competition, and coercion which keeps the consciousness of the masses artificially low, by maintaining fear and by focusing allowed activity into the benefits of the status quo of the most debt powerful.
When gift based information systems emerge further, there will be a further continuation of shared intentions to which the gifts can converge to as to create new value, value itself which will have an interest to be created in more local communities as to increase autonomy of access to resources through interdependence of collaboration. The emancipation of the consciousness of the masses will not be restricted by artificial scarcity aka "artificial abundance of fear".
Gift markets can emerge, and the flow of units of gifts can be encouraged through the market itself. A market of intentional gift units. Allocation of resources needed to create new value can be created through a system market demand which determines the demand for gifts.
It combines a netroots political system with a new type of intentional gift based metamonetary system. It equals reversing debt : instead of having debt towards other individuals, every participant in the system owes debt to intentions each mutually supports through mutual empowerment.
So everyone is indebted at all times towards the intentions the collective markets decide for, and the collective markets do not create artificial scarcity as there is no limit in the potential to give other then that of initiative.
There is no accumulation of debt, only accumulation of reputation - or more precisely : accumulation of request potential for further intention development. Yet it is itself subject to the state of request of the demand market, set by each user and participant of the system.
Property is being limited to one uses for ones own ( in my case, property is limited to my computer, and only as long as I need it - if I would be able to access my information anywhere easily, I would not need any one specific computer, but would have a right of access to a computer ).
Any artificial hoarding of property from one or more individuals leads to the system of peers reducing their mutual support towards such hoarding peers, hence leading to exclusion from hoarding peers, or in a reduction of their access to resources, in the same way as in some softwares using bit torrent for file sharing.
As all units flowing are metainformation units which include request for support of the intention to which to give to, and that such receipts are all unique and only allow to keep their request potential value through compliance with the license of the intention
There is also no artificial abundance of fear, as the paradigm becomes one of mutual empowerment.
Instead of a society based on "rights" and negative liberty, it is a society based on responsibility of each individual to the "ability to respond" by supporting intentional requests. Response abilities are individual choices for initiative which benefit of the incentive of increasing ones access to requests for mutual interdependence. Requests for debt to intention do not owe to power structures but to the emergence of interdependent individuals.
If one particular intentional gift metainformation system does not suit one, one can join another one.
Up to now, no one I talked about this idea seemed to be ready to grasp how to further develop it.
Perhaps its too simple to sound true ?
I leave a brainstorming I already shared with some of you below
A field that we might call "intentional gift based units".
When thinking about it, I ask myself if it could also be seen as "debt units", but not towards specific individuals but towards an intentional entity.
Debt being owed to intention, instead of to individual need for coercion.
Hence ( other individuals ) debt can not be accumulated by individuals or entities.
The intentions the community decides to owe to ( or "give to" ) can be determined by individual filters of each participant in the system.
This creates a "collective debt towards intention" market.
This debt can then be met through actions of individuals, allowing individuals to issue units through their initiatives and actions which service the debt to the collective intention.
Such units could be defined as some "Request for support" units, and contain meta information about the intention they support.
When other participants in the system accept such units for an exchange, they support their debt to the collective intentions of the system.
As intentions are mutually connected and mutually empowering, to realize one intention, other intentions need to be realized.
Each servicing of "Requests for support" are added into the database accessible and visible to all in real time, which enables for the ones contributing to the support of the intention to become "richer".
One becomes "richer" not in "coercive power", but in "interdependence potential", and one can more easily set forward other "Requests for support" towards intentions one wants to suggest to the collective.
The details of such system would still need to be thought of further.
The big difference with a "coercive debt towards individuals" is that in this case it is a "intentional debt towards the emerging system of participants".
In a debt system based on debt to individuals or separated entities, the PRIORITIES of the system ends up being turned towards the specific interests of the ones that are in a position to accumulate most of such units of credit, and goes towards further accumulation and hoarding by the ones that have most accumulation of units of ( other peoples ) debt, hence , from my perspective ( I could elaborate further at some point ) leading to artificial scarcity in the capacity for the system to process initiatives that support mutually empowerment towards shared intentions.
But in a intentional system of debt where all owe to intentions set through the filters of each participant ( filters determining demand for intention, hence the collective debt towards intention ) , and determined by "requests for support" ( note : I m still not sure what the algorythm would be between the requests for support and the demand filters that allow currency to be accepted ),
the PRIORITIES of resource allocation produced by the system would not go towards servicing the ones that already have what they need, but would go towards servicing the needs of MUTUAL INTERDEPENDENCE of the emergent system of peers itself.
Dante to Smari , two or three days ago :
I personally would like to move towards non-monetary economics, or more precisely to non-debt based monetary economics ( although it all depends how we define money ).
I would like to experiment with stigmergic information systems facilitating resource allocation in a emergent way.
One idea is what I could call a "gift based" ( instead of debt based ) intentional information system.
Such information system would be based on a "intentional gift market"
It is important for me to create alternatives to coercive debt based accounting/information systems.
It could enable every of its participants to create intentional units linked to what it contributes ( transparency being important ).
It could also enable every participant to set demand filters for the intentions it wants to support, which will enable each user to accept units which supported certain intentions. ( for example: 10 percent education, 10 percent infrastructure, etc )
It would serve as a emergent political and monetary system for communities.
Every intentional unit has meta information and a license connected to the intention it was created for.
Participants in the system are willing to "give" to support intentional units, and in turn reinforce the intentional units.
If the gift transaction does not support the intentional units license ( for example, a transaction using "health care" intention units through the gift of cigarettes ), the units loose their value.
Many questions are still open, especially in relation to the value of each of these intentional units. As there is no direct coercive aspect in it, the value of the transaction does not depend on the debt, but on the capacity to create gifts.
The ( electronic ) use of intentional units would especially be useful to feed a holoptic ( opposite of panopticon ) distributed data base, which would enable all participants to have an overview on the production and exchanges in the system, and make choices regarding priorities of they contributions and non-contributions.
ps: the perspective towards a mutually empowering support economy information system is not something new.
Its something I experienced and survived with in the last years *, and is from my current understanding one of the basis for life itself.
It also requestions property :-)
And can be used as a tool to transfer resources into the commons.
Property, in my view, would be limited to the personal use of the resource for ones own survival or for our intentional activities.
Such usership property could also be expressed in terms of units that we can maintain when they contribute to empowering other units.
As it becomes a mutually empowering information system.
What the intentional unit system could offer is a better visualization of offer and demand,
as such units are "call for intentional support" units, which can be met by acceptance from others who support the intention.
New units only need to be issued when there is a lack of units in circulation - or when one has not been able to give to others ( hence receiving units ) And as there might be exchanges that do not support existing units in circulation, the amount of units in circulation may be reduced over time.
One would only need to call upon the emergent system when ones own needs, needed to cover our potential contributions, are not covered.
In other words, it makes public our contributions and enables support for our own capacity to give to the system.
The greatest challenge in such system is to enable fluidity of transfers, either by extending the intentional base of transfer of units, either by enabling... the gift of units.
---
- hospitality and hitch hiking are only examples