Slashdot Mirror


Building an Opt-In Society

An anonymous reader writes "In a talk at Y Combinator's startup school event, Stanford lecturer Balaji Srinivasan explained his vision for governing systems of the future. The idea is to find space to set up a new 'opt-in' society outside existing governments, and design it to take full advantage of technology to keep people in control of their own lives. That means embracing tech that subverts existing industries and rejecting regulation on new ways of doing things. '[N]ew industries are simultaneously disrupting existing ones while also exiting the system entirely, he says. With 3D printing, regulation is being turned into DRM. With quantified self, medicine is going mobile. With Bitcoin, capital control becomes packet filtering. All of these examples, Srinivasan says, are ways in which technology is allowing people to exit current systems like physical product production and distribution; personal health; and finance in favor of spaces of their own creation.' Srinivasan's ideas are a natural extension of a few proposals already in the works — Peter Thiel has been trying to build a small tech incubator city that floats in international waters, outside of government control. Elon Musk wants to have a Mars colony, and Larry Page has wished for a tech-centric Burning man that's free from government regulation. 'The best part is this,' Srinivasan said. 'The people who think this is weird, the people who sneer at the frontier, who hate technology, won't follow you there.'"

32 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Power abhors a vacuum. by devman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Power abhors a vacuum. There will always be a government analog (even if it just your local warlord) wherever you go as long as there are other people. This is also the reason why weakening governments simply allows corporate power grabs, I'm sure there are some who'd love to return to the days of the East India Trading Company private armies and all.

    1. Re:Power abhors a vacuum. by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which in a way is the point. These are generally people who feel they deserve more power then they have and it is the government's fault they are not doing better in life, thus if they break away THEY get to run things instead. There is a reason these types of projects tend to attract narcissistic people, it takes a certain amount of self centered confidence to believe that in such a shakeup they will come out on top rather then simply ending up worse then before since some new group of powerful people will simply have even more control over them.

    2. Re:Power abhors a vacuum. by ridgecritter · · Score: 2

      Yeah. One wonders what dreams these people have that are being blocked by the government.

      Mr. Musk is doing good work in establishing commercial access to space and giving us a new choice in cars. SpaceX has a $1+Billion ISS supply contract from NASA (Government), and Tesla accepted and paid back a roughly half-billion dollar loan *from the government* that was extremely helpful in establishing the company's manufacturing operations. Seems to me that in Mr. Musk's case, the government has been a facilitator of his dreams.

      I'm less familiar with Messrs. Thiel and Page's histories, but it would not surprise me to learn that government made a direct contribution to each of their businesses at some point along the way. It certainly contributed indirectly through providing infrastructure like commercial laws and the courts to enforce them, facilitating an educated and healthy population from which they could recruit workers, and on and on.

  2. no thanks by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a resident of a prosperous northern-European country with working infrastructure, a working healthcare system, relatively low poverty and homelessness levels, and generally a decent civil society that we all pay our share towards, I'll take the universal welfare state over some kind of ridiculous experiment in anarcho-capitalism. That's about as likely to work as any other anarchist experiment has worked. I guess America can have fun with it, though.

    1. Re:no thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess America can have fun with it, though.

      Somalia is having fun with it right now. I don't think this is what even the craziest teabaggers want.
      Fortunately with Obamacare, America is realizing that there needs to be some kind of social security. In the long run, there's no way around it if you want to keep exploiting people and keep them relatively peaceful at the same time.

    2. Re: no thanks by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      I love it when someone mentions Somalia and gives entirely uninformed opinions. This gives me the opportunity to debunk your statement with a single link: http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

      2007. 2013 now and 1/3rd of somalians suffer from depression and the common cure is to chain them up.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re: no thanks by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      LMAO that's your argument? Because the Barre government were abusive scumbags the Somali people are better off under the warlords and Islamists? Funnily enough all the Somalis that have fled their country disagree.

    4. Re:no thanks by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      If you're looking for an investment, start a women's clothing store that carries burqas.

      Immigration from Afghanistan and Pashto areas of Pakistan (the only places where burqas are commonly worn) to northern Europe is negligible.

    5. Re:no thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact of the matter is that most of Europe's "welfare States" have massive problems, and kicking out anybody who isn't the same skin color and religion is a bullshit method of dealing with poverty and homelessness.

      Can you please cite instances of when northern European countries, in the recent decades which have seen welfare states, have kicked people out on the grounds of them following a different religion?

      You benefit from the economic ... strength of your neighbors, which are the only things that make your alleged Utopia even possible,

      Finland chose not to join NATO during the Cold War and provide for its own defense, with the understanding that the West would not come to its defence in the event of invasion. It nonetheless managed to run a welfare state comparable to any of its Nordic neighbours.

    6. Re:no thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're generally shielded from the burden of unskilled migration by your geographical location, shielded from invasion by your southern and eastern neighbors who recently joined NATO, you are far out enough in the periphery of world affairs to not attract the ire of regional powers, but near enough that everyone wants to woo you to their side. You have few people, yet have a claim to large swathes of ocean energy and mineral resources. While you have some exposure to the world and to racial diversity, you still remain one of the most ethnically homogeneous regions in the West, sparing you much of the social strife that other countries experience. Plus, most people have forgotten your country's contributions to murder, slavery, rape, and pillage, or they'd rather focus on someone else's.

      Pretty comfortable place to be. Though, not quite a place from which to judge.

    7. Re:no thanks by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're generally shielded from the burden of unskilled migration by your geographical location, shielded from invasion by your southern and eastern neighbors who recently joined NATO, you are far out enough in the periphery of world affairs to not attract the ire of regional powers, but near enough that everyone wants to woo you to their side. You have few people, yet have a claim to large swathes of ocean energy and mineral resources. While you have some exposure to the world and to racial diversity, you still remain one of the most ethnically homogeneous regions in the West, sparing you much of the social strife that other countries experience. Plus, most people have forgotten your country's contributions to murder, slavery, rape, and pillage, or they'd rather focus on someone else's. Pretty comfortable place to be. Though, not quite a place from which to judge.

      Quite a lot of fair points there, though I'd disagree on the last one. While the people who lived through WWII is quickly dwindling, we're very aware of our not-so-distant history when most of northern Europe was in flames and we considered ourselves all but ethnically homogeneous with über- and untermenschen. An awfully lot has happened since then though and we've probably done more to mend our wounds in the last 70 years than many other conflicts that have gone on for centuries. But I think I speak for most of Europe when I say we don't want to become a United States of Europe, the English want to be English, the French French, the Germans German and so on. We've found a peaceful way to coexist with "the other side" ceasing to exist and if it sounds a bit like we're saying "we did it, you can do it too" then that's probably true.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re: no thanks by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      2007. 2013 now and 1/3rd of somalians suffer from depression and the common cure is to chain them up.

      A few things. First, no country on the planet has 1/3rd of its population suffering from depression. The highest year over year incidence rate has been reported at .8%, with a lifetime incidence of 8-10%, if you're unfortunate enough to be a woman in that country. And that country is not Somalia. Somalia rated 153 out of 192 this past year on per capita depression. You'll never guess who got number one. And Somalia also rated pretty low on incarceration rates. Guess who got number one again?

      How should I put my reply to your "debunk" as succinctly as possible.... AMEEEEERICA FUCK YA! I bet they're so jealous of all that freedom we got, eh? -_- Both of you are wrong; Both for "defending" the 3rd world, and for "attacking" it. Somalia is doing just fine; Worry about your own damn country.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    9. Re: no thanks by Desler · · Score: 2

      Then move to Somalia and stop trying to turn this country into it.

    10. Re:no thanks by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      So then what is the purpose of the EU? And why does it grow more and more powerful and centralized (e.g. the adoption of the euro) as time progresses?

      Mostly equal access to markets, capital, labor and resources. The main reason to start a war (outside racial/religious wars) is because the other side has something you want and can't have. If you can run the same business in the same market under the same rules from Germany as you can from France, what's there to have a war about? While there's quite a few intra-EU foreign workers when you look at it from a grand picture most people want to stay where they are if the job market and wages are decent there. Despite the freedom to travel and take jobs elsewhere most want to stay in their own country.

      When I talked about a US of Europe I thought mainly about culture, language and identity. I'm sure there's differences between California and New York but they're nothing compared to Portugal and Bulgaria. Totally different people but if you want to sell Portuguese goods in Bulgaria or Bulgarian goods in Portugal the same inner market rules apply. As for the euro, the idea was to lower trade barriers because if you live somewhere like in the BeNeLux countries you have like five countries inside an hour's drive. No currency exchange means cross-border trade and shopping is easy as pie. The downside is that it was like having a joint checking account without ever agreeing on the rules for using it.

      Yes, there's a lot of proverbial saber rattling but in the grand scheme of things it's very far from actual saber rattling. Worst case I think the EU will have to shed a few countries down south that have mismanaged their economy too horribly from the euro, but I think the union would stand and they'd return to a position like the UK, Denmark and Sweden which are in the EU and outside the euro. The rest is a lot of scare mongering to make them realize the seriousness of the situation, they both stand to lose on a collapse and as long as they don't play chicken on who takes the bill there will be a solution.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:no thanks by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      No wonder Europe is doomed, if so many there can't even see that the EU is, and always was, intended to create a 'United States Of Europe'.

    12. Re: no thanks by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      That's your debunking? That Somalia was (according to some guy who wrote a paper) a shithole before anarchy, and is marginally less of a shithole afterwards, therefore anarchy is good?

      This is why the ultra-hard libertarian arguments always come across as so flaky. There aren't any examples of places that are both nice to live and stateless.

    13. Re:no thanks by khallow · · Score: 2

      In another story, someone was yacking about it being a "trade agreement". I didn't buy that then. I think it's an out of control bureaucracy with too much power and the ability to barter to gain more power in trade for positions in the EU government.

    14. Re: no thanks by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2

      You don't have to be clinically depressed to believe that you'd be better off somewhere else than where you are now. For example, the small island nation of Dominica scored near the top of the world happiness index a few years ago, yet young people emigrate from there in droves in search of high paying jobs in wealthier countries.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    15. Re:no thanks by jythie · · Score: 2

      Ah, but you forget, they way these projects are structured they never have to give up all those things since they talk about building right next to well established countries. They do not want to give up all the advantages of a strong government and economy, they just do not want to help pay for it or be constrained by the same rules.

    16. Re: no thanks by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Somalia is doing just fine; Worry about your own damn country.

      No it isn't.

  3. Re:Did they have to work 3D printing in there? by xtal · · Score: 2

    Once you can print 3D metal cheap, that changes a lot of things.

    Plastic, less so.

    --
    ..don't panic
  4. combinatorial explosion by StripedCow · · Score: 2

    So let's say there are N choices you can "opt-in" for. Does this mean there will be 2^N societies to choose from?

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:combinatorial explosion by StripedCow · · Score: 2

      There only needs to be one society.

      I'm not sure you used the word "needs" correctly.

      Let's say I hate intellectual property, so I want to opt-in to a IP-free society. But, I'm afraid new biotech equipment (3d-printing of viruses) could destroy the world, so I would like to not opt-in to a 3d-printing-everything society. How is having one opt-in society going to help me?!?

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  5. Re:opt-out? by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the opt-in frontier societies of the American West are a precedent, there is no opt out. Once you're in the company town, you're there for your term of service.

  6. Good Luck with that. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    I think that when those "existing governments" want to collect taxes on your opt-in society, you'll find out just how easy it is to be "outside existing governments".

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  7. what about a week later? by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He wants to build a society with built-in mechanisms that subvert existing businesses and institutions, while promoting new ones. Okay, that's fine on day one.

    A week later, the "new" institutions are "existing", so those mechanisms subvert them. His plan then, is quite literally to build a society that subverts itself -where anything built is destroyed.

  8. Old joke: who cleans the shitters in Galt's Gulch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To dust off an old joke: who cleans the shitters in Galt's Gulch? Who "opts-in" to be a janitor?

    Remember, the toolbags who are coming up with this are the same ones who think BART employees get paid "too much", so don't count on financial incentives to make somebody sign up.

  9. Deregulation by EdZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'The best part is this,' Srinivasan said. 'The people who think this is weird, the people who sneer at the frontier, who hate technology, won't follow you there.'

    But people who will be quite happy to exploit your deregulated society will be right there with you!

    Complain all you want about 'big banks' unethical behavior (really, keep complaining, write to your local MP/senator/whathaveyou, make sure the issue doesn't get dropped) but government regulation of banking means that if you put your money in a bank, you can be sure (at least up to £85,000 per Bank in the UK) that you will always have access to that money. Without regulation, then you have situations like with Paypal where the holder of you money can just up and decide "Nope, you can't have it anymore. It's ours for at least the next 9 months. Oh, you want an explanation? Too bad!".
    Or how about enforcing standards, like power supply? You want a situation where not only does every device have it's own plug, but your house may not even supply the same voltage or frequency as the neighbourhood a mile away? 'No government at all' works fantastically when all your actors are rational and honest. That is also true to Communism. Finding this mythical group of rational and honest actors (and keeping out even a single bad egg) is the hard part.

  10. Yeah, right. by Animats · · Score: 2

    Not seeing any concrete plans here. Some of the ideas are silly, such as Blueseed, the scheme to have a ship just outside of US waters full of programmers. That's just a tax shelter. Of course, they want the U.S. Coast Guard to help them if they get in trouble, as their prospectus says. And they want a large ferry dock and a freighter doc in San Mateo County's Pillar Point small-boat harbor. And they want ICE to make that small-boat harbor a US entry point, so people don't have to go up to San Francisco on a boat to visit the US. They also wanted to set up a microwave link at the USAF radar station at Pillar Point. But they don't want to pay for any of this.

    Then there was CITE, a small city to be built in New Mexico. No people - it was supposed to be just for testing "new technologies". The company behind it turns out to be basically one guy without much money and a lot of clip art. Got a lot of press, and even some political support, then the vaporware project went away. The business model made no sense.

    Further back, there was the high-tech Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow, which Walt Disney was going to build. Disney World has EPCOT today, but it's a theme park; nobody lives there. Disney did eventually build Celebration, FL, which is a retro-looking subdivision.

    Some very top-down countries have done things like this: Tsukuba Science City, Guangzhou Science City, King Khalid Military City, and Brasilia. Those are all Government projects. The US private sector has a long history of "company towns", most of it not too good.

  11. Somalia, Somaliland, Statelessness, and Vampires by SteveFoerster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Somalia doesn't have statelessness, it has an overlapping collection of theocracies and despotisms. The main exception is Somaliland in the north, where there's been a functional breakaway republic for years and there's a noteworthy level of prosperity. Somaliland has been completely unable to secure any kind of foreign recognition, largely because if it gets it, it ruins the claim that the vampires at the IMF have to shakedown the Somali people to repay the loans made to the Barre regime. The upside of this lack of recognition, however, is that the Somaliland government hasn't been able to get foreign aid, which, as it turns out, suppresses development rather than fostering it. But condemning foreign aid to governments of low income countries is about the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from the twenty-first century Somali experience, it doesn't speak to the efficacy of statelessness at all (either way).

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  12. Re:Let's run the experiment by sjames · · Score: 2

    The one non-shitty part of Somalia has an (unrecognized thus far) state. Of it's 3 politil parties, 2 are left of center and I have no idea how the third leans.

    The rest may be better off stateless than what they had before, but that's hardly the same thing. I would be better off having my leg sawed off than having my leg sawed off and being branded with a hot poker, but I would be better off still if neither was happening.

  13. Re: This is basically "argumentum ad novitatem" by anyGould · · Score: 2

    I mean, just look at cigarettes. The instant someone figured out that second hand smoke was causing cancer, the free market pulled them *right* off the shelves...