Hashing It Out
Hashing It Out

Episode 27 · 4 years ago

Hashing It Out #27: Radical Markets - Dr. E. Glen Weyl

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Blockchain hipsters, we have a treat: Dr. Weyl, co-author of Radical Markets. His book quickly became a popular with us in decentralization. The book proposes new ways to create marketplaces to provide better opportunities for optimal redistribution of resources. This has especially strong implications for those designing decentralized systems and applications. We talk with him about his book, the motivations behind radical markets, and potential futures involving his schemes.

Links http://radicalmarkets.com/ http://glenweyl.com/

Joys work. Welcome to hashing it out, a podcast where we talked to the tech innovators behind blocked in infrastructure and decentralized networks. We dive into the weeds to get at why and how people build this technology, the problems they face along the way. Come listen and learn from the best in the business so you can join their ranks. All Right, episode twenty seven of Hashing it out. As always, I'm Dr Corey Petty, with My cohost Colin Cuche. Say. What's up, Colin? What's up Colin? Today we have a special guest, Dr Glenn Wyle from the very popularized books radical markets. We wanted to have him on to kind of dive deep into the applications of the types of markets he he brings up in his book and how they may be used in decentralized systems and implications there in, and just talk generally about how he's how he feels about this space, the markets that he proposes and, I guess, potential of Himac that I'm actually being applied in today's society. So welcome to the show, Dr Blum. Well, Hey, I'm glad to be here with you, concorey. Yeah, no, this is great. I'm I'm glad you came on. I really loved your book. Read it for at first back in April. Just some amazing implications. We've mentioned on the show several times. A lot of the people in the space have read your book and our and it's continuing to be talked about, even that you know at this point. So it one. Think that was funny. As I read there was some article that was saying that sort of as part of the Crypto hipster look, you were supposed to have a copy of the book. So well, count me in on that. Then I guess I'm a Crypto hipster. But yeah, I know it's a wonderful book. I really, really thoroughly enjoyed it, so I guess I guess it again. I think it's interesting. What I read the title radical markets. I was thinking radical like crazy, but you actually had a different meaning for that title. The word radical didn't mean, like you know, revolutionary, although it does have that implication. What why did you name the Book Radical Markets? Yeah, the title has about five different meanings at the same time. One meaning is what you just said, revolutionary or bold or something like that. A second one is getting to the root of issues. So radical etymologically means root. So the book is trying to get to the sort of the fundamental things about the ways that market top right. But probably the strongest meaning is that in the nineteen and late eighteen century there was a movement called the philosophical radicals, and in fact there were parties all over the world called radical parties, and it was radical in roughly the sense of radical liberalism. Liberalism is, you know, liberals and liberal democracy, and this was a political movement that included people like Jeremy Bentham, John Stewart, Mill Adam Smith, Beatrice web and others who were trying to really change fundamental things about social institutions in order to free them from the legacies of feudalism. And that's probably the main meaning. But it also refers to the fact that we have this thing called quadratic voting, which uses a square function. So there's like square roots in there too. There are several other meanings as well, so it was a very carefully chosen word to reflect all those things at one time,...

...but also to be sort of edgy and lefty a little bit at the same time that it was referring to markets, which usually associated with sort of the libertarian right man, and I think what's you think about all of that is that you capture quite well in the book with things that you bring forth. I don't know how to start this because we have so many questions. So why don't we maybe just give an idea of surface level introduction to the market you propose in the book? So should I just run through the ideas? Yeah, that's a great I think it's a great way to just give the audience a general like over the overview of what we're talking about here. Yeah, I think you I've identified like four major ones. So, as a big reaction, Texas shootout, so selfassis technique, taxation and quadratic voting, and all those seem to have direct implications on what we're doing. So I mean, I really like to break break down into those. That's all right, and the other thing I would say is that, you know, those are the ideas that are literally in the book, but then there's also a number of follow up things that I've been working on with Vitalik Budhan and others that might be of relevance, including ways to use these ideas to fund open source software development or, more generally, self organizing communities, ways to deal with signaling and status positioning, ways you'll with distributed identity and auction. So there's the book and then there's a broader space of ideas that were increasingly calling radical exchange around that. Yeah, so when you say radical exchange, you mean to say something that doesn't require a lot of trust us in order to make sure that the that the market is operating. See, this is something that's kind of like throw me off. Are We striving in your book? Are we striving for the goal of a quality or just provable fairness? What the fundamental principle of the book is not either a quality or fairness, but the opposition to concentrated, historically derived hierarchical authority, something that people in this space might call decentralization. I would call it liberalism in the surassical sense. Yeah, yeah, and more like libertarianism in the US. Well, not quite, because modern libertarianism is modern libertarianism is not necessarily fully reflective of that tradition, because it often assumes that we can take for granted a number of fundamental social institutions that actually impede those goals of preventing the diffusion of you know, preventing the concentration of power. So a lot of Libertarians assume that we can maintain a decentralized, competitive, open society while allowing APPs solute private property, and we don't believe that. We think that idea was discredited in the late nineteen century by the liberal philosophical radicals of that period and that there for modern libertarianism is confused. But but in terms of the principles we have, they're the ones that are the common basis of both modern libertarianism and modern progressivism and we're trying to really reunite those types of ideas. See, that's really cool. So I've been reading a lot of Hyke of freedmen latening lately just to see I noticed economics and, you know, computer science are starting to...

...have the blurred line in certain areas. So I really wanted to understand the other side of things. So I've read reading high can freedman and when the interesting distinctions they made was abstracting the way the word communism, socialism, capitalism and it said focus on terms like central planning and decentralized systems and that, you know, they've identified one of the advantages to central planning is it's decisiveness and will it always work like in a pinch to solve an immediate issue? But the issue with these sentiliye systems that they take time to evolve and correct and find an optimal path or process. So do you feel like with the events of these trustless systems, we could create like a new way, approvably decisive, like decentralized market? Well, I think that the truth is that it always will take, in order to maintain decentralization, a constant struggle to find ways to organize things that maintain that to centralization, and it will always be easy to resort to some sort of fully centralized decision making, but it's not robust. It's something that's very fragile to the intentions and the vision of those interested with that authority, because it's very difficult to change central good planning. You know, once once a policies made. Yeah, it's not just abult to change, but it's also it responds to whoever does it. You know. So, for example, Singapore runs very well largely because it uses a lot of market or in mechanisms. But who was it that chose to put those in? It was pretty much dictator dictatorial or semidicatorial system rather than some sort of democracy. Now you might say, well, let's go imitate that, let's set up a lot of charter cities or sea studying where we, in a dictatorial way, impose market mechanisms. And I think the problem with that is that that works maybe in Singapore, but for every Singapore we have a hundred zimbabweys. And I prefer to use the mechanisms that we want to see organized society to bring about that organization so that we don't, you know, hope that will, through some dictatorship of the proletariat, institute some ideal world. We need to actually harness the centralization, harness radically democratic principles to build a radically democratic society. Yeah, and, and you've cried, the cool thing about this book is that it really crosses into so many different aspects. I mean you start off talking about property ownership, just the very fundamental concept of owning property, which you mentioned earlier as a tenant of you know, core principle behind modern libertarian movement is, you know, my property in my problem, you know. So, you know, your first chapter kind of claims it. Property ownership is a type of monopoly, and I thought this was some kind of tongue in cheek statement when I first read it, but you made a very careful and clear argument to support that statement and and it's actually kind of literal the way you wrote it. So I was wondering, if you get hallucinate on audience, why property is a monopoly. So I think everyone intuitively identifies with the notion that intellectual property is the right to exclude people from using some idea, but we don't think of physical property that way, as a monopoly over a piece of land. But of course that to the extent we don't think about that, it's because we assume that there's just as good land that other people could use or take. And in some circumstances maybe that's true, but in many cases that's not true. Think about the cities that we live in. Every block, every plot of land...

...is sort of unique because it's situated in a neighborhood that plays a particular role in relationship to everything else. If you want to build this highway, if you want to build a shopping mall, if you want to build a skyscraper, it may not be that there are just equally good places to do that. This may really be the right place for it and as such, you'll whoever happens to own that thing as a monopoly over it, and there can be very little check on their ability to exercise that monopoly power. And that's not just true for land. It's true for the radio spectrum, where, if you own some little over the air broadcaster, you can just use your ownership of that to potentially block the whole ability of rise and establish a nationwide five g network, right. And it's that arbitrary and unchecked power to control an asset which you didn't create in the first place and is really part of the Earth, which is a government and granted privilege. It's a government granted monopoly, just like the monopolies that Adam Smith to cried and that Milton freedmen rails against. So one of the ways you propose that we kind of like look at this problem or or kind of reevaluate how we organize the concept of ownership, because clearly people, people don't want to not have things, not have shelter, for instance. It was the idea of a self assessed taxation system and I thought that was really interesting. My understanding of it is that someone assesses the value of their property kind of with the condition that they pay a certain amount of value of that valuation like every month, kind of like a mortgage, and if someone is willing to value it for more, by a certain threshold, the owner must sell to this person. They have to sell to this person, and like that kind of turns everything on their head, because people don't want their houses to suddenly like slip out from under them, for instance, people don't want somebody to suddenly take their car. And so I was wondering if you coul maybe discuss a little more about the market you propose for self assist assess tach or, you know, described for self assessed taxation, and it's implications and how maybe a central authority wouldn't be the best way to necessarily organize that kind of system. Yeah, so you mentioned that people might not want someone to take their property, and that's true. They don't want them to take their property for no price, right. Obviously, on the other hand, if someone offered you a billion dollars for your pencil, you'd probably be pretty happy about that, right. So really the thing is that every asset has some willingness that we would have to accept for that asset. And when you have a tax charged, then you don't want to set to high a price because you have to pay taxes on it, but you don't want to set too low a price was then they might take it for you for less than it's worth to you. And if you set this tax right, if you said it at a rate that's equal to the average turnover rate of an asset, the average rate of which it, you know, gets sold onto a new use, you can exactly balance these things and give people an incentive to report exactly how much they'd be willing to accept for the asset, so that whenever anyone buys it from them, they're not upset. They just say, well, okay, I was willing to accept that amount of money for it. If you put it in the hands of a central authority, on the other hands, they're going to have to come in from the outside without any knowledge of what that individual really values it up...

...and determine what the individual should be willing to accept for the asset, and that is not going to do a very good job of actually allocating things to the people who value them the most and protecting people against things being taken where they are really the best owners of it. I see like in the outcome, or the proposal outcome of this is that property flows to the people who can utilize with the most secret yeah, best in in terms that they themselves determine, rather than some outside authority determining it. Yeah, and that and something that I see, maybe I wouldn't call it a problem, but a possible issue. Or what could create like losers in this system is people not capable of self assessing well enough and end up losing things that they could potentially or, like you know, and maybe ideally take the best use of, but can't because they can evaluate properly. And that may let me go across a lot of the things that you propose in the book, is that the intelligence of people to participate in these markets is higher than what is may be average. Yeah, so, first of all, there's some real, relatively easy things that individuals could do. They could just overassess the value of their assets by a factor of two or three or four, and then it's going to be very unlikely that things are going to be taken. Now they'll play more taxes for this, but for most people who aren't extremely wealthy, that will still be very much in their interest because, you know, given that most of the wealth is held by very wealthy people, if, as we propose in the idea, you redistribute the value that's raised by the tax to people in equal shares, people will be able to use that to maintain their assets. Now I think that in practice we shouldn't think of individuals doing this themselves. We should think of there being a variety of different communities or organizations that people are part of that assist them in doing this and participate in helping them figure out all these values. And the goal there is really to say, look, we not everyone has to be on their own. You don't have to be alone and just figure out all the stuff yourself. But on the other hand, we're not just going to create a system that effectively puts all that authority in the hands of either a central government or in the hands of whoever happens to have the monopoly on that asset right now. We're going to diffuse that power throughout the economy and allow new organizations to build up that can help individuals and that can be voluntary bases for figuring those questions out. So I'm not relying on individuals all alone to figure things out. I'm just saying we shouldn't, because individuals might have some challenges, just assign all that power to some central authority who's thought to do it in a benevolent way. And one of the ways I could cut to see that happen. Thing is so right now we have Hlas, like, let's just say you're talking about how housing market. You know real estate, you know it's always are kind of in certain ways, but like it's similar it. You could come together where a neighborhood can do some sort of quadratic voting system where they could kind of assess the value of property on the neighborhood and set sort of a baseline, and then everything you do upset back is step back and explain quadratic vote and every plack into it. Please do yeah, yeah, so quadratic voting is a system of making decisions as groups that's based on a similar type of auction like principle, where everyone is allocated the same number of voice credits that they're able to use. But rather than you having one vote on every issue, you can have many votes on one issue and fewwer votes on another.

But in particular, it's not like you can just put all your votes on one issue and get that proportionately more influence. Instead, it becomes increasingly expensive as you put more influence on one given issue, to influence that one more, and if you put less on another, becomes cheaper. And so that leads you to want to value things in proportion to how important they are to you, rather than allocating everything to the one issue that you care most about. And you call it quadratic voting because one vote is equal to one vote token. Let's just say this in reference to Tokens. Voice token to votes is equal to for Voice Tokens. Three votes is equal to nine votes. Tokens is so far, so and so forth. So it's literally the square of the number of tokens that you you, you, you, I'm sorry, the square root of the number of tokens that you spend. So if you spend nine tokens, you get three votes. And and I think that's really interesting because it really means your extra emphasis has a cost to it, a marginal cost associated with it. So you can kind of you know, you do this only if you're very serious about it. So I thought that was really interesting. Have you seen any of these quadratic voting systems in play in the real world? Oh, there's lots of them. One of the most prominent ones is that Xm chain, which is a theoryum based block sort of import, export, regulatory compliance and supply chain management platform, is using quadratic voting to elect block makers. But it's being thought about quite seriously actually at the protocol layer for atherium. It's being thought about. It's being used in just a whole range of different projects within the blockchain space. There are activist groups using it to form for participant ory government platforms. We've used it for polling. So there's a whole range of potential applications. I see. I see a potential issue here. Maybe not an issue, but it in order to civil attack this. Maybe not civil attack, but like, if you look at this and they ay maybe you can find some of the etherium system, it would be trivial to see. If you wanted twenty votes as opposed to doing twenty squared, you just make twenty accounts to do one vote each. And so in order to have quadruted voting work, you need some type of know your customer associated with it and then, as scarcely be associated with how votes are or how voting tokens are then dispersed across that that known set of people who can vote. Yeah, that's absolutely correct. quadratic voting is very liable to civil attacks if you don't have some identity solution. To An identity solution is absolutely critical for this and, by the way, for many other things you'd want to do under an etherium. One of my biggest problems with existing crypto currency ecosystems is that they formalize the notion of ownership, but they don't formalize the notion of individual human beings. And any system that formalizes money and doesn't formalize people will serve money and not serve people, and that's not what any of us want to see. Well, a lot of the reason behind that is it's a very difficult problem. You know, it's it's it's not. It's not easy without a central authority to verify an individual. I don't think that's necessarily true. I've had a lot of thoughts about ways that you could potentially do that. So I don't know if how much you want to get into it, but I'm increasingly working on things like this. And I think that there are ways, through social networks effectively, that you can do this and then effectively. The centralized authorities really just one architecture for such a social network, and not even the one that really goes on in the real world, because you know, even when I verify, for...

...example, someone I might potentially employ and properties about them, I don't really do that through the government. I mostly do that through a letter of recommendation or something like this. Right. So I actually think if we can formalize some of those irl dynamics, we have the possibility to actually build an even more robust solution to the identity problem than currently exists in centralized architectures. So what you're proposing, then, is a this is something. So in two thousand and five I threw up a website called online Karma dotnet. I was trying to basically attack just the kind of like a sort of an identity problem where you know, you have all these Karma systems across multiple sites and you want to kind of unify them under one umbrella. The technology wasn't there to do that effectively, so I gave up on the idea. But to me it seems like your personal rating is who you are and you'd want to not diversify that across multiple profiles, because that's bad. Was this kind of what you're seeing saying here, or is it I'm saying something bigger and deeper than that? I think that actually you want to have a representation of the social network, may be stored locally, that people have and use friends and friends of friends and these sorts of trust relationships that exist in that social network to be a substrate over which a verification message of a property of an individual flows, and that, once you have that infrastructure in place, then it's actually pretty easy to do the disambiguation that's necessary to avoid civil attacks, because you can ask for verification of various principles until you reach the point where the individuals are uniquely identified. Is that? Is that against the notion of privacy and anonymity? Can You? Can you have no, those things are there. Well. So, first of all, anonimity. I don't know exactly what anonimity means. I mean, if animanimity means I'm allowed to do anything without verifying any properties of who I am at all. Yeah, it's against that. But I think that that is an anti human notion because it says that the only thing that is relevant for you is some material possession that you have and not anything about who you are, and I think that that we don't want that. That's not a desirable world in almost any circumstance. On the other hand, does it require you to reveal everything about yourself? Absolutely not. Imagine that you're trying to distinguish whether I'm civil attacking you. You could ask for various various questions about me, like what is my birthday, or when was my first kiss, or what is like? You know, you could disaggregate my fingerprint into a hundred or, you know, hundred thousand bits or whatever, and you can ask what bit a hundred and seventy five or two thousand and sixty four is, and you could have a set of questions that are like that and you could ask those until, you know, you get to a point where we're disambiguated. But in that process there are probably about a billion questions that define me uniquely as an individual, and you probably only need to go through a hundred of those, by the combinatorics of it, to with high probability, uniquely distinguish every human being. And knowing a hundred randomly selected questions about you does not reveal you to the person who's verifying you. It only reveals a very, very, very tiny fraction of what you are to them, and it can be chosen in a way that is not useful to them in other contexts. So I think with appropriately designed such protocols, it's possible to both disambiguate individuals and avoid civil attacks will not revealing...

...the whole picture of the individual to anyone else. That's very interesting. I have to think about that for a while. I wrote a boat. I read a blog post a long time ago. They try to like create the analogy of a mercalization of an individual, as like all the experiences and thoughts and biology of an individual kind of comes together to form a final hash of who that individual is. And you know, that kind of speaks to what you were just saying. Is like, you know, yeah, having local proofs of that tipid thing does it tell you about the entire tree? Just it can prove that the hash is the Hash without having to show you the entire tree. Right. So let's just say you have an individual, a collection of individuals working together towards a common goal. Isn't a corporation, an organization of some type? Do you so? You feel like identities just kind of a foundational need we have in this decentralized space? Once we have that, what would identify a particular corporation? Some sort of charter or how does it you know? So, just to give you an idea of where I'm getting this from, I really loved your parable of album of and Hajar. I thought it was lovely, it was great, it was fantastic. So anyone who kind of has owned a company knows that choosing your board members is essential for, you know, a successful business. You don't choose wisely, that's bad and and for the more like even the goes deep into like institutional investors. They can acquire, quote, clout by just owning a significant portion of your organization. How do you see organizations being formed in the future, given this, the centralized, trustless system, assuming we have the identities problem down? Yeah, so, Vitalik Booteran Zoe Hitzig and I have a paper called liberal radicalism, in which we give, I think, quite a radical new vision of what organizations might look like and how they might be structured in the future. The idea has a lot of similarities both with market processes and some similarities with democracy and some similarities with charitable organizations. The notion is that individuals would make contributions towards these organizations or projects, sort of like crowdfunding, but that there would be matching funds that would support them and make up for the fact that the individuals have an incentive to free ride and just allow others to make the contributions, and that the tax is necessary to provide those subsidies would be, you know, collected by something like the process that we were describing before with the property and in that world, organizations are really some sort of a collective formation, but not based on ownership, but rather based on collective action of some sort. Now, what do you mean by collective action exactly? I don't I don't necessarily understand that. I know the idea of like dolls and stuff, which direct funds to particular causes or businesses that the the dall supports in proportional however, people are voting. I know that is that kind of what you're talking about here. Do you mean actual like well, you can imagine an organization putting up any charter that it wants. Of how it's going to operate or the principles on which it operates. It could be a doubt, could be a charity, it could be it could be democratically governed or quadratically voting governed or in a hierarchically governor however you want. But the funding model for it, rather than being like contributions that people make or ownership stakes that people take, it would be basically they would make something...

...like a standard charitable contribution, except that most of the funds would actually come from a matching that would be given by some process that is external to the contributors themselves, something like, you know, the etherium, grant making foundation, etc. And the matching would be done algorithm of Mickway, so that all the funds would be distributed in a decentralized way without any central grant making authority having to be in charge. Now, when you wrote the book, How much, how much were you aware of the like the systems like a theoreum in place or dud that inform a good portion of how you thought about these books in the future? Or did that or that the intricacies of how these things work kind of come later on when vitalic kind of sensationalized your book and brought you to the public eye of this the community. Yeah, so I wasn't thinking about blockchain stuff at all. I was vaguely aware that some people involved with something called the theoreum were interested in using quadratic voting for like social networking or whatever, but that was about the extent of my knowledge. And then there is this guy called vitalic Boodheran who tweeted out one of my papers once. We'd already basically written the book but it hadn't been published yet, and when I first looked this guy up, I sort of thought he was a bond villain or something. You know, he's like a twenty four year old kid, you know, with a billion dollars or whatever, living in Zoog Switzerland, who knows where that is, and so I just assumed that, you know, he was some sort of scam or something like that. And then I nonetheless, because when you tweeted my thing, what I got more traffic on that then I've gotten on basically twitter for the whole rest of the time I've been on twitter. And so I said, do you want to look at my manuscripted be interested in your comments, and he sent me about twenty pages about it, just sort of talking about how he thought it was the future of liberalism and so forth, and asking lots of questions, and then that was the beginning of what's become probably my closest collaboration at this point is with him, working on many things together. So yeah, that's yeah, like that's how I really knew your book was kind of a real deal to is like, when it all e said something, I was like, okay, this is this is serious. So I took it very seriously when out got a copy. So what kind of things are you in Betallic working on? Well, the main thing that we worked on so far as this paper liberal radicalism that I mentioned, but we're also working in a paper called taking victory seriously, not literally, which is like a methodology paper, trying to talk about what is the methods lying underneath these types of things we've been working on together so other people can do them. You can almost think of it as a crypto economics type methodology paper. But we're also working on some more practical initiatives where we, you know, we've been appearing together in a variety of context, you know, from political to corporate to try to promote the idea of, you know, more decentralization of power within the judgital economy in the broader world economy. He's involved with this radical exchange event that were planning. I think it's going to be a key note speaker there. So I view him, as you know, one of the three or four people who's like most important to all the things that we're doing around these ideas. So what you say, taking vicary seriously so our audiences is knows,...

...a vickery auction is where everybody kind of bids and the person who wins, who bids the highest, gets it, but they pay the price of the second highest bid. Maybe you could go into some of the economic details behind that and why it's so interesting. Well, so that's an example of victory scheme, but it's really not the main point. So vicari's general principle is that everybody reports, you know, takes actions, they report what they wanted to do and they are forced to pay the consequences that that has for other people in the society into a pool. So in the case of the auction, everyone bids and they pay the second highest bid, but that's just because what is the cost to society of you winning that thing. It's taking it away from the person new value to the second most and would have won otherwise. Right. And so that is the principle behind the vicary auction and the idea of the difficulty behind that is is quantifying the the social cost of winning. Well, so in the case of the second price auction it's relatively clear, but in a more complicated case like an election and so forth, then finding a way that isn't easily manipulable to quantify that cost of you winning requires careful mechanism design and vicary gave a general solution, but a very fragile one, and what I, invitallic and many others have been working on is coming up with more robust solutions they give you an approximation to that social opportunity cost associated with your winning. I see, and I was scarious like as you've like I, since you've the book and had this collaboration with Italic and have learned more about these like these centralization systems or blockchain systems and networks. As that swayed any of your opinions that you wrote during the book, because I think it might. And regards to your data laborer and and how people own data within these blockchain networks versus how corporations owned data within the centralized that works of a Siren Service, as you call them in the book. Having a lot of my views on many things have been evolving. The importance of identity has become much more clear to me. The the importance of collective organizations and the role of public goods has become much more important to me. Issues about status and signaling have become much more central to my thinking and within my concept of data's labor, the notion of first of all moving beyond just data's labor but thinking more broadly about the centralization of power over our attention and over news quality and all this sort of stuff on the one hand, but also thinking about the role of building up organizations that are not the platforms, not this overwhelming behemoth, but that are large enough to help protect people, has becoming increasingly important to me and clear. So you talking about protecting people kind of triggered something else and me that reminds me of the book. You spoke a lot about how democracy is organized, like immigration. I think was a big point you brought up. Brought up in there where you propose an alternative scenario to say HM B vs has. Do you feel like governments will be benefiting from these t es central systems and what will they look like? Well, I think that I don't even like the idea or term government necessarily.

I increasingly have come to have the view that this sort of anarchist notion that we shouldn't have a government is not just as not so much a ideal as a reality. The truth is that different types of organizations have different power over different things, and what we should try to avoid is any particular source of power becoming too overwhelming or too entrenched. And all sorts of collective organizations can potentially benefit from these ideas, but on the other hand all will have to, as you know, was is true, with the economic value justified by the cost, produce value commensurate to their position of power and not be able to just in an arbitrary way just because they've always been there continued to exist. So in the world that I imagine there will be all sorts of governments in some level. The family is a government over its members. At some level, international organizations are governments over some aspects of life, and states and national governments and international organizations. So the vision I increasingly believe in is what I would call pollypolitan. So I'm not cosmopolitan, I don't believe in a world government, but I also don't believe in the absoluteness of national governments. They believe in complex, overlapping collective organizations that help protect us, make us individuals precisely because of all the different things were engaged in, and protect us from the overwhelming power of any persistent, centralized or protected historically derived hierarchical authority. It seems as though that aligns quite well with how you how you porte like reason about how the systems we have now came to being and that Adam Smith and they in the constitution where a where radical idea at that time, but over time and the development of technology and our society, those don't work anymore, and so we need a new radicalization of markets to then change the way we exist today, and that's kind of the future. Interesting now in terms of what you just painted. Is that? Is that a correcting decide? Yeah, I think that's right and I think it also fits into the vision of identity that we were talking about before, this notion that it's through the social network through a Meracalization of the individual, or all those things are there the contributions of different communities to them. That's what makes them an individual. That's my view of de Centralization. What decentralization is really about is not about isolated individuals. It's about the diversity of Communic unities and how differentiated individuals can be precisely because of the way in which they're the intersection of all these different things and the market you create to have them interact that like. That defines the social interactions and relationships they have with respect to each other, and value exchange kind of has an emergent property of what the government of those markets is. Is that? I think that's kind of what you're trying to say here and I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't see a clear path on how to get there, and I think you see the first of like we can't just do this, we need to do it in small places where it makes sense to try and experiment with these things and as we then iterate that like as effectiveness of them, they can grow and grow and grow. I see etherium and networks, like a Theorem, being right and ideal for this, because of the way you can determine astically code in the relationships of various, I guess markets, if you will, and it's just the they're great playing ground for trying to do these types of things. Yeah, absolutely, and but you know, it's not enough. It's a we can't just have entrepreneurship, we can't just have the ideas. We also need things that help those...

...markets be designed in terms of the way they feel to people, in a way that's resonant with their experience. And we need science fiction to help people imagine these worlds and we need, you know, other forms of our we need virtual reality experience, as we need activists who can help organize these things into a movement. We and we need all those to be intersecting with each other, and so that's the reason why we've set up this movement in a way that tries to connect all those different pieces to each other, because it's only together that they're going to succeed. So science fiction touch as a great point with maybe. I mean I I'm a huge fan of taking science fiction and using it as a model for building the future, but something that people consider science fiction in the economics field is economic equilibrium. Do you feel like these markets will help us obtain that? Or is that even a realistic goal to strike for it? Yeah, I mean I think the fundamental flaw of modern economic theory is that the vision of some competitive, general equilibrium economy was viewed as a description of the reality rather than as a optimistic piece of science fiction. And that's much more the spirit of my book. I view that as a North Star that towards which aiming. Not a point that we've achieved? Is it a mathematical ideal? Is just something we can achieve? Is it something that will always strive to get to but never get there? Is it? Do you feel like we connect? I think our view of even what it is is going to continue to evolve and and change. But but no, I don't. I don't think. I don't think. I'm not a utopian. I don't think that there is a final thing. I think as technology evolved, it'll change our moral compass and as our moral compass changes, what we aim at will change. And that's the rout and and and I don't think even at any given moment that there is a final or ultimate good. I think that ultimate good is derived from the diversity of the people who hold those values and it co evolves with it. So I don't want to see us just implement, yeah, some final notion of a utopia. That makes sense and I see like the path is the right way to go, but you have to strive towards something, as there's some fundamental characteristic of these systems that you think is like most sacristine, something that we are striving towards, regardless of the technology we used to get there. Well, I think my the basic principle that I lay down in this book is the notion of breaking up concentrated, historically derived hierarchical authority and allowing for a fluid flow of heterogeneous, diverse and growing ever larger and more complicated human organization. There's a wonderful quote from all over Wendell homes that I think summarizes something of my philosophy and is the epigraph for Jane Jacobs Wonderful Book The death in life of great American cities. Let me see if I can find it and read it to you. So he writes, until lately, the best thing that I could think in favor of civilization, apart from the blind acceptance of the order of the universe, was that it made possible the artist, poet, the philosopher in the man of science. But I think that it is not the greatest thing. Now I believe that the greatest thing is a matter that comes directly home to all of us. When it is said that we are too much occupied with the means of living to live, I answered that the chief worth of civilization is just that it makes the means of living more complex, that it calls for great and combined intellectual effort instead of simple and uncoordinated ones...

...in order that the crowd may be fed and clothed and houses moved from place to place. Because more complex and intense intellectual efforts mean a richer and fuller life. They mean more life. Life is an end in itself, and the only question is to whether it is worth living, is whether you have enough of it. Yeah, and there really rings home for anybody works in the US right now, where work weeks are insane, our expectations are pretty high in our vacations very like. We're not living very well, you know, but you know we make that money. So something that's saw. I Like I said, I've been crossing my field of expertise a little bit following the model of Italic and wrenching out from hard computer scientists understanding economics and some things that you know. I read zero to one by Peter Teal and he hails the virtue of monopoly and I feel as though when he speaks of it, we're not actually they're talking about a free market that doesn't exist. It's kind of like a fantasy market place that they make up when they talk about these kind of things. Do you say it's a fair statement that you're trying to avoid monopoly, because I kind of almost feel like the more even with you know, any competitive market will have gravitating power in one direction. And isn't that just some kind of monopoly? And isn't isn't not have negative consequences that affects the many in you know, in benefit of the few? Yeah, I mean I think that perhaps the fundamental principle of the book is Anti Monopoly, and that doesn't mean that you don't need some temporary power to be given to some people in reward and to protect the things that they've created. That's true. But so I think the myth that everything when does everything just for free and so worth probably wrong. But I think that monopolies an incredibly inefficient and just stupid way to organize collective activity. It's much better. You know. It's wasteful, it excludes people, it requires all sorts of expenditures to maintain that exclusion. It's just a sort of very stupid way and wasteful way to organize activity. So what we need to do is get beyond that and find better ways to organize people collectively, and that's the fundamental principle of the book. And I think an opposite of that is people like I don't know if anyone listening is familiar with the neo reaction movement, but they are really about sort of doubling down on that monopolistic control and that's precisely we want to avoid. We want to avoid the monarchies and the concentrated authority. So I think that brings up a quote that I hear very often, is that government is a monopoly of our violence or codersion, or how we want to put that. But you're very your you don't support the modern or the current notion of government in that in the future you feel as though that'll be an antiquated kind of way of looking at things. But how do we regulate a society when we don't have a monopoly even over the asset of violence. Well, look, the truth is that the notion that the government has a monopoly of our violence is a little bit misleading. If someone's ups on to your property, you have a right to shoot them. So it's not literally the government that has the monopoly of violence. It all private property is a monopoly over violence within a limited sphere. Right, there's really no difference between monopoly and a monopoly over violence. They're the same thing. All property is violence...

...because it's the violence to stop someone else from using that property. So I think in the future different organizations will control different scarce assets and they will have the right to use violence to maintain that control, but that control will be checked by the fact that they have to pay a self assessed tax and stand ready to surrender that as sets control to someone else if they're willing to pay them for it. So I think there won't be a monopoly violence. There won't be a monopoly period. All these things will be diffused across variety of different organizations and in fact we don't have a monopoly of violence right now because there are many different governments in the world. So that's not a monopoly, it's a local monopoly over violence. But again, even within the government's territory there are states and within states there are property owners. And so the notion that the government has a monopoly over violence is it's a it's a myth, but it's not a simplific reality. Yeah, yeah, and I think when they say that they mean elective violence, meaning that it's one it's different if you create a mental lynch mob. It's then when the government throws in the that sense, in the National Guard. And right and but the thing is, like there are things that the government can do and there's other things that government can do can't do constitutionally right. So, and and in fact, like to the extent that a corporation has a legal right to control certain assets, actually the corporation has benopoly over violence because it can stop the government from doing something. So I just I just think that the whole language is misleading and actually fundamentally confused. Yeah, I want to I want to say, like every system you create of sticks and carets ends up leading to an emergent like phenomenon of social behavior and over time, as that same system of six and carets exists. People learn to optimize around it, and you kind of allude to this inside the book of people continuously, like Regulatory Regulation, Corporation continuously tries to run a one run as fast as possible to stay in one place. And the idea of this book is to design like using the knowledge that we have and experience we have from the systems we have and creating new systems of better sticks and carrots to then make more sociable systems later on down the line. But we just don't know what's going to end up happening because those systems don't exist and you can't predict emergent phenomenons. You can try, but you're often not. You're wrong well, and and and what you really want to do is, for that reason, try to keep things at a high level of abstraction and setting the fundamental rules. You don't want to be too prescriptive. You don't want to say the future should or is going to look like this. You want to keep the basic principle of diversity into centralization in mind and then leave as much as possible to that process to actually reveal itself and emerge. What if the emergent property is kind of atrocious and that's a kind of like, okay, who's going to take care of like the mentally challenged? We would have to rely on the generosity of the public to do that, and that's kind of a difficult thing for me to believe in right now. Well, I mean in this system the notion is precisely that you would be, you know, all the funds would be recycled in an equal form, maybe through collective organizations or maybe through, you know, an individual universal basic income or something like that to individuals. So by the very rules of the system there would be a reasonably egalitarian sharing of the value of our collective wealth. That's going to be a difficult cell in the United States because I don't think I think kind of a rebranding of communism really well, yeah, and of free markets at the same time. I mean, it's...

I think was in then. I think that the disvision between Communism and free markets has been extremely artificial and it was a result of a cold war and Stalinist dictatorship and all this sort of stuff. But if you actually follow the logic of the free market through to its natural conclusions, it ends at a place that's very similar to what happens if you follow socialism through to its logical conclusions. Yeah, and that's something that I was very shocked when a Red Freedman, is that he really emphasized on the necessary balance between centralization and decentralization. You Discard Centralization. He saw the benefits of something like female but he, you know, he was kind of like balancing those two. Now, I know you might not be specifically a freedman economist. I'm not quite sure where you stand on that, but to me I always see there's an immediacy to central centralization and then there's a more of a experimentation and evolution through decentralization, and it feels like there's more of a balancing act than anything else. And we still will need some sort of centralization. Well, I think what we need is diverse collective organizations rather than an extreme focus on either the individual or the collective whole. I think we need that balance, not just there's some roles for the whole and there's some roles for the individual. Know, what we need is true diversity in the forms of organization where we get to the maximum amount of Heterogeneity and accommodation of individual difference precisely through having a variety of different collective organizations that are protected against freewriting, with each organization having so scific cause or purpose or desire and rolls and assets that are not absolutely owned by that organization but contestable through the process of common ownership. And I think that's the real interesting part. Here's the psychological I can remember which chapter you mentioned. It was a psychological attachment to property and by removing the concept of property as we currently know it to more of a rent or kind of system, which is what I feel like it it's it feels more like people kind of detached from the way that they treat the things that they have, the things that they own, their assets. You know, I think it sounds great, but we are addicted to the concept of property. And so, to go back to Corey's question, I am struggling to find a solid path that will get us there short of a catastrophe and complete reorganization, and even in that case I feel well, I think we told sometimes already getting there. I think the way that it's happening at the present moment is through the sharing economy, it's through all the ways that technology is changing our lives. It's through the you know, the blockchain that is giving people different notions, but I think this is starting to happen and private properties actually not such an old idea. It's a relatively new one. It starts, you know, with agriculture and so forth, and it's still very unusual and surprising in many eastern societies. So I think the truth is that our attitudes on these things have evolved and will continue to evolve for the better, assuming we have good ways of getting there. I mean, I think a Theorem is an outstanding example of this type of thing, of experimentation and these types of so it's not the only one. You know, the Federal Communications Commission can experiment with the spectrum and they're seriously thinking about doing that. The British government is thinking about doing it for oil drilling and landing slots of Heathrow and so forth.

So I think there's many pathways for experimentation. All right, I think that's a great kind of start to wrap up. Is there any questions that you wish we would have asked you that we did get around asking you now. I thought this was a great conversation. It covered many different things, both the deeper philosophy and newer things and and the some of the topics in the book. So, yeah, it was really great to have you a man, I love the book. Again, cannot recommend it enough everybody to go out and buy about radical markets. It's amazing. If you disagree with a lot of what we said, he plays a very cogent argument for each of the things we talked about and with a lot of detail, like data. It is back a lot of it up evidence at their very evidence base, and I was very happy about that. So if you don't like any of the things that we talked about, please go out and read the books. You have at least a way to understand, to fully understand his argument before you have like maybe possible to send. Yeah, and I got to say, you know, the cool part about it is it's finally testable. In my mind, I don't think we could have tested your ideas properly prior to having something like a there Um out there and we could begin, I feel like it's going to. It would have been more difficult. I think we could, but have been way more difficult and I think it's great that we have this sort of foundation architecture developing which can allow us to start playing around with some of these concepts. So it's really exciting time and it's really great book came out at the right time and, yeah, thank you for writing it. Yeah, thank you. Take care. Dr While before you leave, how can people get a hold of you or contact yours? Anything you'd like to plug? Yeah, the thing I think people should know about is where we have this new movement called radical lowercase x capital change, and it has four tracks ideas and research, arts and Communications, Entrepreneurship and technology and activism in government. I hope people involved in any of those areas, or even curious about being involved in any of those areas, will try a plug into the movement, consider attending the conference or contributing something to it, or even we have some opportunities to left a volunteer for the conference. So I'm really looking forward to that exchange. Thanks, thanks a lot. Take Care, but.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (128)