by: Dan Genduso [Website Link]
Our voting system is the backbone of our representative democracy, so it seems like a logical place to look when so many people feel like they are no longer represented within our government. People feel like their voice is not heard – like the issues that are being voted on and the decisions that are being made are not ones that are addressing the biggest problems in their life. When people’s voices go unheard — when they feel that they do not have an equal say in what happens in their community — they lose the drive to participate in our most important and sacred civic responsibility: voting.
An increasing number of people are starting to view voting through a valuation lens. People are starting to notice the lack of impact their voice is having on the decision-making process in the community. Decisions are being made to the benefit of a few, rather than the benefit of the larger community. It is hard to argue that the value of a vote is diminishing for most people. In fact, some might equate the value of their vote to a penny, which is then weighed against the opportunity cost of spending time on things that are more valuable. At a penny, there is essentially no incentive to vote.
In the United States, 1) we are all supposed to be equal and 2) we are all supposed to have a vote (adults at least). So how have we ended up in a system where one person’s vote – a person with money – can have so much more value than the vote of the person standing next to them on the street? How have we ended up in a system where, when it comes to voting, each person is no longer equal? We don’t have to look any further than the voting process to prove that equality does not exist in our society. So why, when we talk about inequality, are we not starting by demanding widespread changes to our voting system?
A vote multiplier exists when one person’s voice – their vote – is being weighted more heavily than another person in the community. Why would you want to be a part of a community where your vote is weighted less than the vote of the person sitting next to you at work? At school? At the doctor’s office? On the bus?
Electoral College: Why does a person’s vote in Florida have a weight of 0.78 per vote while a person’s vote in Wyoming is weighted at 2.97? Why do citizens living in Puerto Rico (including citizens who may have relocated from one of the 50 states to work in the American territory) have a vote weighted at 0? Shouldn’t all US citizens have a vote? These citizens aren’t living in another country.
Political Action Committees (PACs): While there are limits on how much a person can contribute directly to a campaign, those limits are overridden by donations made to PACs and dark money nonprofits. When a person of wealth donates to a political candidate and spreads money through Political Action Committees (PACs), that person’s vote – their influence on the voting process that is supposed to be representative of the whole community – is being multiplied. When politicians make decisions, are they more likely to support the interests of people who donated the most money, regardless of the channel through which that money was donated? Probably.
Corporate Donations: When a person uses their influence (and money) as a company owner/leader to shape legislation as a non-elected official, that person is multiplying their vote. When these companies (through their leaders) are donating money to PACs and politicians, along with donations from the non-profits that these corporate leaders set up, votes are being multiplied for the individual(s) that runs the company.
Associations: When a person is a member of an association, like the National Rifle Association or United Automobile Workers, which gives money to politicians to influence legislation, the members of that group are having their votes multiplied. Each of these individuals already has an individual vote to tell representatives what they want, so why are we allowing them to amplify their voice – their vote- through these associations? Why is their vote worth anything more than the person next to them on the bus, who might not be able to afford an amplified vote or might not have a union to join?
The Petition Process
The way in which we surface issues to get them on the ballot is manual, slow, and expensive. It is so costly, in fact, that the average person can never have their issue made available for a vote. Instead, we end up voting on the issues that people, companies, or organizations with money have paid to get on the ballot. There are major issues with this process, which keep the average person on the outside looking in.
Signature Requirements: Getting something on a local, city ballot can require 25,000 valid signatures, while getting something on a state-wide ballot can require well over 250,000 signatures (depending on the state). Each signature must be validated and belong to a registered voter. This process usually has deadlines for completion as well, meaning in many places the signatures must be gathered in under 180 days. In short, a significant amount of money and resources are required to meet the signature thresholds and deadlines.
Signature Gatherers: In order to get enough signatures, signature gatherers stand on street corners and in the entryways of grocery stores. Some of these people are volunteers, but many of them are paid. Do you know who is paying these people? If you did, you might have a better understanding of who really benefits from the issue landing on the ballot. Regardless, paying people to perform this manual process of gathering signatures adds significant cost to the petition process.
Follow-On Petitions: Once you finally agree to sign the “lead petition” that drew you in as a voter, the signature gatherers then throw one – sometimes 4-5 – more petitions in front of you to sign in rapid succession. Many people quickly sign these follow-on petitions – these contracts – without reading any of the fine print – the terms and conditions.
An Issue with Issues
When building technology, most companies use an agile methodology, which requires engineers to size epics and stories for development. Without going through this process, the project team will have no idea about the number and type of required resources, as well as the amount of time and money needed to complete development. An epic is typically quite large in scope (a project or set of functionalities), and that epic is made up of many stories (jobs that might be composed of tasks and activities). Sometimes, there might even be “uber epics,” which are massive programs composed of several epics (projects). The stories that make up and epic can range from very small (something that can be completed in an hour) to extremely large (something that takes months or even years to complete), but the philosophy is that an engineer should not be working on developing a story that cannot be completed in 1-2 sprints (2-4 weeks).
Issue Sizes: In government, politicians run on promises to solve “uber issues,” like healthcare, student loans, immigration, homelessness, mental health, cancer, and violence or terrorism. These “uber issues” are so large that it can take decades before any noticeable progress is seen (if progress is ever seen at all). As a result, we keep throwing taxpayer money into a black hole where there is no demonstrable ROI for the work that is being completed. Huge amounts of money – our tax dollars – are lost in overhead, while we rarely see any noticeable change in our community. Often, things in the community appear to be getting worse by the day, as opposed to getting incrementally better with each passing day of work. That’s not how progress is supposed to feel.
Issue Sequencing: When we vote on issues in the community, how do we know that we are addressing an issue that doesn’t have pre-requisites or core-requisites? If we start to throw money at issues that can’t be worked on until another issue is completed – and that issue hasn’t been previously voted on, funded, and addressed – all allocated taxpayer money will be lost in overhead while people sit around unable to work. When this happens, do we have a fallback plan to re-allocate funding and resources to the issues that need to be completed first in the sequence, while hitting pause on the improperly sequenced “issue epic” – the previous program we voted to fund? Or do we have to continue funding this program, which continually drains our community’s money and resources as we wait for a new “issue epic” to get through the petition process, receive votes and funding, and complete all pieces of related work – the “issue stories”? In this scenario, we may end up funding a program with taxpayer dollars for years before any work is even started.
The Voter Experience
As voters, we are oftentimes overwhelmed by the number of things that are on a ballot – both candidates and issues. It is difficult to figure out how to best contribute within a community. With all the sub-communities that are created, it becomes increasingly hard for an individual to navigate a path that presents meaningful and tailored participation options. That confusion adds stress, reduces voter engagement, and, ultimately, keeps community members from voting.
Community Building: Once people sign petitions – once the registered voter declares an interest in an issue or person – what happens? Is that person invited into a sub-community where they can start collaborating with people who have the same issue? Many people that sign petitions continue walking down the street, never to be engaged again to help build and grow a sub-community around that issue.
Participation Options: Not everyone has money to donate, but that doesn’t mean those individuals are not valuable members of the community. There a many other ways in which a person can contribute towards getting issues or people on the ballot, including time and influence donations. Are we properly leveraging and acknowledging these contribution options when assigning value to community members – candidate or issue shareholders? Are these individuals recognized as top contributors in the same way that people with money are recognized? Are their votes being weighted equally?
Community Curation: The discovery process for political parties, candidates, and issues is not designed with the voter in mind – it is not voter-centric. We are presented with a couple options for political parties (or candidates), and those parties (or candidates) have created a bundle of issues within their platform that feels a bit like how cable TV & internet providers operate. The average person only cares about a few channels, but they are forced to accept this massive bundle that is nearly impossible for the average person to sort through and assign true value to the bundle. Even with the limited options, how can a person be sure that the selected bundle is the optimal bundle to meet their needs? Can people even prioritize and make decisions effectively when the high-level names for these channels are the only thing that are visible, while the building blocks (the programming and segments) are hidden from view for the consumer? We are voting without having any visibility into the programming.
Once issues and candidates do make their way through our democratic process to receive a spot on the ballot – issues and candidates that may only truly align with and represent a select few members of the community – we have another problem. Huge amounts of people in the community either a) can’t vote or b) have had their vote devalued to the point that they no longer want to participate. Is this happening by design? If we have less people voting and the people left out are likely to vote against a person or issue that doesn’t align with their needs, isn’t that improving the odds that a person or issue that isn’t representative of the wider community will receive a passing vote? Shouldn’t the only requirement to vote be that you are a member of the community – a citizen? Since we have essentially pushed these people out of the democratic process – essentially removing them as members of the community – will people and issues that represent them ever appear on the ballot in their lifetime? Will they ever be able to rejoin the community? Is the proper incentive model in place to get them re-engaged with the community? This will eventually lead to the destruction of our democracy.
Voter ID: Why do we need so many different types of identification within our community? Why do we have to pay for identification that is required to participate and engage in our community? When the community assigns a cost to obtaining ID – and when the community does not open and utilize the desired channels for each person to request and obtain that ID – the community is putting a barrier between that person and their vote. The community is keeping that person from being a valued member.
If we were to vote on this issue today – this issue of Voter ID – would the individuals most impacted by these requirements even be voting? Do they have access to the polls? Have we devalued their vote so much over the years that we can safely assume they won’t participate? These individuals (like the homeless and people in low-income communities) no longer have any incentive to participate in the current system. None. Their voices – their votes – are locked out. How can we ever get them to re-engage?
Residency: The rules for residency were created as a result of improper scoping and inclusion of all community members during the requirements process. This means that many people in the community are left without an ability to vote in the community where they reside. For example, students, the homeless, and people living abroad – some who simply live in a US territory, like Puerto Rico – lose their ability to vote due to residency requirements that are needlessly put in place – requirements that suppress their votes.
Registration: The registration process is completely outdated and unnecessary. As citizens, we have the right to vote. This requirement brings little to no value, and, quite simply, it is a barrier to voting. Why are we not allowed to just show up the day of the vote – using our free universal voter ID – and participate in democracy – contribute to our community. Are we really going to take away someone’s right to vote just because they didn’t know about a deadline date for registration or didn’t have access to participate in the registration process? If a person is struggling to get through each day – fighting for survival – should we really be adding these extra tasks to their already impossible list of things to do? This barrier keeps people from being an active participant and providing value to the community.
Former Felons: Once a person has served their time and paid their debt to the community, why do we not welcome them back as active participants in the community? Why do we make it so they cannot provide value to the community and rebuild their life and reputation? These are people who have a voice and we are silencing them. We continue to punish them by completely devalued their vote even though they are supposed to be an equal member in the community again. If we do not allow their voice to be heard, how will we ever start to address the issues that led to them becoming imprisoned in the first place? Wouldn’t this help us spend less taxpayer money on prisons?
Access to Voting
One of the biggest contributors to inequality in our communities is access. If people do not have access to engage, learn, and participate in the community, those individuals will never have the opportunity to deliver value. If they aren’t delivering value, we aren’t allowing them to generate value — wealth — within the community. We need to eliminate barriers that keep individuals from participating and contributing in the community.
Polling Locations: There are many issues with polling locations, including closures, manual processes, and insufficient staffing. In communities where polling locations get closed, commute times and wait times significantly increase. There have also been issues with polling locations not being ADA compliant, which is critical so that people with disabilities can vote. Depending on where the locations are that get shut down, residents who lack the proper transportation options might be shut out of the voting process. Furthermore, the hours of operation for polling locations do not account for the wide difference in work/life schedules that exist within the community. The largest issue with polling locations, however, is that there is not enough standardization from one community to the next, which leads to polling issues that are inconsistent and hard to fix. These polling issues devalue votes.
Absentee Ballots: While absentee ballots make voting easier (at the expense of security), these ballots are not a blanket solution for every member of the community. These ballots can lead to people (like students or people who may have moved without updating their address on file) voting in communities where they no longer live, which makes it increasingly difficult for that person to be represented in their current community. Sometimes people use absentee ballots because they feel that their vote will be weighted more in one community (where they oftentimes no longer live), which creates a vote multiplier issue.
Regardless of residency issues, there are still some big questions to be answered around absentee ballots. What if someone steals a person’s blank ballot before it gets delivered in the mail? What if someone misplaces the ballot? What if a completed ballot gets lost while being returned in the mail? Do voters get a receipt to confirm delivery of the ballot, giving them peace of mind that their vote was counted? Why do people have to request a ballot in the first place? Isn’t that along - that extra step on top of registration – keeping people from casting their vote? People need more options for participation, not more rules that restrict participation.
The reporting and audit process for voting creates significant challenges around elections, particularly when polling locations close at different times (due to time zones) and absentee ballots are still trickling in through the mail days or weeks after polls close. There are different rules about the type of ballot and what happens after the votes are counted, which can lead to mass confusion in tightly contested races. There are also issues with the accuracy and trustworthiness of results in polling leading up to elections, which tend to be inconsistent from one pollster to the next. There isn’t clear transparency into these polls, how they were distributed, and where people were engaged.
Vote Counting: It can take weeks or months before all votes have been received and counted, especially with the current absentee process. Oftentimes, the race is over before those votes are even counted. This sends a signal to people that their mail-in votes (and sometimes in-person votes) don’t matter, which starts to reduce voter turnout over time.
Storage: In many counties, the ballots are destroyed (physically and digitally) as soon as they are counted. This creates a big problem if members of the community decide that they want to audit the voting system. While there are likely reasons that this is done to maintain privacy for the voter, we should keep records – records that can be verified and authenticated - to ensure that trust in the system is not lost.
Reporting: Often, we see poll results all over the television from communities on another coast, while polls are still open in other communities. This tactic can lead to lower voter turnout, as people may feel that their vote no longer matters.
Why do we continue to operate on a voting foundation that breeds inequality? Why are we allowing a vote to be devalued to the point that a person would no longer want to own it? Why would we want our democracy — our community — to be worth less? For democracy to work, we need everyone to participate. Those votes — everyone’s data in a single, decentralized data set that can be used for community automation and decision-making — have extreme value to the larger community – your community. When a person votes, the stock price of the community increases. We want everyone to vote to drive community stock prices up — to establish the highest possible valuation for every community where they are members. We want everyone to be an active participant in the community, voting on as many things as possible – adding as many data points around with automation and cost savings can occur. That is how we will create an economy that is truly thriving and booming — by building a community that works for everyone. By helping every person navigate the community in a unique way that allows them to provide and realize the greatest possible value in their lifetime.
In order to increase the value — in order to get everyone voting — we need to start valuing every individual’s vote the same. Every person’s voice matters. We need that data, and we need to capture it in a private and secure way so that nobody can be persecuted for telling the community what they want. Data — verified data — will allow us to automate the operations of our community to deliver the best possible outcomes at the lowest possible tax rate. Data will allow every person to maximize value and self-actualize within the communities (and sub-communities) where they are members.
APoll01 is an incentivized polling network that builds communities (and sub-communities) around issues (and sub-issues), while curating a unique polling experience for each person. We’re building a system where every individual receives an equal vote from a mobile device, while being compensated for their role in solving the biggest issues facing the communities where they are members. We’re building a community where every person’s voice is heard and used in the decision-making process, while activating each person to become a participant in the solution for their own issues. We’re building a new, agile Foundation — APoll01 Nation — on which this new form of democracy can operate. A new foundation on top of which we can all build and work together as shareholders. A foundation that is inclusive, transparent, and trusted by all community members.
We invite you to donate and become a member or sign up and receive launch updates. If you are interested in investing in the future of democracy, reach out to us. Our flagship product – APoll01 – is an investible opportunity and we’d be happy to provide more information. As we prepare for launch, join our community on Reddit and tell us what you want – we’re building this for you (and with you).
SUPPORT ON MEDIUM
By: Dan Genduso
In 2030, we will be migrating towards an education ecosystem that delivers personalized learning — learning based on user preferences and needs — that is consumed in small chunks throughout a person’s lifetime, while being combined with task-based work to validate mastery.
Identity or Profile as a Service: People will start to create, own, and manage their personal data, leading to the development of robust individual profiles that education service providers are able to consume as a service. These profiles will contain all kinds of data about the person, such as learning preferences, learning history, work history, personality traits, hard skills, and soft skills. By providing these profiles to education institutions, services, and peers as a service, individuals will be able to receive a highly focused and personalized learning experience, while also potentially earning money for the data that he/she provides.
Digital Assets: We should expect to see a shift in the way degrees, and newly created educational assets, start to be managed. Once earned, the degree should be turned into a digital asset, and that digital asset should be assigned ownership to the student via the blockchain. Once ownership is assigned, that degree will become a part of the student’s profile, which will validate the individual’s mastery, while also eliminating the need for education background checks. Educational institutions and services should then start creating additional sub-degree assets, which are at granular skills and sub-skill levels, and assign ownership of these assets immediately after a student tests out and validates mastery of a specific skill or activity. This creates a “living degree” that evolves throughout a person’s life.
Learning Paths: Learning paths will be created to teach people how to do things, such as starting a company, or converting a lesson plan into a workflow that students can follow at their own pace. These workflows will be created by a decentralized group of individuals, and the workflow will be broken down into milestones, activities, tasks, and sub-tasks. As a user completes a task, activity, or milestone, then the creator will receive payment based on the level of completion. If a user leverages tasks, activities, or milestones from multiple learning path creators to complete an entire workflow, each creator will receive payment reflective of his/her contribution to that user’s personal learning path.
Skills and Tasks: Since learning paths will be broken down into granular tasks, we can start to align those tasks with the skills required to complete tasks in the peer-to-peer employment world. Once that alignment is made, the student can be assigned a paid, real world task to complete while verifying mastery of the specific task, activity, or milestone that he/she just completed within a learning path. This will create a tightly integrated internship that evolves with a student throughout his/her learning journey, providing an actual employment history of completed tasks that are stored to his/her profile. If a student stops a learning path early, his/her profile still reflects mastery of the skills and tasks completed.
Predictive Analytics: Analytics will be leveraged to determine what shifts are likely to happen in the marketplace, allowing students to put a visualization layer over their individual profile and the available learning paths to determine the best course of action to meet job demands in the market. This provides individuals a way to chart unique paths towards long-term goals, while ensuring that they are always moving in a direction where paid work will be available along the way.
Peer-to-Peer Ecosystem: There will be a shift in education that mirrors the shift in employment when 30–40% of jobs are lost to automation, meaning that people will be operating in a peer-to-peer ecosystem, working to meet the needs of other individuals in local, national, or global communities. Individually owned profiles will be the cornerstone of this capability, and machine learning will be used to start automating the interactions between individuals in the community. This shift will start to change the way education materials are created, as teams of capable individuals will swarm around needs for things like text books — parsing out sections within a decentralized community and pulling those contributions back together in a wiki for global access — and operating within the structure provided by a shell organization (Decentralized Autonomous Nation).
Global Education Database: By 2040, an entire economy will be established around creating education content. We will see books published in highly agile ways by a decentralized community, after which those books will be made available in wiki format as living text books for consumption around the world.
SUPPORT ON MEDIUM
By: Dan Genduso
“Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” Education is the catalyst for all change. However, before we can create a global education database that can be leveraged to initiate rapid and agile change around the world, we must first teach people how to create that source of learning materials. We can do this by leveraging the infrastructure for a Decentralized Autonomous Nation, as described in my previous article.
Imagine a decentralized group of teachers and subject matter experts, whose only linkages are the skills and attributes stored in their individual profiles. These people have never met and don’t work for the same company/organization. Now imagine that somebody, or even a group of people, want to have access to a certain type of textbook within a global education database (for the sake of this article, let’s call that database Everipedia). The demand is present in the form of the need for a textbook, and the workforce is present to service the need and generate the supply, so long as they have the structure of an organization to collaborate and work within. Let’s look at how this textbook can quickly (and cheaply) evolve from a need to a usable asset in a series of steps.
Step 1: Create the demand
A user on Everipedia creates a request for content with a willingness to pay in IQ Tokens (a form of cryptocurrency). Similar requests pool together, creating a bounty of the combined willingness to pay for whomever can provide the content. Once the bounty/budget becomes sufficient for a project, the project is triggered. A request may come about, for example, to create a textbook for “Introduction to Computer Systems.”
Step 2: Leverage “how to” wikis
In order to unlock the potential of a Decentralized Autonomous Nation, the foundation of Everipedia should be built on “how to” articles that “teach users to fish.” In this case, an article about “How to create a textbook” would first have to exist before the workflow can be started to actually create the textbook, “Introduction to Computer Systems.” If data categories are added to different sections of the knowledge article, we can then properly align milestones (create the table of contents), activities (write a chapter), tasks (write a section of the chapter/create a graphic), and sub-tasks (write a sub section) with other applications used for managing work, like Jira or Honeybook.
Step 3: Make the workflow actionable
Once the workflow for creating the textbook is established in the wiki layer, we can pull each component (milestone, activity, task, sub-task) into a workflow tool, similar to Jira. If this workflow tool is operating on top of the Decentralized Autonomous Nation, it will personalize the matching of content providers (workers) to the specific milestones, activities, tasks, or sub-tasks that the content provider is most capable of servicing/completing. This matching is enabled by user profiles with validated skills and verified identities (among other things), which also allows for the user ID to stick with the assigned task and pass through to the published state.
Step 4: Distribute the tasks to workers
Workers have the option to accept or reject a content creation task that the AI engine matches them with at the milestone, activity, task, or sub-task level. These accept/reject options, as well as management of the assigned job, should take place within a CRM tool, like Honeybook, that allows for inputs from all work-related blockchain applications. At the same time, newly assigned workers should be pulled into a collaboration tool, like Quip, that allows for all content creators working on the same milestone or activity to interact, create, and iterate upon an agreed upon, cohesive content section or table of contents.
Step 5: Review and Edit
Once content is created, the Decentralized Autonomous Nation is leveraged again to match a list of capable content reviewers to each milestone, activity, or task. Content is sent for approval using mechanical turk (i.e., Gems), providing an earning opportunity for reviewers, while leveraging staking and trust mechanisms to ensure quality content from the creator. Content providers are required to stake a portion of their earnings as a form of quality guarantee, while also having a reputation score tracked in the system. If the content is accepted by the reviewer, then the reputation score increases, thereby increasing trust in that worker. If the content is rejected by the reviewer, then the content creator has one chance to retry the task, while also getting a ding in their reputation score. If the content is rejected a second time, the system automatically reassigns the job to a new content creator.
Step 6: Pull it all together in a wiki
Once each content area is approved, all pieces of the textbook will be pulled back together and published to Everipedia in wiki format. Each section is tied to the user ID of the content creator, as well as the approver, and their identities are logged in the wiki as contributors. As such, those contributors will be paid out in the IQ Tokens that are distributed from the bounty/budget discussed in Step 1. Once the approved content for the textbook is all together in wiki format, the content can easily be translated to other languages and iterated upon over time. This would turn into a living textbook on “Introduction to Computer Systems” that is always up-to-date and openly accessible to students across the globe.
Step 7: Leverage articles in a personalized learning tool
If the textbooks and educational content are assigned the proper data categories at each section of the wiki (as described in Step 2), then the wiki can be pulled into a personalized learning application, in the same way that Salesforce Service Cloud pulls knowledge articles into a workflow. By doing this, we can start to build out new workflows or learning paths in the application layer, which can then be categorized and aligned with pieces of relevant learning content.
By using this model for educational content creation, we can start to publish entire textbooks in a matter of days. The agility provided by this model allows for real-time updates to content, removing the need to continually publish revised versions of textbooks. As the education database continues to grow, we can start to think about new ways to distribute that information to places, like Africa, that are in desperate need of educational resources. We’re almost there. In fact, there have already been instances of entire villages with no electricity being able to access a wiki database via a $40 Raspberry Pi computer. The possibilities are endless once the right type of learning content — with the proper data category labeling — is accessible in a free, global knowledgebase.
In my next article, I will go into greater detail on the personalized learning application layer, while exploring ways we can combine skills-based education with task-based work to create a very iterative form of on-the-job learning.
SUPPORT ON MEDIUM
By: Dan Genduso
As job automation continues to rise at exponential rates, we need to start thinking about the realities of what will happen when one-third of our existing workforce ends up on the outside looking in over the next decade. What will all of us do for employment? Will there be any infrastructure in place to catch us and allow us to continue working when our services are no longer needed by a company? Does it even make sense to continue building into this growth-fueled, economic model knowing that we are essentially driving the Titanic straight into an iceberg?
If we want to change course and avoid the iceberg, we need to change our focus. Recent focus has been around a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) or a Decentralized Autonomous Company (DAC), but the best use of today’s technology is a Decentralized Autonomous Nation (DAN), which operates at the individual level. Enabling individual participation requires removing the company or organization from the equation altogether, instead creating a user-centric entry point into the system for a personalized work experience. The “organization” should be formed in an ad-hoc manner to bring people together to solve problems, appearing as a shell company to provide the operating structure. Once the problem — the core reason for the formation of the “organization” that arose from an individual need— has been solved, that shell company will dissolve, and new shell companies will spin up to solve other individual needs in the ecosystem…formed by the personalized grouping of individuals most capable of servicing specific needs.
We can achieve this shift in economic structure by focusing on 3 layers of technology development: infrastructure, data, and application.
Establishing the base infrastructure for a Decentralized Autonomous Nation, which allows for a fundamental shift in the way that we use the internet for work, education, healthcare, and, ultimately, governance.
Setting up the foundational components of the data layer, which will feed user-centric applications and Artificial Intelligence. In order to reverse entropy (chaos), you need to establish an anchor in centropy (structure).
Developing applications to sit on top of the decentralized network, giving people a means of self-management in this new world of independent workers.
When these pieces are combined, you have a peer-to-peer economy of independent people working together to solve each other’s problems. Over time, this will expand out to enable delivery of the most important services that people expect a government to provide or oversee: work, education, and healthcare. We need to think beyond preconceived national boundaries/restrictions, enabling a global ecosystem where we all can benefit and flourish as a single “nation.” If we allow ourselves to make that shift, our progress as a united people will see extraordinary advancements in a very quick and agile way, similar to the creative explosion witnessed in The Renaissance.
In my next piece, I will discuss how this infrastructure can be leveraged to enable the future of education across the globe.
SUPPORT ON MEDIUM
By: Dan Genduso
When the United States adopted the motto “E Pluribus Unum,” meaning “out of many, one,” it was in reference to the joining together of 13 colonies to form a cohesive, single nation. Each single state is a collection of many cities, each city is a collection of many people, and each person is a collection of many needs. If you look at the way those things break down, you will see that the hierarchical structure, that is used to roll up to levels where representation of those needs take place, is broken. Broad categories based on location are used to group people in an attempt to represent their needs, which only works if every person has the exact same set of needs as the person that is sitting next to them on the bus, at a football game, at a political rally, or at work. That simply isn’t the case. Even the United Nations was established as another level within this broken, representative hierarchy.
In order for collective decisions to incorporate equal input from individuals, there has to be an infrastructure in place to support that requirement. If that infrastructure is not able to meet those requirements for collective decision-making, any governance model that is designed around that infrastructure will only work for the requirements that the infrastructure supports. All unsupported components will not function as expected, requiring continual workarounds and changes that incrementally increase the chaos within the model. Therefore, a tightly integrated governance model and operating model — consisting of people, processes, and technology, — is required to enable collective decision-making at the global level, while operating at the individual level. The infrastructure and governance model that supports the United People, rather than United Nations, is called Nu.
Nu is a global ecosystem that is capable of operating alongside the governing institutions that exist within each country, consisting of producers, consumers, and decomposers that create a water-like flow within the system. Unlike the ecosystems that you see in nature, the roles are not restricted by disjunctive logic (either/or), but rather by conjunctive logic (and). A single individual, as well as the technology, fills the roles of producer, consumer, and decomposer in an asynchronous way, allowing a person to receive and provide services at the same time while maintaining a clean work environment. The driving force behind Nu is a set of operating rules that frees the ecosystem of roadblocks that limit or hinder the interaction between producers and consumers. Those operating rules are created and managed by the governance layer of Nu.
The focus of the institutions that make up that governance layer is on individual needs of individual people. This is made possible because individual inputs are at the need level, enabling proper weighting and representation for individuals as things roll up to the global level. It is critical to start at the needs level, because each individual is made up of a cluster of needs. If you start at the individual level and cluster from that point, you run into the same issue of people being grouped together that are not exact replicas. When people in a group are not exactly the same, then the broader group is forced to create its own attributes. Unless an individual person matches the attributes of the group exactly, his/her complete set of needs is not going to be weighted fully as they continue to level up in the decision-making hierarchy. However, if clustering happens at the need level, there is a one-to-one relationship that allows for proper matching to ensure that equal weight is given to each individual in the decision-making process, regardless of the level in the hierarchy.
Each need is entered into Nu by the consumers, and the needs are serviced by the producers. From the consumer standpoint, similar needs pool together and bubble up within the decision-making hierarchy. The hierarchy is able to track and visualize those needs at individual, local, city, state, regional, national, and global levels, while applying local rules at each level. From the producer standpoint, individuals are matched with needs that they are best able to service. As a need cluster starts to grow in size on the consumer side, the cluster of service providers will continue to grow on the producer side in an attempt to meet that need. As clusters grow in size, the need associated with that cluster is prioritized in a queue for the governing institution to examine the operating rules in Nu, determining what change, if any, is needed to enable that need to be met. Once met, the technology decomposes the need within the ecosystem, removing it in the same way that a row in Tetris disappears once the correct block fills the remaining gap(s).
The governing institutions that address these growing need-based clusters must be agile enough to change with the constantly evolving needs that surface and replicate within the ecosystem. Therefore, the institutions themselves will simply be placeholders in the structure where providers can assemble, convene, and disseminate based on the needs that arise and the time that it takes to meet those needs. The team of producers that assemble within the institution will have a slightly different focus than the producers that failed to service the need, as a new system-based need is established around problem-solving. The producers within the governance model are clustered together to form an optimal team based on the skills required to identify, create, and implement a rule change that removes the gap between producers and consumers, thereby allowing the cluster of providers in the system to service the need of the consumer cluster. Since each situation is different and requires different skills, the providers that make up the governing body are constantly evolving. Once the need has been met and is decomposed, the cluster of producers that made up that governing body is decomposed as well, freeing up space for a new institution to form in an optimal way to address the next need cluster in the queue.
Global issues, like environmental damage, overpopulation, poverty, and politically motivated violence, are issues because every individual person has a need to protect themselves against those things. People have a need for a clean environment so that they can breathe clean air and drink clean water. People have a need to curb overpopulation so that they can obtain the proper amount of resources they need to live. People have a need for enough money so they can meet the most basic requirements of life. People have a need to avoid politically motivated violence so they can go about their life without dying as a result of that violence.
The current methods for representing people’s needs on a global scale are done through national representation. This type of segmentation simply doesn’t work because it incorporates the needs of non-living things, like governments, political parties, religions, or businesses, such as a gun company, oil conglomerate, or tobacco manufacturer. Not only are these non-living entities receiving a voice, but their voice is weighted significantly more than the voice of the people who are being represented. As those people are segmented and represented at broader levels — whether it be a city, state, or national level — the weight assigned to a single person is directly related to the number of his/her needs that managed to roll all the way up to that broad, segment level for representation.
In order to address this issue and assign equal weight and representation for every single person, while eliminating needs for non-living entities, single needs are entered into the system to be addressed. The totality of the needs that are entered by an individual are the complete digital representation of that person in Nu. Since all of the needs are being managed and addressed within the system, every person who has entered their needs is being fully represented.
Nu is guided by a set of principles that will change the way that we operate and interact as a society. Just as cultures within different countries and cities have grown out of the values of the people that came before us, these values will be the foundation of a new global culture that our children and future generations will inherit.
Self-Management: Nu supports a decentralized community of people, while providing each person with an operational tool to assist their navigation through that decentralized community. As a result, people realize a higher level of independence and a greater sense of control over their own lives.
Wholeness: Nu supports an environment where people are free to be themselves, releasing people from predefined roles that they struggled to fit into. The renewed energy and creativity that results leads to greater innovation and exploration, bringing forward new solutions to needs that have long gone unmet.
Purpose: Nu allows people to perform the tasks and provide the services that they are most capable of delivering. When people are able to provide meaningful services to others, and those services are ones that an individual is best suited to provide, then a greater sense of purpose is realized in the larger world.
Community: Nu creates a global community of people working together to meet each other’s needs, regardless of race, nationality, sex, religion, or other segment that might once have divided them. People within the community are matched with needs that they are most capable of servicing, and Nu’s ability to expand the consideration set of service providers to a global level allows matches that would otherwise not have happened. When people start working together to help each other, bonds between those members of the community start to develop.
Participation: Nu is based on an expectation that all members in the community will participate. Participation does not necessarily have to be constant, but it does have to be consistent. People provide what they are able to provide at a time that suits them, while also receiving assistance when it is needed. Nu allows these things to happen asynchronously, meaning needs can be met by a person at the same time that person is servicing another person’s need.
Civic Responsibility: Nu brings people together within the community, leveraging public spaces and services to allow people to work and collaborate. As such, Nu provides the governance and guidelines for the people operating within these spaces, implementing rules to ensure that public spaces are safe and undamaged, including the environment.
Agility: Nu is based on an agile methodology, meaning that needs are introduced at a granular level to allow for quick and deliberate service delivery. The agile foundation of Nu is what allows the system to quickly evolve, shift focus, and meet needs in a deliberate and effective manner. The shape of Nu is an Icosahedron, which represents the movement, flow, and change that is observed in water.
Nu is a global, needs-based ecosystem where people and technology fill three different roles to maintain a constant flow throughout the ecosystem: consumers, producers, and decomposers. Unlike the ecosystem in nature, people fill the roles of both consumer and producer, depending on circumstance, while also filling the role of decomposer to eliminate waste from the environment. The technology that supports Nu is the only non-living, non-human in the ecosystem that is capable of filling the roles of consumer, producer, and decomposer.
Consumer: Consumers are the people who have needs and require assistance from the community to meet those needs. Needs are entered into Nu individually, and those needs are addressed individually by the community. When a need bubbles up and becomes a system need, the technology behind Nu also becomes a consumer. The technology does this by creating a system need to help address a problem in the governance layer, which is then met by producers that serve as system administrators.
Producer: Producers are the people who are providing a service to meet the need of a consumer. Producers are matched with the needs that they are most capable of satisfying for a consumer. Producers can service needs at the individual level or within a group of producers, depending on individual skillsets and the complexity of the service that is required. The technology behind Nu can also play the role of producer, able to meet the need of clustering people together, forming ideal sets of people to work on problems, and establishing governing bodies in an ad-hoc fashion.
Decomposer: Decomposers are responsible for keeping Nu clear of clutter and litter. The technology behind Nu serves as a decomposer through the removal of needs that have already been met. The removal of these needs is critical, as it allows Nu to maintain the agility necessary to constantly evolve and meet new needs. In the same way that a row of blocks in Tetris disappears from the foundation upon completion, Nu removes completed needs from the growing queue of needs that are rising to the top. Similarly, the technology also serves to decompose the different governing bodies and clusters of individuals that are being created in an ad-hoc manner to meet needs. These things rise up and take shape like a wave in the ocean, but those waves come crashing back down upon the servicing of needs, rejoining the natural flow of the larger body of water. People also play the role of decomposer outside of the technology, removing waste and litter from the environment to leave it a better place than they found it.
Producers are matched with consumers based on the skills and qualifications that they possess in relation to the skills and qualifications required to service the need. This is made possible through profiles for each individual that contain granular skill and qualification declarations. As people go throughout life and gain new skills, those skills are captured in Nu, allowing the producer to enter into the consideration set for servicing needs that require those new skills. The Blockchain technology within Nu provides a means of transparency and skill validation to create trust in the system.
Consumers are tasked with entering their needs into Nu, which will then break down the needs into the most granular components possible. By breaking the needs down into granular components, Nu expands the consideration set for producers that are able to service a need. As needs remain unmet, either because a producer has been unable to meet the need or because a producer has not been found to match with the need, they will start to cluster together with replica needs that other consumers have entered into Nu. As that need cluster continues to grow, Nu will continue trying to find a match on the producer side to meet the need.
The types of needs that Nu aims to address are needs that directly align with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. By aligning consumer needs with key stages of deficiency needs within the hierarchy, Nu is able to remain free of clutter that will slow the system and limit agility. The deficiency need categories will remain static, while the sub-categories will remain flexible to evolve over time. Nu is designed in a way that the deficiency need levels in Maslow’s Hierarchy are consistently being addressed in an agile and efficient way, speeding up the process by which a person will reach the self-actualization stage. Once people self-actualize, people are more likely to enter a state of self-transcendence, where they start to do things for the greater good.
Physiological Needs: Physiological needs include food, water, clean air, shelter, clothing, and, in the digital age, internet. These needs, when entered into Nu, will at times appear at a much more granular level, but they will, nonetheless, align with these topic areas.
Safety Needs: Security needs include protections of body/health, employment, resources, family, and property. Again, these need categories are too high a level for Nu, but any need associated with receiving health care, earning a living wage, having sufficient resources, or being safe from war or violence will be aligned with this level in the hierarchy.
Belonging Needs: Belonging Needs are less likely than Physiological and Safety Needs to be directly addressed in Nu. Nonetheless, Nu is created in a way that it establishes a global community of people working together, and many of the benefits of being a consumer and producer in Nu will directly lead to needs being fulfilled in this category.
Esteem Needs: Similar to Belonging Needs, Esteem Needs are unlikely to be direct inputs into Nu. Rather, people will start to gain confidence, respect, and a sense of achievement by participating as a producer and consumer in Nu.
Clustering / Pooling
A single need of a single consumer should be viewed like a drop of water. As more of the same need appears in Nu, those drops start to cluster and pool together. At the same time, there is a producer-provided service that can meet that need of a consumer, which should be viewed like another drop of water. Depending on the total demand, which is determined by the size of the need pool on the consumer side, the same clustering and pooling exercise will take place on the producer side in an attempt to create a supply pool that is equal to or greater than the size of the demand pool.
Both the demand pool and the supply pool are meant to be a part of the same plumbing system that is in place for the specific need that was surfaced by the consumer. As the two growing pools are attempting to come together and cluster together as a single pool, any gap that exists between the two pools serves as an air pocket in the pressurized plumbing system. When a pocket of air appears in the plumbing system, the pressure is impacted and the water starts to chug and knock against the pipes, rather than maintaining a constant flow.
In order to fix the water pressure problem and regain a constant flow, a new need surfaces to remove the air pocket. This need is created on behalf of the system, rather than on behalf of a consumer, and, as such, this is the type of need that is addressed and met within the governance layer. Once the air pocket is removed, the consumer pool and the producer pool will be able to cluster together to create a constant flow through the system. In other words, the consistent flow of the water through the pressurized system is reflective of the consumer “need” pools clustering with producer “service” pools without issues. When air pockets arrive in the system and the water pressure is impacted, the governance layer plays the role of plumber by removing the air pocket(s).
When a need arises at the governance level on behalf of the system, it is addressed by producers who are brought together using the same clustering logic. The only difference is that the producers in the governance layer are being clustered based on their ability to generate solutions to problems that have created air pockets, as opposed to directly servicing a need that was presented by a consumer in the system.
Nu includes governing institutions with differing focus areas, like legal or security, but they are not static like the institutions that you see in today’s world. Instead, Nu provides containers in the system where governing institutions can cluster together and operate, like drops of water pooling together and taking the shape of the container around them. This type of flexibility is critical to maintaining the proper balance of agility that is required to keep Nu functioning at an optimal level. This type of flexibility allows the governance to go with the flow of the needs that are pooling together underneath, constantly evolving to meet the next issue that surfaces.
While there are no institutions that remain static and fill a container permanently, there are certainly differences in the duration that one institution may need to operate within a container versus another. For instance, from a security standpoint, a team of producers working together on issues related to cyber-security, which is necessary to protect the technology and the anonymity of the people operating within Nu, will likely require more constant attention than a similar institution that is focused on legal disputes. Even though it might be more consistent, in terms of how often that institution is being leveraged from a governance standpoint, the makeup of the institution will remain agile and constantly changing depending on the current need that the institution is addressing.
Constantly changing the makeup of the institutions not only allows the system to quickly adapt and meet the evolving set of needs that must be addressed, but it also provides a protection against outside influence from governments and special interests. Since producers are being pulled in and out of these institutions to meet needs in an unpredictable manner due to the always changing needs of the people operating in Nu, it becomes hard to find individuals that are susceptible to influence. And since needs are being addressed in a very granular way, it is just as easy to undo a change in the system as it is to implement a change.
Regulation & Transparency
The flow in Nu is driven by the rules that are applied by administrators of the technology, or, rather, the producers that are working to meet the system needs, which arise in the governance layer. As solutions are generated, they are translated into rules that are applied in the technology to maintain a constant flow, as described in the plumber analogy. The underlying foundation that the clustering application functions on top of is blockchain, which allows for rules to be enforced, while also providing transparency into the application of the rule and the effect that rule has within the system.
As consumer needs pool together and move throughout the blockchain to cluster with producers who are providing a service to meet the needs, the rules within the blockchain regulate how that service agreement is made and completed. These rules are not meant to be restrictive at the global level, but rather used to enable consumers to have their needs met by producers within the ecosystem. By focusing on enablement rather than restrictions, people are able to solve problems for each other, rather than placing that burden on the governance layer. When that burden falls on the governance layer, that layer becomes less agile, limiting its ability to quickly adapt and meet system needs as they arise.
While the role of the governance layer within Nu is focused on enablement, it is understood that local, state, or national governments have differing agendas, some of which will focus on restrictions or regulations. As such, producers and consumers will still have to act in accordance with the rules that are applied and enforced by their governing body where the participants reside. Nu leverages location-based knowledge of its participants to apply those local rules in the blockchain to shape the decision-making logic behind the clustering of consumers and producers, while also using those rules to shape the way in which that service is delivered. These agreements come with full transparency to ensure that local and national rules have been applied, providing a level of trust between Nu and the different governing bodies around the world. Any rule that is made in Nu’s governance layer to enable producers and consumers will be in full compliance with the local regulations that are already a part of the cluster, serving as requirements that any new rule must meet.
Producers in the Governance Layer
The producers that are working to meet system needs are no different than the producers that are meeting consumer needs, but the importance of their role in Nu requires that they are accountable for the rules that they are making within the system. Given that accountability, there is a higher standard that must be met from a skill and qualification level. Just as rules are able to be applied in the blockchain for service providers, rules are applied that enable a person to enter into the consideration set to be placed in the role of provider within the governance layer. At the same time, providers at this level are subject to greater transparency and must contractually agree to comply with the global rules in the system that are in place to ensure security, limit corruption, and enforce accountability.
The financial system in Nu is driven by a crypto-currency that is backed by value in “needs fulfillment.” This currency is meant to supplement the currency that already exists in each nation, providing a secondary form of income that people can spend or earn depending on their role as consumer or producer. By having this additional currency that is explicitly tied to needs, people will be able to live at a level above the poverty line, regardless of their financial standing in their national system.
A financial component is required so that producers have incentive to meet consumer needs, while also forcing consumers to prioritize the needs that they are entering into Nu. This financial component is also critical to matching consumers with producers, as consumers are able to provide a willingness to pay and producers are able to provide a cost for procurement. Once a match is made that satisfies both ends of the financial equation, consumers and producers can enter into a contractual agreement that is enforced and made visible in the blockchain.
Over time, a need may surface for more currency to be released in the system. Such a need would cluster and gain in size just as any other need in Nu. Once it moves high enough in priority to be addressed in the governance layer, a team of producers will examine the issue and determine how much, if any, of the crypto-currency needs to be added into the system and distributed amongst the population.
As of right now, the exchange of crypto-currency is not subject to taxation by different governments, so long as the exchange is not a direct exchange for national, or non-crypto, currencies. It is understood that this may change as the concept of crypto-currency evolves, but, just as Nu incorporates local regulations into the rules when clustering needs, any changes in taxation at a local level would be included in the requirements for solving the problem once it becomes a big enough issue that a producer in the governance layer is tasked with solving the problem.
In order to drive change at the individual level, particularly when it comes to enforcement of rules that may be entered into the system to encourage adoption of practices in support of something like green initiatives, Nu allows for incentives to be introduced instead of outright enforcement. For instance, rules can be entered to encourage recycling, and those rules can be enforced through the blockchain. However, forcing compliance may not always be the best way of achieving results. Instead, there can be an award of crypto-currency tied to the rules for those who comply, and a penalty through reduction of crypto-currency for those who don’t comply. The agreement, in either situation, is enforceable and transparent in the blockchain, and the incentive is a part of the rule that is created in the governance layer.
There are also incentives for people to work as producers in the governance layer, making it so the best possible people are working to solve the largest governance problems in Nu. Since consumers need to enter a willingness or ability to pay with their need, and the needs that require solving at the governance level are the largest clusters or pools of needs, then the compensation for solving needs at that level will return a consolidated payment across the cluster. While the payment is significant, there is also incentive for the provider in the governance layer to be calculated and considerate in the rule change that is applied in Nu. That incentive, however, comes in the form of a large penalty for someone who breaks Nu or creates large levels of chaos with a rule change that was not carefully considered.
Nu helps to remove some of the burden on governments to provide critical public services. This does not have to be an all-or-nothing thing, as the ideal scenario would involve cooperation between governments and Nu to ensure the proper delivery of services. Regardless, Nu gives people the power to start improving public services so that they meet their needs, rather than sitting back and hoping that governments will make the necessary adjustments. Given the agile and flexible nature of Nu, improvements will occur at a much faster rate if people start to peel back some of the layers for self-management.
Education, for instance, could see major advancements at an accelerated rate with Nu. Consumers could create a need to have a centralized database for shared digital asset management, and that need could be met by producers around the globe. Consumers could then create a need for educational content to be created, reviewed, approved and stored at different levels of proficiency and in different languages, which could also be met by producers around the globe. Personalized learning technologies could then be placed on top of that database, allowing people across the globe to have access to a lifelong repository of educational materials, which could be used to learn new skills and expand a person’s ability to meet more needs in Nu. It would certainly be helpful if governments assisted with the funding to support this creation, but the reality is that the creation, expansion and management of such a tool would be completely driven by the needs of consumers — clustered together — and the ability of producers to service those needs.
Healthcare is another area that can start to be unwound and stripped back a little form the government to make progress possible. If a consumer needs a checkup by a doctor and a doctor in the role of a producer is able to examine that consumer, then that need can be handled in Nu, which would eliminate the cost from being transferred to an insurance provider. There will undoubtedly be many needs, like having to receive treatment from a costly machine through a company, where a national currency will be required, at least in the near term. However, there is a lot of opportunity to pull some very basic services into Nu, where a producer can easily meet the need of a consumer, allowing for a foundation to be established where future needs for more advanced healthcare can start to be solved in Nu.
Other services, like welfare and access to food, can also start to shift into management by the people. Since the goal of welfare is to provide a minimal level of resources to meet a person’s needs, those needs will start to be addressed in Nu. A person on welfare is provided a new, secondary opportunity for employment within Nu, so long as that person participates both as a consumer and as a producer. Participation in both roles will allow that person the means to pull themselves above the poverty line by meeting their most basic needs, which gives them the opportunity for continued growth outside of Nu.
The Role of Governments
Nu operates independently of governments and does not require the governments to play a role, although Nu does respect the rules and regulations of local governments and incorporates those into the logic used for matching producers and consumers at a local level. While there is no expectation for governments to do anything in order to enable usage of Nu by citizens, there are a few things that governments can focus on to help realize benefits of cooperation and increase the amount of needs that citizens are able to address.
Internet & Computer Access: As we move into the digital age, access to computers and the internet is critical. Since Nu is a technology, people need a way to access the tool in order to actively participate as both a consumer and producer. While many needs can be met offline, the entry of needs into Nu and the matching of consumers and producers take place via the technology’s interface. There are ways in which needs can be entered into Nu through representatives, kiosks, or tablets in the field, but the most optimal performance occurs in a truly connected world. Until internet connection is provided for all people, even if it occurs through public computer access points, it will be considered an automatic need in Nu for anyone who is unable to connect and enter the need themselves.
Public Transportation: The ability for people to work together and meet needs is driven by their ability to connect, and there are lots of needs that may require in-person connection. In order to expand the consideration set for producers that can meet a need, reliable means of public transportation should be available. The absence of public transportation will not make it so Nu is unusable, but the presence of reliable transportation increases its efficiency and effectiveness.
Public Workspace: Public workspaces provide a place for people to convene and work together in a community. Having designated places where people feel safe to work and meet needs goes a long way towards increasing participation in Nu, particularly for users who do not have the luxury of consistent shelter.
The Benefit of Government Co-Existence
Nu helps to shift a lot of responsibility onto the public so that they can start to manage their own lives and meet needs for each other. As a result, the reliance on government for services and support is greatly reduced. In fact, governments will start to see a lot of burdensome tasks taken off their plates, as the expectation of meeting those needs will shift from the government to the community. This shift in expectations will allow the government to focus time and energy on higher priority issues.
One topic that keeps being raised as a concern around the world is Universal Basic Income. Nu actually decreases that need substantially, as the system is designed to help bring people to a minimal standard of living. As people begin to pull themselves up through participation as both consumers and producers, the gap that the government is trying to fill with
Universal Basic Income will start to shrink.
Lastly, Nu provides rules and transparency that ensure local government regulations are being applied. By handling these things in the blockchain, regulation and enforcement of rules actually becomes easier. Nu provides a level of comfort for local governments around activities that would otherwise require a lot more oversight from those local governments.
A Recap of the Model
The governance model supported by Nu starts with representation at the individual level, however that representation comes in the form of each need that the individual needs met. Similar needs cluster together as they continue to go unmet, requiring community participation on the producer side to continually try and meet the need in the cluster. If needs are unable to be met in the community, they turn into system needs that need to be met in order to re-establish a constant flow in Nu. System needs require attention by producers in the governance layer in able to adjust rules that will enable consumer needs to be met by producers in the community.
The clustering of producers in the governance layer to solve problems leads to the creation of a specialized governing institution that will convene to address the issue in the system. The need will determine which type of governing institution is established, whether it be a legal body, a security body, an economic body, a technical body, an environmental body, or another specialized body. The governing body will take shape, convene, make decisions, and implement a solution in the form of new rules in Nu. Once completed, the temporary institution will dissolve, allowing a new institution to take its place with new members and a new need to meet. By having the ability to adjust and meet any kind of need, Nu is built to address any current or future need.
The scope of the model is limited to needs management, which allows the model to operate independently and not obstruct with national or local governments. By limiting responsibilities to one need at a time, scope is reduced so decisions and rules can be reversed as quickly as they were implemented. Responsibilities are handled by those most capable of handling them, and Nu enforces strict guidelines on who can be assigned key responsibilities through rules in the blockchain. By leveraging blockchain technology, Nu also creates a level of transparency into what rules were changed and by whom. The transparency allows for a level of accountability that comes with steep penalties for those who intentionally break the flow in the system.
Nu is designed to assign equal value and weight to each individual across the globe. The system is able to accomplish this level of equality by focusing on individual needs rather than individuals. There are simply too many differences between one person and the next to cluster people together as complete individuals. Equal weighting becomes impossible as whole individuals. However, by using needs as the primary input, Nu is able to break people down upon entry into the system and then cluster all of those needs back together on the output as a complete representation of an individual. Think of this as the Big Bang Theory in reverse, where a person starts as a set of particles and then those particles come together to make up a whole person, who is then brought together to form a global society. Another way to think about this would be single drops of water, or needs, coming together to form a pool, or person, which then combines with other pools to create an ocean, or society.
The focus of Nu is to keep a constant flow where individual needs are continually being met in the system. As such, any decisions or rule changes require that all humankind is considered. Since all humankind is included in the system, through representation of each person’s individual needs, or drops of water, the flow in the system would be severely impacted if every person isn’t considered when new rules are applied. This core value of Nu is tightly enforced through transparency and accountability; and the agile nature in which rules are applied in focused, granular pieces, allows for the system to quickly revert any changes that jeopardize the core value of equality.
Nu provides a very fluid and agile method of formulating governing bodies, convening producers, solving problems, and implementing solutions. By simply providing a container in the technology for these bodies to formulate in an ad-hoc manner, prioritized needs are addressed as they surface to the top. The granularity of each need makes it so that the complexity of each problem is minimized, thereby reducing the time in which that governing body moves from inception to implementation.
The ability for Nu to create a new governing body is only restricted by the supply of producers in the system that is qualified and capable of solving certain needs. Therefore, the system is always functioning in an optimized manner allowing for the most needs to be met at one time. Since needs are addressed at a granular level, there is no dependency between one governing body and the next, other than potential resource constraints. As such, governing bodies are able to operate simultaneously and independently to address needs in an asynchronous manner.
Even the largest global needs can be addressed in Nu through both a bottom-up and top-down approach. The bottom-up approach includes granular needs that align with the larger global needs being addressed constantly by producers in the community. The top-down approach allows for incentives and rules to be implemented in Nu and pushed down through the Blockchain for consumers and producers to follow. The easiest way to visualize the manner in which Nu addresses global challenges would be to look at a few of them individually.
Climate Change: Climate change can be addressed in the form of needs that arise from consumers in Nu. For example, a person could have a need for litter to be cleaned up in their neighborhood, and producers could then meet that need. At the same time, rules and incentives can be created in the governance layer so that they are enforced through the blockchain as decisions are being made. For example, the system could provide an incentive of a pre-defined amount of the crypto-currency, which could be earned by producers or consumers who comply with a rule, such as recycling or use of public transportation, while also being negatively applied for consumers or producers who are not in compliance with the green standard.
Poverty: Poverty is a key focus of Nu, and a foundational reason why the system is referred to as a “needs management” tool. Nu provides a secondary method for people to start working and earning a living wage, which will help to pull people up above the poverty line. People are no longer dependent on businesses to provide jobs or on governments to provide welfare. Instead, anyone who actively participates in Nu will have a new way to address their financial issues. The goal of Nu is not to create an environment where people become rich (although the means are certainly there to do so), but rather an environment where people are not poor. Once a person is able to meet the minimal standards for living, he/she is more able to engage in the world outside of Nu, where additional income streams can be achieved. Over time, those worlds are expected to become one in the same — once the infrastructure provided by Nu is fully functioning and properly scaled.
War/Violence: War and politically-motivated violence are often the result of non-living entities, as opposed to individual people. By removing those entities from the system, Nu provides a way for people to work together and have needs met. As people work together, they start to become more understanding and accepting of each other. When people’s needs are met, they move closer to a point of self-actualization, followed by self-transcendence. The goal of Nu is to expedite the timeline that both of those things happen, establishing a world where people are more accepting of each other. The reality, however, is that that individual progress does not have to be met before we can start curbing violence. Nu allows people to enter in needs, and security needs are some of the most prevalent needs in the system. As things start to happen that do not allow those needs to be met, people will rise up and provide full financial backing to help address that roadblock…that pocket of air that is causing the water to reduce flow and make that chugging, knocking sound in the plumbing system.
Overpopulation: Overpopulation is the product of several factors, most of which can be addressed in Nu. Nu creates transparency into supply and demand, so people can see what needs are being met and what needs are not being met. If resources are being limited, then people will start to take the right steps to ensure that enough resources are present to meet their needs. One way of doing that is through slowing reproduction. However, people need a way to come to that conclusion. Nu provides a way of incentivizing people with crypto-currency through rules in the system that encourage the slowing of reproduction. At the same time, Nu provides the educational means for a person to learn, in the right medium and in the right language, how to slow that reproduction and the non-monetary benefits of that reduction. Lastly, Nu provides a way for people to pull themselves out of poverty, which is a key driver of overpopulation.
Resources and Financing
Once Nu is up and operating, the financial and human resources required are all internal. This is because the human resources required to operate Nu are producers and consumers within the system. The operating requirements are simply system-generated needs that are addressed by producers in the governance layer. Nu allows for educational resources to be created and leveraged across the community, providing a means for new skills to be learned throughout life. As producers in the system become more skilled and qualified, there is a constant stream of new producers that are made available as resources in the governance layer.
The financial resources are provided through the financial system that is a part of Nu. Nu encourages the best and brightest people in the global community to participate as producers in the governance layer because those people will be the largest beneficiaries in terms of finances. Each individual has to assign a willingness to pay (in the form of a crypto-currency backed by a value in “needs fulfillment”) to every need that is entered in Nu. Only needs that have clustered together and reached critical mass are being addressed at the global governance level. Therefore, anyone who is producing at the governance level is going to receive payment associated with the willingness to pay for everyone in the need cluster.
The initial requirement for human and financial resources, outside of Nu, comes with the development of the technology. In order to build the minimal viable product from a technology standpoint so Nu can be fully functional, a team of engineers will need to be financed. The time and resources to scale a blockchain infrastructure, like Ethereum, as well as building the application that sits on top of the blockchain, will be dependent on the financing that is available for implementation. Since the application has already been designed and leverages key pieces of technology that already exist today, the expectation is that a team of skilled engineers could have a minimal viable product, from an application standpoint, up and running in under a year. The progression and scaling of the underlying blockchain infrastructure does not have to occur at the same rate, as the application is designed to put less stress on that infrastructure in the early stages of adoption. The initial flow built out in the application layer enables every other flow to be built out by a completely decentralized workforce around the world. The only limiting factor in the rate at which this can be built is money.
Trust and Insight
Nu leverages blockchain technology in its infrastructure below the application layer. The benefit of leveraging this technology is not only for application of rules, but also to increase transparency. When changes are made to rules and when agreements are made, those things are recorded and stored in the blockchain. Not only is there transparency to increase trust and limit corruption, but there are binding contractual agreements that are enforced by rules to increase accountability.
The security and anonymity that protect individual profiles are there to instill trust in Nu. People are able to operate freely without concerns that users can be identified and corrupted, while also maintaining security of mind that the needs in the system are actually the needs of a person and not a non-living entity. The only point at which anonymity is sacrificed is when a dispute happens and the blockchain is required to provide insight into an agreement that was made. Even then, the data is anonymized, but it can be tied back at the profile level for enforcement, providing a proper balance between trust and insight.
Nu is created to be very liquid in its approach to problem solving and meeting needs. Needs are addressed at a very granular level to ensure that any rule changes in the system are also granular. The granularity removes the fluff and padding that limit flexibility. By being narrowly focused in scope, rules are created and applied in small segments. This allows for a segment to be removed quickly and painlessly, while also allowing for new rules to be created and added in small segments.
Furthermore, Nu is extremely flexible in that the institutions and the people that make up those institutions are not static. As soon as a need is met, the institution dissolves and another one is created to meet the next need in the queue. Institutions can be created and operating at the same time, allowing for needs to be met in an asynchronous manner. As long as there are producers available with the skillset and qualifications to solve a need in the governance layer, new governing bodies can keep forming to meet the next need in line.
Protection against the Abuse of Power
Nu provides several protections against abuses of power. First, by aligning needs with Maslow’s Hierarchy, there is a low likelihood that interference in nation states would be a solution that is meeting a need in Nu. To further lessen that likelihood, the system has inputs for rules of nation-states, ensuring that local rules are applied by the decision-engine when clustering consumers and producers. That ensures compliance with nation-state laws. The focus of Nu is to manage and address the needs of people, so the only way in which interference would happen is if the governing body in the nation-state intentionally tried to intervene and disrupt Nu.
Nu is particularly focused on keeping the system free of special interests and corruption. Governments, businesses, and other groups do not explicitly have a place in Nu, as the system is designed only for individual people across the globe — people who make up those groups, governments, or businesses when clustered together. Since the system is clustering people together in an anonymized way to meet needs, it would be extremely difficult to game the system and create desired clusters. And since there are no static governing bodies, special interest groups would have to properly influence every individual in the system, as opposed to a small, elected group of officials. Furthermore, Nu protects against corruption by assigning individuals to governing bodies in an ad-hoc manner, and that governing body dissolves as soon as the need is met. Therefore, the ability to identify decision-makers ahead of time is not possible, and the duration of time in which that anonymous person holds their position is extremely limited by the granular need that is being addressed.
Lastly, the monetary exchanges, decisions, rule changes, and agreements are all documented in the blockchain. By tracking these transactions in that manner and storing the information, there is a level of transparency that makes corruption easier to track down. Since every individual in Nu has skin in the game, Nu leverages an open-source approach that keeps the greater community not only engaged, but also overly attentive to things that might disrupt the flow.
Accountability in Nu is driven through blockchain technology. The contractual nature of agreements in the system are stored and made transparent for everyone to see if questions arise. Should a person implement a rule that disrupts the flow in the system and creates chaos, then that person is required to take responsibility for the problems that arose. Just as that person received payment to perform as a producer in the governance layer, he/she will be charged back by the system in an extreme way as punishment for incompetence. With the power to make rule changes comes a heightened level of accountability and Nu leverages the blockchain to store information about rule changes and agreements to ensure that the right people are held accountable.
There are likely to be disputes that need to be met through legal channels when accountability is enforced through Nu. The agile nature in which Nu is able to create governing institutions in an ad-hoc manner ensures that these disputes can be addressed as they surface. A big part of accountability is the enforcement that goes along with it, and Nu provides the means of not only tracking who is accountable, but also providing a swift manner for enforcing any punishments that an accountable party must endure.
SUPPORT ON MEDIUM
By: Dan Genduso
We need to re-imagine the world that we live in and become more agile as a society. The current architecture of society served its purpose, but its purpose was in the past, and that purpose no longer meets the needs of people today. We are bound by societal restrictions that were put in place long before any of us were alive…restrictions that met society’s needs at that point in time. Yet we allow our children and future generations, just as our parents allowed us, to be born into these restrictions…restrictions that dictate our entire life and the lives of those that follow in our footsteps.
Why do we insist on following this pattern? Why do we allow laws, political parties, or government operations that were written, established, or put into practice lifetimes ago to remain as roadblocks to societal progress? Does the existing operating model for servicing the needs of people even have a place in today’s society? What is the utility of this archaic foundation for public service at this exact point in time that makes it worth holding onto…worth keeping us from moving forward…worth keeping us from meeting our needs that actually exist today…needs that have moved beyond an ability to be serviced because this operating model cannot support them? When the founding fathers established the way our government operates, what needs did they have that match the needs we have today? Why are we letting ourselves be restricted to the scope that they put in place several centuries ago? It’s much easier to say what is different today than what is the same, yet we let that operating model dictate our lives.
Change happens when people’s needs change. As new needs start to surface, or as long-time needs go unfulfilled, those things remain needs for a reason. They remain needs because various solutions implemented throughout history were either short-term fixes, partial fixes, or, oftentimes, the wrong solutions altogether. If the tile flooring in your house starts to crack, your first thought might be to replace the tiles. You then pull up that section of flooring and notice that the concrete foundation underneath is cracking. However, you just want to fix the cracked tiles so that your home is more visually appealing when you look at it. So, you replace the tiles, and your floor looks perfect again…until a few years later when you notice the tiles are cracked again. Do you replace the tiles once again, or do you look at the root cause of the problem in the foundation? If you decide to replace the tiles again, your need for new tiles is just going to continually re-appear throughout your life.
When you look at the problems facing America today, or even the world, there are so many examples of these things that were put in place with an intention of solving societal problems. Does that mean they got everything right the first time? Did the scope of the problem they were solving for include all of the same use cases that exist today? Are there portions of that scope that are extinct today? Are there new needs today that were not a part of that original scope? If you combine all of the extinct parts with the new parts, you will start to see that the solution was simply a short-term fix, a partial fix, or a wrong solution altogether. Should we continue to replace broken tiles, or should we finally try and fix the foundation problem underneath those tiles?
When building technology, there is a term called “technical debt.” When an engineer decides to simply replace the floor tiles, the easy approach, rather than taking the best approach, which would be fixing the foundation, additional rework will eventually be required. The cost of that rework is the technical debt, and the more debt, the more difficult it is to make changes in the future. As more changes are added, the level of disorder, or entropy, starts to increase. The debt creates massive roadblocks in the code that requires huge workarounds and slow, timely fixes. The longer those fixes take to implement, the longer needs go unmet.
To fix this problem, engineers need to go in and remove all of that old code that is no longer a part of the actual technology solution, yet continues to slow things down and create massive roadblocks. Removing those things allows the technology to evolve in an agile way that can meet needs quickly. If those needs go away, that part of the code will become technical debt, which must be removed so the technology can continue evolving to meet needs that actually exist.
People live agile lives. Their needs are constantly evolving, and the more “societal debt” that we leave in the foundation of our laws and beliefs, the more roadblocks we create to limit our agile nature. We need to be just as focused on removing that societal debt as engineers are on removing technical debt. Otherwise, we will continually add short-term solutions that make the best solution even harder to achieve. As more short term solutions are added, the level of disorder in society…society’s entropy…will continue to increase. We are forcing ourselves to live in a closed-system by not taking a more agile approach to solving problems, and, the second law of thermodynamics tells us that the entropy cannot be reduced. It will only remain unchanged or increase from the disorder that you see today.
So, what can we do to become more agile in an attempt to first halt, and then reduce, the amount of disorder in today’s society, seen and made visible through terrorism, constant protests, and struggles for equality? We can start by trying to leverage technology to put more structure around the ways issues and needs are surfaced, addressed, and, hopefully, resolved. By re-purposing many of the same technologies that businesses are using today, but positioning them on top of person’s data instead of a business’s data, we can start to establish an agile, personalized structure for meeting the needs of agile people. People don’t live lives that mimic a waterfall project management approach, where you start one thing and don’t do anything else until that is completed. Imagine if you needed to go to a doctor for a checkup and you were unable to do anything else in your life between the time you decided to schedule an appointment and the time you went to the doctor. That is what a waterfall life would be like instead of an agile life.
But when people have needs, as in the kind of needs where they are not able to move forward and self-actualize until those needs are met, we are not seeing visible progress. We are lacking a tool to automate the management of needs. Businesses have them, which is how they are constantly A/B testing and automating to optimize operations and enable continued growth. People don’t have that luxury. And in its absence, we are not solving problems and removing roadblocks that enable people to meet these critical needs in a quick and evolving manner. Instead of having these solved in an agile way, where parts of the need are continually being met along the way until completion, the solutions for these needs tend to be solved using a waterfall method. A method that is taking generations to complete, and, in the end, we will find that the solution is not even going to meet the current day needs. It took too long. It will be meeting the needs that were scoped out a couple generations ago. And it will bring with it a lot of societal debt.
If you look at something like today’s political parties, it’s easy to see why so many people believe that a two party system isn’t working to meet their needs. How many people align fully with all of the issue positions within a single political party? Why is someone who is pro-life required to also support guns? Can someone be pro-gun but have a centrist view, where restrictions and limitations are perfectly acceptable? Why does it always have to be all or nothing? It seems like the vast majority of people are more towards the center, but requiring them to choose one political party, represented by these bundled issues at a platform level, is really only benefiting people on the extreme right or left ends of the spectrum. The political parties seem to be focusing on too many issues without proper prioritization based on what people actually need, the value of what is being delivered, and the level at which a solution can impact multiple issues. We shouldn’t always have to focus on only right wing issues or only left wing issues every 4–8 years, depending on who is president. The government is already slow enough to address those issues given the waterfall manner in which they are approached, and many of those issues never make enough progress before the focus is shifted to the other end of the spectrum. When that shift does happen, it often counters any of the progress that was previously made.
Can’t we just have people provide data on where they stand on various issues using a sliding scale, while also prioritizing the issues that they need addressed, to meet their current-day needs? Would we even need a political party anymore if we had the technology to display the agile, constantly-evolving “pulse” of the people on every issue, where the people decide what issues we are going to address rather than leaving that to a political party and politicians? The “platform” that our country could be governed by would be a rolled-up data visualization on people’s needs at the issue level, and as those things change over the years, the platform evolves with them. Politicians would be there to write the laws based on what that platform is saying, but it would be without the pressure and influence of political parties that have created a stalemate in government, which continues to grow at an alarming rate.
How would simply changing the issues that government is addressing allow issues to be resolved in a more efficient manner? It wouldn’t. Issues are a cluster of needs, and the individual needs that make up those issues are the things that we should be looking to meet. As each need is met, causing people with those needs to fall out of that issue cluster, the issue as a whole will start to show progress at the rolled up level. The progress at the issue level, measured by the amount of single needs that were met versus the amount of needs that remain, doesn’t have to be limited to just a single issue. There are many similar needs that exist in other issue clusters that can be met with the same solution. When the government implements a solution that meets needs across multiple issues, all of those needs disappear, similar to the way lines of blocks disappear in the game of Tetris. A block with the correct shape simply fills the remaining gaps across a row, or series of rows, and then gravity pulls the remaining blocks down, reducing the size of the block cluster. The more rows that you are able to complete, the smaller the growing structure of blocks becomes, enabling you to extend the game and continue playing.
By focusing on things at the need level instead of at the issue level, the government would be able to start working on solutions that start to remove several rows at a time, with the rows being a single need, and the gap in each row being the solution to that need. The government can start to deliver very specific solutions…solutions that are in the shape of the exact Tetris piece that is needed to complete multiple rows in the growing cluster of cubes that are rising up from the bottom, where each single block represents a different person, and each row represents a single need. Once that missing piece falls into place, filling the gap that is the solution to that need, that person’s block is removed from the cluster of cubes…cubes that are made up of single needs…single needs from a single person…a person who is part of a country…a country that is part of the world…a world that, regardless of our differences, also has shared issues…shared issues that roll up from needs…needs that cannot be solved fast enough at the country level without mass collaboration…collaboration based on the distribution of Tetris blocks…blocks that fill the gaps of issues that have grown to a massive, seemingly impossible need cluster…a cluster that is made up of cells…cells that may continually evolve and join new clusters…clusters that get smaller with the removal of single cells…single cells that roll up to a cluster…a cluster that rolls up to an issue…an issue that the whole world considers a Cancer.
If the aforementioned platform were designed in the proper way to allow for things to roll up to the issue levels, which we use to govern our country, then we could use that same platform to enable other critical government services that are in place to provide solutions to the same needs that are determining issues. The importance of those services will be determined by the needs that people have, measured by the size of the cluster for that need. Having that measurement will allow for proper budget allocations when it comes to funding those services, while also providing an overall measure of utility for those services. When services no longer have a utility assigned to them, they should be retired and replaced by new services that are needed to meet current day needs. Just like societal debt, this form of public service debt needs to be addressed so that our resources are not tied up solving needs of the past…needs that may have already been met by that service…needs that we no longer have to use resources to address when so many other needs are without resolution.
The platform wouldn’t have to be limited to simply determining demand. By starting with people’s needs, it can also be used to determine how those services operate and how people engage with each service. Unlike today, however, those services won’t need to be universal, one-size-fits-all solutions that are meant for mass distribution. Just as mass advertising was at one time a profitable and helpful method for companies to market their products, the ways in which these services are provided to the public were once effective in meeting the needs of the masses. However, as lives became more agile and things like the internet became an increasingly integral part of people’s lives, that type of mass advertising became less useful. The utility of that advertising method started to decline because people’s lives moved online, which meant they were engaging less and less with the places where that type of advertising existed, like TV, radio, and newspapers. The scope of mass advertising was determined by the options that existed when it was created. Mass advertising was restricted by the constraints of what those mediums could support.
As we evolved into a society that operates in an online world, the constraints on the types of advertising that businesses could use were lifted. When those constraints were removed, advertising had to be re-scoped. The way in which mass advertising is created and delivered is significantly different than the way that advertising could suddenly be created and delivered online. Mass advertising wasn’t enhanced to incorporate these things. A new form of digital adverting emerged, which required a different operating model and completely different technologies used for distribution of the advertisements. As businesses were able to see an increasing demand for digital advertising, a demand that signified a new need, those businesses started to shift their budget and attention to meet that need. At the same time, those businesses starting shifting budget away from mass advertising. That level of need was determined based on each individual person’s need, which was then matched with people of similar needs, and then rolled up into a report where businesses were able to make a decision based on total demand.
But businesses are able to do much more than simply determine total demand. Businesses are able to capture all kinds of data points for each individual user…data points that help them understand specific needs for individual customers, rather than a one-size-fits-all need for all customers. Single needs that, since they start at the individual level, can be rolled up to create clusters of people with that same need, which will then roll up at the cluster level to determine total need. And when a single person’s need changes, they simply move into a different cluster of customers that share that new need. By capturing this information at the need level, businesses are able to be as agile as the lives of the people that they are servicing.
Government has not evolved in the same way that businesses have to better meet the needs of people. When businesses realized that the scope for digital advertising was so drastically different than the mass advertising solution that had been in place, they didn’t take the approach of replacing cracked tiles. Instead, they changed the infrastructure problem, which fundamentally changed the way that society operates. While society has changed its operating model, many governmental services have not made the infrastructure changes to support society in that model. At best, government has replaced broken tiles over the years, but those tiles will just continue to break time after time until the infrastructure problem is fixed.
Once that infrastructure problem is fixed…once we are able to track individual people’s needs at the same level of granularity that businesses are capturing them today to enable digital marketing and optimize the way in which the company engages with its customers…then we can start to fix the tiles that lay on top of that data infrastructure…an infrastructure that, as a whole, is rolled up to represent society, but is made up of a cluster of individuals…individuals that are made up of a cluster of needs…a cluster of needs that can be broken down to a single need…a single need that will evolve throughout a person’s life, changing and joining new clusters in the process, disappearing once it has been met, and being replaced by a new need that did not exist when the original set of needs for that individual was scoped out and put into data form.
When that happens, we can re-imagine what governments looks like. Governments that finally have the infrastructure in place to meet the needs of a society that is living in an online, technology-driven, world. Governments that can deliver a personalized learning experience that meets every student’s needs through clustering at subject levels, proficiency levels, and medium preferences, among others. Governments that can help people earn a living without creating a new need for Universal Basic Income, as we transition from a world where businesses are relied upon to employ an entire nation, to a world where businesses are becoming only of a partial solution for employment needs. Governments that can provide personalized healthcare without incurring the massive operating costs that exist today…operating costs that exist because the foundation is still broken…a foundation that can support a society of individual needs…a government that can constantly evolve in a way that mimics the always-changing lives of the individuals that have those needs…needs that will eventually be replaced by needs that do not yet exist…needs that cluster together to make up an individual…a cluster that is different for each individual…a cluster of individuals that make up society…a society that can be broken down to individuals…a society that can be broken down to the needs that make up that individual…a society that starts with a single need of just one person…a person who has needs that only exist while they are living and then disappearing upon the completion of their life…a life that is navigated with APoll01.
SUPPORT ON MEDIUM
By: Dan Genduso
We are a continuation of our ancestors, shaped by the memories of our parents and those before them from things that we may never know…things that may not be relevant in our lifetime ahead…things that we may not want to pre-determine who we are as individuals…things we may prefer stay in the past. Not because the memories aren’t important, but rather because the past should be used for learning…the past should be used as a point of reference to help us grow…the past should be used as a factor to consider when making a decision…the past should be used to avoid circling back to obstacles we have spent lifetimes trying to overcome. Regardless of how the past is used, we have the power to determine if it is a part of current day or future day reality. If we choose to hold on to it, we choose to stall progress. We choose to let the things that are truly important in all of our lives get clouded by things that we perceive as important, oftentimes neglecting to take into account how or why those things came to take shape…from a complex linkage of ideas, events, situations of circumstance, regulations, feelings of pride, feelings of fear, feelings of desperation, struggles within, struggles to fit in, and struggles to break free…a complex linkage of ideas that originated in the past, whether yesterday or a hundred years ago, taken in through different perspectives and interpreted in different ways, often misunderstood by those who interpreted them differently, as well as by those who have never had those memories interwoven into their individual lives.
At the same time, those who misunderstand also have their own set of things that have shaped their life, which are likely misunderstood by others as well. These things are far too complex to unwind. They are far too complex to try and understand for every individual person. Luckily, we don’t have to understand. We simply have to acknowledge that we have all faced different challenges in life, and we will all continue to face challenges…challenges that we can’t weigh against the challenges that others face because we don’t understand the complex linkage of things throughout that person’s history that led to them feeling the way that they do. We have to trust, however, that the person got there because they want the same thing for themselves that everyone else is trying to achieve. We have to trust that at the core, we all want the same thing, and that everything else is just a series of things from the past that we continually allow to take precedent over those things that we all want…equality and the freedom to live the life that we want for our children…children that will be a continuation of us and our memories.
When we are able to agree that we are all struggling and fighting to achieve the same thing, we can then start to separate our fundamental needs from our belief systems. This is necessary because those two things require different approaches. You can’t have personal belief systems that can flourish and evolve without the core foundation of those fundamental needs. The fundamental needs should be the focus of laws, which should be used to enable people, not limit them. In order to do so, those laws need to be free of belief systems. If you want others to take on your beliefs, others need to feel free so that they can accept them. Beliefs are not forced, but rather accepted and embraced. Beliefs do not grow and spread unless those who hold those beliefs have embraced those beliefs themselves, as opposed to holding them because someone made it a requirement. When fundamental needs and belief systems are combined, they are contradicting each other. Freedom doesn’t have an asterisk next to it, and equality doesn’t give one person the right to add that asterisk over another. If the idea or belief is strong enough, people will eventually accept it. They will accept it because they are free to do so, and they will accept it because, through open discussion without force, you made them want to accept it.
Laws are not intended to be big. They are not meant to be a belief system in and of themselves. When they become big, they fail to address the critical things that they were aimed to fix. They add too much padding around the critical component(s), thereby hindering or slowing the law’s ability to enable those fundamental needs. That padding adds distractions, and those distractions are often used to hide things in that padded law that are tied to belief systems, or worse, attempts to feed greed and self-interest. Those things in the padding capture our attention. They appeal to parts of our belief systems, leading to a false assumption that, as a whole, they are also relevant. They make us lose focus on what the law is intended to do. They make it so the law becomes almost impossible to unravel. They make it so that we are unable to make progress. They keep us from being free.
That padding in the laws also provides mass. It provides a place where things can be hidden. A place where greed and self-interest can thrive. It changes the law from being a law for the people, instead making it a law for corporations and large establishments, whether it be a church, oil conglomerate, tobacco company, gun company, or similar entity, to include rules or laws that are in their own self interest, adding to or protecting their own power and wealth. Sometimes those establishments themselves are even hard to recognize, as they’ve interwoven themselves into other establishments or belief systems…or a combination of both in the case of something like political parties. The problem is that government is for the people, and most importantly, by the people. Those large establishments are not people. They exist because the people behind them were free to create and build them. They are given a voice because they are an indispensable part of people’s lives. With that voice, organizations are free to convince people to side with them, just like a belief system. However, they have no place in determining laws. They have no say in whether our fundamental needs are protected and met. They can’t.
Fundamental needs are something that people need. All people, regardless of who they are or what they are, and regardless of what they believe or don’t believe, share those same needs. That is what ties us together. The important thing is that people have the proper access to meet those needs, and that we focus our attention on what it takes to enable that freedom. It’s easy to look away when laws affect others but not you directly, but the fact is those laws do affect you. If there is a law that inhibits those fundamental needs for someone else, that means a law could just as easily be made that affects you — in an instant. That potential alone is restricting your ability to be free by making you question your own security. To remove that loophole in freedom, we need to stop allowing more and more laws to be made to meet the needs of things that aren’t even living…things that don’t represent our needs…things that lack something all voters should have…something we all share…something that will allow us to focus on the present and future rather than the past…a pulse.
SUPPORT ON MEDIUM