Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by geocon 1458 days ago
Narratives has had some really interesting people on to discuss Georgism recently. Vitalik is very much in favor of it, looks like he was convinced by Lars Doucet's series on the topic at ACX. He's probably right in arguing that the real issue is the fact that it's a pretty hard sell in the places that need it most, since that is where landownership and rent-seeking is most entrenched.

Can't say I agree about quadratic voting being superior to approval or range voting, though. Simplicity is a virtue in electoral systems, particularly in a relatively low-trust society like the US- and that's ignoring implementation.

4 comments

As much as I’d be flattered if he was convinced by my piece, from what I can tell he’s been really into the idea for several years now; I think mostly what my series moved the needle for him on was countering the “land isn’t a big deal in the modern economy” objection.
So the quadratic voting issue seems kinda curious to me. It seems like the best mechanism is through the use of tokens. But, I also assume that the tokens would have to be categorized to some degree right? i.e. you wouldn't use the same tokens for electing people that you use on issues themselves. But if you start breaking the voting topics down, don't the categories become somewhat arbitrary? i.e. do you have "Elections" "Constitutional" "Budgetary" categories each with their own voting tokens? If you have budgetary concerns, is it better to vote "for" your preference than "against" a different preference? Is every budgetary matter up for public approval?

I'm more interested in getting our revenue sources right (i.e. the public collection of land rent). Is the tyranny of the majority a major concern after that? It seems like the most viable projects should move forward by simply majority and the remainder can be returned as a citizen's dividend. Tyranny only exists when a decision creates a barrier to alternatives right? Perhaps someone can give an example where a spirited minority may want to use public funding for something that the majority does not want (or is less interested in) and that this spirited minority could not take their dividends to provide for themselves.

Simplicity is not a virtue vitalik understands.
Vitalik does indeed value simplicity and it's one of Ethereum's core design principles

https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/147740277221558682...

It may be stated as a core design principle, but it is not actually acted on. Ethereum is waaaaaay more complex than it needs to be in almost every aspect, and is pretty much the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach to blockchain design. Simple, it is not.
The point about Georgism is that the total number of Bitcoins is fixed, so we are all entitled to some, even if we're late to the game?