Here are the proposed "Primary Root" candidates (so far):

Root: a lack of understanding and respect for private property
Roots: (three acting together)
  

Addiction to power

(addiction to economic and political power concentration)
Inequality of opportunities

(creates social stress and a framework for power  concentration)
Lack of adequate  negative feedback loops

(to neutralize the positive feedback loops created by

addiction to power together with  inequality of opportunities)

Root: lack of community in the marketplace

Mechanism: Separation between the top and bottom of the supply chain
Mechanism: competition over cooperation in the marketplace

Root: not understanding and following the rules of social order
Root: imbalance between compassion and mercilessness
Root: lack of an adequate public decision system

(global, granular, transparent, reason-based, consensus-based)

(featuring proposer compensation and accountability)
Root: the physical separation of elector from ballot
Root: having to reach an agreement over limited resources
Root: members of a society running "software" (values, goals, thoughts) in their minds that conflicts with that of other members
Root: the existence of concentrated power


Ten roots is a workable number. It is proposed that all ten be adopted as primary roots.

We can then use this "list of root problems" as the basis for comparing the relative worth of proposed public projects.

The idea is that projects that will effectively strike at one or more of these root problems are better investments than projects that will not effectively strike at any root problem.

(To discuss this or any of the other proposals of this question, go to the Thoreau Root wikipage.)

In rough outline, I think the most important element lies in having a single wiki page that represents the most popular version of the discussion (other possibilities include having a summary of the key features of the whole debate).

'Behind' this layer, will be tools (enhancing the wiki functionality):

• a (behind-the-scenes) decision-tree type structure so that the most popular version is displayed, but the user can manipulate this and create/follow alternative threads (say by hovering the mouse over content for boxes, or by descriptions in the text)
• voting (including delegated voting) would support this, for content of variable scope (word, sentence, ..., whole document)
• this structured content would allow different 'views': a clean 'most-popular' view, a clean 'but with specified decision forks' view, or more expanded views with possibilities enumerated (with links for detail within each) etc
• changes notified to those engaged in the relevant section, or allow people to tailor preferences

We are in danger of creating two meta-questions, which seems to suggest a meta-meta-question is required, which is getting a bit silly. Vilfredo is a system for people with different views to find agreement, so we should be able to do it with just one meta-question. Out of the two candidates, '...about the system used to govern global economic activity...' seems more open and with less assumptions than '...about capitalism...', so we should ask this question (or an even more open one).

position: As a society, we need to anticipate and accelerate change

To reduce energy demands and create good jobs through conservation and efficiency measures, so that an energy-efficient economy? exists before a climate crisis, is now urgent.

• Develop sustainable trades within this economy
• Develop renewable and alternative energy sources to phase out fossil fuel and nuclear power within fifty years.
• Focus on future energy and soft energy technologies.

argument against: energy conservation is the base creativity of life, it simply can't be planned at all Such programs may do more harm than good. Only narrow measures to reflect regret? in prices can work, as there is no generality to the problem of conservation. It requires many small and localized changes, and the larger programs simply result in wasted overall energy - which unlike potential energy, is calculable?. argument against: we can't accelerate the market To avoid a crisis requires expending energy to change the infrastructural capital (tools, devices) and instructional capital (training, habit?s). Since food production and incomes by which most buy food and shelter depend on fossil fuels, and since their use must be limited and at least become expensive, the market will take care of the problem. Canada is far behind. In Europe as of 2006-03, over 3 million households were using solar water heater?s. In Canada that is less than 1% as many but rising fast. argument for: governments often accelerate price changes It's government's job to accelerate and alter pricing. 1. Promote investments in energy conservation and the more efficient use of energy. We need to iron out the market imperfections which have impeded this, and spread the information which markets need to function properly, about the profitable opportunities in these fields. 2. Impose high and rising taxes on fossil fuels. Imagine a family whose house is soon to be condemnned, and to make matters worse, this family survives on a home based business. If the family is homeless they have no way to make money. - ergo they must save now, and buy a better house before their old one fails. It is much better for society if government forces society to "prepay" and "save" for the coming energy crunch before actual energy prices shoot to high. Bonus: If we can raise the price of fossil fuels through taxes we can reduce other taxes to compensate. 3. Require better urban planning: public transit?, anti-sprawl etc., are part of this. See eco-city, ICLEI, CEG and ECG.

Response to open question criticism:

This is not an open question. This 'question' is an experiment. Please give it special rules and do not force the question to be open.

The idea is to take some text produced by another e-democracy system (the I/P/A + wiki model) and see if we can take it further. A great thing about I/P/A + wiki is that it does a great job of mapping out the proposals/positions and the arguments for and against, allowing a 'judge' to make a really good decision. The problem is that it needs a 'judge', whereas Vilfredo has a really good democratic alternative to having a single human judge.

So this question is a quick experiment to see if the two systems can work together. If they can, then it will be a very powerful way of mapping out and deciding on policy positions. So please join me in the experiment. If it doesn't work, we haven't lost much.

There is a difference in degree, not in kind, of the capacity for moral or ethical behaviour amongst different animals. The expression of the ethical imperative will appear more developed when the animal in question has better senses with which to perceive the world, and/or better memory to keep track of past actions of others.

But the capacity for moral behaviour is not the criteria for moral treatment. This is why we do not torture psychopaths. The criteria for moral treatment remain the capacity to experience pain, enjoy freedom and liberty, and other relevant properties.

There is a difference in degree, not in kind, of the capacity for moral or ethical behaviour amongst different animals. The expression of the ethical imperative will appear more developed when the animal in question has better senses with which to perceive the world, and/or better memory to keep track of past actions of others.

But the capacity for moral behaviour is not the criteria for moral treatment. This is why we do not torture psychopaths. The right to liberty is based on the capacity to enjoy freedom. The right to not be caused pain is based upon the capacity to feel pain. The right to not be killed is based on both of these capacities.

1. Distribution will become a commoditized business (amazon, itunes, etc.) available to all, without prior contract.
2. Some people will use publications not as a way to get money, but as a way to get fame. And then fame will bring them money in different ways.
1. Musicians will need to do concerts.
2. IT professionals will need to make consulting.
3. People who write book about the future will work as consultant for firms (or the government) about the future.
3. The state might also subsidize some form of publishing.
   

A standard like Strategy Markup Language (StratML) should be used to: a) document on the Web the goals and objectives of all .gov agencies, and b) enable citizens, taxpayers, and other stakeholders not only to provide feedback but also to document their own goals and objectives.

Applications like Vilfredo should leverage StratML documents not only to enable consensus building but, more importantly, the allocation of resources required to accomplish shared objectives. 

To the extent that such resources are not voluntarily contributed, relatively high degrees of consensus (high percentages of all voters) should be required to gather them by the force of law.

• the universe is about to explode/implode/whatever

• internet is more and more pervasive.
• Nanotechnologies are everywhere.
• It's very easy to record everything.

Considering the time travel, and taking some ideas from Star Trek, you could consider that althoug a person is only allowed to go back in time, bringing only his/her body and little more, they can bring knowledge.

This can change the course of history dramatically.

Now imagine a race of people who are able to travel back in time. Now add an external threat:

• the universe is about to explode/implode/whatever

• internet is more and more pervasive.
• Nanotechnologies are everywhere.
• It's very easy to record everything.

Considering the time travel, and taking some ideas from Star Trek, you could consider that althoug a person is only allowed to go back in time, bringing only his/her body and little more, they can bring knowledge.

This can change the course of history dramatically.

Now imagine a race of people who are able to travel back in time.
Now add an external threat:

• We start by using skype for long discussions, and stay in touch through email.
• Then Derek should join the metagov mailing list.
• To try to get a general overview of the things we want to do we should make a freemind mindmap of all the ideas we have, and post it online in a place where we both can access it.
• We should put Vilfredo on Bit bucket, to open source it.
• We should then post the plan of actions on metagovernment wiki, and on metagovernment mailing list trying to get some feedbacks.
• At some point Derek should come to Portugal and work from here.