Private property and trade. The “inputs” are users’ ability to reassign ownership through donation or trade, and the “output” is a (sometimes formalized, sometimes only implied) database of who has the right to determine how each physical object is used. The goal is to encourage production of useful physical objects and put them into the hands of people who make best use of them.
I wonder if there are alternatives to this that are just as decentralised and credibly neutral.
@condret, you’re an ancom, what do you think?
@Hyolobrika Private property is not particularly decentralized because it is enforced by a centralized entity (he talks about that in another part of the article). The only truly decentralized alternative is allocation via physical conflict, and perhaps ironically it also fits into his definition of credibly neutral: the outcome is not specified, the mechanism is publicly verifiable, simple and doesn't change often (doesn't change at all).
Okay, but it’s also bad, so it doesn’t fit his definition of efficacy.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1