Thanks for support and your interest in this topic!

Off course that was a joke, and it was a joke on my part as well
But getting too emotional about information might severely damage your ability to look for patterns.

Everything is information (jokes are not excluded) and the Universe doesn't do meaningless things.
So, if you find yourself incapable/unwilling to make immediate sense of the information you receive it might be that the pattern is too complex for you to swallow or you might need to take a break

Also one more hint for you "apprentice truth-seekers"
Once the pattern is recognized it becomes much easier to remember just the pattern but not the information you derived it from, thus freeing memory for new information to come in. If the pattern was valid it will be reinforced again and again over time with the new information you receive.

PS:
I will be away from the Internet for the next 3 weeks, so feel free to continue to entertain yourself and keep this thread alive if you wish.

No, there is a big difference.
There is no incentive for you to swallow razor blades whatsoever, your survival doesn't depend on your swallowing of blades, quite the opposite actually - you are more likely to survive if you don't swallow them


I have explained the mechanizm several times already. It's called physics.
You probably know that charged particles are attracted to each other to form neutral ensembles.
The same way specialized companies on the market would tend to form unions (or sign special trade agreements) so that together they become more self-sustainable. Being self-sustainable is a more stable state than being specialized and depend on market conditions and demand for your services to survive.

So there is an incentive to collude, because it improves your chances of survival. People participating in a self-sustainable clusters can relax their fears of not surviving and express themselves more creatively, contributing to science, technology and entertainment. The same way self-sustainable clusters of gravity called stars give off light and heat to those who decided to stay outside, so that they don't freeze to death fighting in the dark alone.

Thus forming of self-sustainable clusters is a natural and life-supporting phenomenon and everybody should strive to achieve this status. But until individuals themselves become self-sustainable, these clusters would consist of multiple individuals or even multiple sub-clusters. And the way these clusters operate doesn't depend on how you call them, but rather on how they are structured, hence the topic of this thread.



Yes exactly, I firmly believe that consensus groups would work best if they start small, with family being the smallest example. But they can be formed along different lines of specialization as well, think of a consensus group of core architects in the company. This way it will be a consensus sub-group within a larger consensus group. Also, if people in the group don't seem to contribute much, they can be voted out by the rest of the group.


I have already explained how "capitalists collude" mechanizm works and the fact that it works today only supports the point. Also please understand that small company on the market, small state, bigger state or multinational mega-corporation are all examples of evolution of the same centrally-managed cluster of power. Yes you can blame governments for being an easy target for capitalists to take over and thus contributing to the situation at hand, but remember that we haven't had a government "by the book" for almost a hundred years now. So you're really barking at the wrong tree. If you watched Man In Black first movie, the situation can be best described as "we have a Bug in town and it's wearing an Edgar... err Government suit"

I'm not defending the idea of government here, because it failed long ago and it is one of the examples of a centrally-managed cluster and those beasts are known to mutate rapidly and grow out of proportion. You can continue putting different labels on these monsters, but the way they work only depends on how they are structured, so let's concentrate on that part more. I'm open to discuss other structures as well, but I'm more sympathetic to an idea of voluntary consensus groups because now they can be supported with technology and may prove to be more stable than previously thought.

PS:
By the way, I will be traveling soon and won't have access to the Internet for quite some time (about 3 weeks). So you guys may continue to keep this thread alive on your own if there is still anything to discuss.

I think the article where I picked it up was talking about this:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/411942/20121206/pm-julia-gillard-confirms-2012-mayan-calendar.htm#.UMiOkR2HOPK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ebtj3gDaE64
Yes, not exactly about extra-terrestrials, but rather about extra-dimensionals, which are all forms of consciousness anyway

Please note that you don't have to accept what she is saying as true, as she might be inviting you to a version of reality that those who are behind her speech prefer. The reason for this is that certain entities which are normally invisible to a human eye have developed capability to tap into energy within frequency domain representative of the emotion of fear. More about it you can learn from the popular cartoon Monsters Inc.

Ok, lowering the frequency in my previous post caused much better interference with this medium of exchange, very good! I'm hitting the spot!

When talking about centrally-managed structure, be it a company or a state, it's not as much about bowing down (even though that too) as it is about simplicity for top tiers of each pyramid to collude and come up with secret agendas that the rest of the personnel won't even be aware of. It's about transparency of decision making.

Yes, you can change companies, but if CEOs of a few dozen major businesses are secretly working in tandem, it won't matter which of these companies you join. You will always contribute to the same agenda without even knowing about it. Ever heard of the Bilderberg Group? I'm not saying free market will always lead to this situation, but without mechanizms specifically designed to prevent it, nothing will prevent it and what we see today is an example. Please don't tell me that we don't have a free market today because of the states. The states as we know them are long gone, but those in charge like to keep a holographic illusion of it to detract the majority's attention from where it needs to be. Watch couple of these, they are precious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojmOESqVeak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

So, let's consider two cases where people form clusters of power in a different way and see what's worst that can happen in either case. I'm not considering best-case scenario here, because as I've already mentioned any kind of structure would tend to work when introduced and operated by people with high morals.

1) In the first case, where voting procedure is clumsy and not very transparent, people would tend to vote rarely (if at all) and delegate most of the decision making to a single person or a group of persons they think they trust. This leads to a formation of centrally-managed clusters of power in which power continues to accumulate in the center over time until it reaches a threshold that causes complete disconnect in its decision making process from the rest of the participants. That's what we have today.

2) With easy-to-use provable voting system, some people might still choose to opt out due to their lack of understanding of technology or based on their emotional experience with the word democracy that has been heavily misused for that particular purpose of causing disgust and utter rejection. So they will continue to form or participate in a centrally-managed clusters. However statistically there will be those who will decide to take advantage of the new technology and build clusters where power cannot be accumulated in a single point, but may continue to grow in a distributed fashion. It is much harder for two clusters of this kind to collude or come up with any secret agenda whatsoever, because of the transparency of the decision making process. As clusters of new kind grow in size and power they will eventually reach the point where they will be able to compete with the centrally-managed ones. Since participants of this new system don't have to bow down to any other participants, but instead only follow commonly-agreed rules, those who are still inhabiting centrally-managed clusters might become incentivized to flip sides. Please pay attention that roughly half of the population of some consensus-based clusters may be women and by allowing them to influence the definition of ethical behavior might greatly contribute to a peaceful resolution of many conflicts. Individuals might still remain profit-driven while staying within the confines of an ethical behavior. By the way, is it ethical to force an ethical behavior?

3) Regarding the "third option", where each individual doing what and as they see fit, cooperating or competing as they choose, I can say this - it can only be stable when every individual is a self-sustainable cluster of power himself/herself. The fact that you are so attracted to this idea means that the reality where this is manifested in fact exists. It implies the level of technological advancement which allows any individual to have necessary amount of energy to grow food (or to be not dependent on food via genetic manipulations) in conjunction with availability of devices capable to produce strong energy shields so that individuals can protect themselves from each other (or alternatively achieve the level of morality that would prevent them from attacking each other to begin with). So this is all coming, but we are not there yet. If we don't use stepping stones that become available to us as we go, the Universe will see no point in providing us with more information and technologies than the ones that are already available to us.

It does indeed run very deep, to the core of it...

A few more remarks on the water theme. Below is a 50 minute video documentary about unusual properties of water from 2005, where you will find that despite numerous evidence and research done on this topic all around the world there is one glossy paper magazine that established itself as a centralized body for official scientific opinion on the matter. Even though the editor-in-chief mentioned in the end that he welcomed further research of water to continue to look like a good guy, none of what has been discovered has been actually published. It hints at a deeper agenda for mainstream science to keep certain things under wraps so that general public remains uncompetitive in this area, relying on older technologies and therefore being easier to control. You might want to extrapolate this example on other areas as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJhogR7YLps

But there is good news! If you haven't noticed yet, last Saturday on December 08 russian prime minister followed the case of australian prime minister and officially confirmed presence of extra-terrestrial intelligence on Earth. What makes this story relevant to the discussion at hand is that he mentioned very popular movie Men In Black as being chronicle documentary, and if you've watched the third movie in the series you will find a lot of overlap with the John Titor story I posted a few days back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE_iUW0Jv3k
Pay attention to his facial emotional expressions to determine if he believes what he is saying is true.
These events are just the beginning of a much larger and long anticipated Disclosure initiative, so keep an eye on further developments of this story.

PS: "Men In Black 3" movie below
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1409024/

So you'd rather bow down to your boss while working in a "peaceful" and "non-aggressive" company on a "free" market, than working in collaboration with like-minded people in a consensus-based system striving to achieve self-sustainability and therefore being not dependent on market conditions?

Don't you see that big businesses of today control the market and make rules? The trick is that they call it "democracy" so that people like you would be utterly opposed to it and never even look that way again.
Please understand that the last time we had real government and democracy was when we used gold and silver as money. The problem is that technology at the time wasn't good enough to keep the structure sustainable, so it was taken over. Today everything is private, money is the property of a private bank and the thing that you call government is a private TV show to keep the rest of you entertained and utterly oblivious of what is really going on. So if you would like to call what we have today a "democracy" and you are so utterly opposed to it, I would applaud your ignorance. This is where name calling approach leads you guys, you play with those nice words and labels, while the reality about how things actually work slips away. The free market ruled by private companies is no longer a wet dream it is a reality of today, welcome!

Would you go pay to one of those triple-letter agencies for your protection if they were private defense companies that you guys are all dreaming about? And who would you pay to protect yourself from those agencies?

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a middle ground between centrally-managed pyramid-structured profit-driven cluster of power and the one where people listen to each other's opinions first before rushing to take any action, which is what consensus-based system proposes?

You can't argue with gravity and prevent clusters of power from forming, the only thing you can attempt to change is how those clusters are structured, so that they don't turn themselves into a tyrannical black holes eating everything around for breakfast.

So is there a middle ground?

EDIT: If you find yourself offended by the sharp-edged sentences that I used above, please understand that I needed to express myself within those frequency bands that are most representative on this forum, so that they can form a constructive interference in a way that you will be able to perceive the ideas and we can have an argument. You can look at that as a reflection to gauge where you're at on the frequency spectrum.

Here is another shred of evidence on the topic, let's see if somebody manages to find any overlap with the video in OP and the video in my previous post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlvjKaGEnas
Oh, and it has the word NASA written there somewhere, so it must be true 

+1000
I'm sticking to that time track as much as I can, throwing anchors around left and right

I forgot to mention that topics to vote on in the consensus-based system are submitted by individual peers and are assessed and approved for voting by the rest of the peer-to-peer network. So their is no central body who would decide what people are going to vote on or which topics are welcome and which would be suppressed.

It doesn't mean that people would have to vote blindly, they can discuss the matter with themselves or listen to experts in their society before making their choice. And even if achieved consensus doesn't seem to satisfy what people have originally thought it would do there is no limitation that would prevent some peer to raise this question again and see if the previous decision can be overturned. There is no 4 years period of taboo on voting in this system. If something doesn't work change it.

Also remember as I've explained in my other thread, all versions of reality already exist, even those where quotes that you provided are true. It's all about sticking to a time track that you prefer, but you need to be representative of that vibration or you won't be able to perceive it.

I like your knowledge of history and popular quotes, but you keep making assumptions about intentions of people around you and their level of morality and ethical behavior. As we've agreed this is generally unknown and there is no point arguing about it.
If you find yourself in a street gang or on a remote island populated with cannibals that quote might be applicable.

Instead of making assumptions about people the provable voting system will allow you to know with a good level of certainty of their understanding of ethical behavior. And as I mentioned before having more information is better than having less. You might even pretend for awhile that you agree with them while finding your way closer to the border and once you get close you make a run from that nightmare.

But why think so bad about people? Would you think a population of a large country would directly vote to initiate a war against another country while not being under direct attack? I doubt it.

Also as I edited one of my posts above, it boils down to what is more profitable. Think of it as what would you like to outsource to free market compared to what you would like to keep in-house. Would you outsource defense or judgment about ethical behavior to a random company on the market and pay for it or would it be cheaper for people to consolidate resources and do it by their means in-house?
Initial clustering of people by their understanding of ethical behavior would produce more peaceful society that clustering people by their motivation for profit which is what your model of free market would imply (as I understand it).

Also things like states and democracies exist not because some crazy people invented them, but because that's how things work. That's how stars form as well, matter in a dust clouds start to coalesce and form clusters of gravity which accumulate more and more mass until pressure and temperature becomes high enough so that thermonuclear reaction becomes self-sufficient. You might not like it but power on free market tends to consolidate and form self-sufficient clusters the same way. It's simple physics.

So instead of arguing with gravity how about we improve technologies so that those clusters of power which would form anyway won't get easily corrupted to grow out of proportion and turn into a tyrannical black holes? See where I'm going?

You might call it that if you wish, but it would be a different kind of state
You see, you keep calling things names, while I explain how things work.

In any case, with this system you will have "rules but no rulers". Sounds familiar?

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.

So by leaving a certain consensus group you would loose or significantly weaken your ability to defend the land you think is yours. That consideration along with other benefits that consensus group might provide would create a necessary degree of stickiness, so that it doesn't fall apart too early.

You can also use the information derived from provable voting procedures to gauge the level of acceptable behavior of society you find yourself in (regardless of whether it's forced or not) and to make a determination for yourself whether it is representative of your values and you would like to continue to support the group or it's something that you don't prefer and you'd better leave the group and not contribute to its cause.

It's also possible to imagine a loosely tied consensus groups in which individuals proceed fairly independently on a regular basis but are capable of forming a larger group very quickly to consolidate enough power to deflect any outside attacks or make an important decision about environmental issues which would affect anyone anyway. Whether achieved consensus is going to be forced, ignored or taken into consideration by anyone individually would solely depend on the people of that society.

EDIT: Regarding questions about being profit-driven and how it works with consensus-based groups, my vision would be that individuals within or outside of the consensus groups might very well be profit-driven. However consensus would determine what would mean to be "ethical" while still remaining profit-driven.
Whether "ethical" behavior needs to be enforced and how would be for consensus group to decide.

So instead of looking for protection on the free market and paying private defense company which might be quite expensive actually, one can seek like-minded people and stick around them so that together they will be able to defense themselves by their own means when the need arises. And that behavior is very well in line with being profit-driven as it might be cheaper that way than outsourcing everything to free market and pay for it.

The Farsight Institute is a non-profit organization, so there is no reason to reduce the weight of this source of information as any less independent than any other.
I took the word "truth" in quotes every time I mentioned it, because what we call truth is not the final destination. It's a process, a running state so to speak. Something stays true until it is replaced with more advanced version of what is true, and the secret is that there is no final destination.

As all versions of reality already exist simultaneously, that what you define true for you would alter your frequency pattern in a such a way that you would gravitate towards a version of reality where what you believe is true is actually true. Don't be fooled though, changing your core belief systems is much harder than changing your thought patterns or immediate desires, but that would be a good start. Think of yourself as very complex and very powerful gyroscope which is very hard to knock off the axis, but it's not impossible if you're willing to relax some of what you believe is true.


While still highly controversial and not accepted by many ordinary people as anything even remotely close to being true, I would recommend you read the story of John Titor, where he confirms that Everett-Wheeler-Graham or "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct and that time travel is possible even though it's not quite what we think it is.
http://yesalover.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/the-original-post-of-john-titor/

While not knowing anything about the validity of the source above you should be able to see how the information presented there forms a meaningful pattern with those pieces of information that have already been presented in this thread. Regardless of what you will be willing to make out of this, I can add from myself that reading that story was at least entertaining.


Provided that brain is a receiver of consciousness as opposed to a common belief of it being a generator of some sort, it comes as no surprise that subjecting your brain to different vibratory sources might alter and enhance its ability to receive those frequency bands of reality that would otherwise be insensible to it.

Going as deep as gamma state might even allow one to tap into a so called akashic fabric that contains total information of the holographic structure of existence (video below at 0:20).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHH5-9cn5E
I don't expect anything of this to make any sense to many of you, but it's always a matter of making a first step for those who are willing to learn, so by not sharing this information I would have achieved nothing.

The technology itself cannot be responsible for people's future decisions to force it upon someone.
Who knows maybe one day we will be forced to use Bitcoin.

This thread was more about the technology rather that the model of society based on it.
I decided to include a reference model of society to just provide some examples of how technology could be applied. In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out. I think it's fair, but I can't possibly account for all variations of how said technology can be used. I've already proposed it for adoption in Bitcoin Foundation thread and Gavin said that it was a great idea. However he said that they would have to think more about voting and would probably use something simpler in the beginning.

While discussing certain examples above I expected more arguments than contradictions from you guys (if you go up through the page you will know what I mean) but nonetheless I enjoyed every bit of this conversation. Here is the gift for you two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkzjBfTDH20

I think I understand now what we actually disagree upon - it's what people are going to do in any particular system or structure. That solely depends on the people and is generally unknown, so there is not much to gain to continue to discuss what our imaginary people are going to do.

if we introduce any kind of system to a group of rogues it will probably fall apart no matter how good it sounds in theory. At the same time any system would tend to work, even centrally managed one, when introduced and operated by people who value life and prefer to co-exist peacefully.

So think of the provable-voting system in question as a way to raise awareness of what other people think is acceptable behavior or what other people think they prefer to see manifest in their society.
It's not about forcing anyone to obey anything, it's about collecting provable information that might help in resolving certain situations in a better way than without this information.

More information is always better than less information, wouldn't you agree?
Here is a few examples of how this system could be used to benefit even those who tend to live and work alone.

1) With distributed peer-to-peer network it would be easier to communicate information about any incoming attack from violent groups approaching from other locations and quickly achieve consensus on how to coordinate actions to defend themselves. Without provable way to do it the centralized communication system might be covertly hijacked by attackers before engaging in the attack. After the attack is successfully diverted, community might proceed as they did before following whatever model of free-market they prefer.

2) If a large factory started to pollute the river nearby the community, then the provable-voting system can be used to collect provable information about how many people disagree with the situation. That might serve as a valuable asset when arguing with the factory about resolving this conflict, either personally or via arbitration company from free-market. There is no point for us to argue and determine how exactly the conflict would be resolved, but with more information about the situation I believe it will be easier not harder to resolve it in a peaceful way. After the conflict is resolved, community might proceed as they did before. Even if you live and work alone resolving the conflict about polluting the river you drink from would benefit you regardless of whether you want to work with other people in the community or not.

3) The same applies to building bridges or schools. Information collected through provable voting might become a valuable asset to the road construction companies operating on the free market to determine the demand for bridges in the area. It also might serve as a feedback system after the bridge was constructed to determine whether the road company did a good job or not.

So thank you guys for engaging in this valuable conversation (it was valuable for me). Without it I wouldn't be able to highlight and explain the properties of the system I'm proposing.

By proposing the system that relies on new technology that never existed before (cryptographically provable voting) we will have much less chance of repeating the history compared to attempting to defend the system which could work before but failed. Please understand that consensus-based system is not anti-free-market in any meaningful way. You are free to join/leave any consensus-group or stay alone. Your disliking of it won't prevent others from forming voluntary consensus groups, so by not creating this system we would have achieved nothing.

And no, sound money isn't enough. We've already had gold as a sound money and that didn't prevent the society from derailing itself into a fiscal abyss.

So the model of free market you are so vigorously defending is vulnerable to the attack by criminal gangs?
No surprise it never actually manifested. There is no point in attempting to do the same thing the same way again and again expecting different results. That would be repeating the history. Why not leverage the new technology instead and see what happens? Maybe this time it will actually work.

Yes, so you still have a problem of solving "doom" scenario in your model of free-market.
What if you find yourself in that situation, what would you do?
What if the company you worked for that went bankrupt was the last of the two competitors in this area of expertise and the one that remains in this business already managed to buy enough land and a few media companies slowly turning into a state? Would you join them?

Would you please elaborate on how my argument is fallacy?

If reading through that article didn't empower you to answer my question in a meaningful way, why would you suggest me reading it?

Your reply doesn't provide any constructive solution to the problem in question.
The consensus-based system doesn't force you to be with the larger group and it doesn't imply that the larger group would always achieve consensus for a violent resolution with regards to smaller groups.
In contrary it is a way for peaceful people in that group to have more influence in the decision making and serve as a counter-balance to those people who strive for power and tend to be more aggressive to attempt to maintain power and extend it by any means (violence not excluded).

So you're likely to have less violence with consensus-based system rather than with centrally-managed pyramid-structured profit-driven corporations very afraid to not be successful and therefore being aggressive or they would otherwise face the "doom" scenario, that you still haven't come up with a solution for.

If majority of members in the larger group which might consist of family members with children and their elders would vote for a violent resolution with regards to a smaller group, yes that would be a result.
You cannot change people's morals with the technology, but the technology will allow those with higher morals to be heard and listened to, so that violent resolution of any conflict would have less chance manifesting.

So we will find ourselves in a situation with fewer and fewer competitors which become more and more self-sufficient and gradually turning themselves into a state?
You see, you continue to defend the system which leads to the situation that you don't prefer.

Those statements only contradict if you outsource things that you depend on to other participants on the market. If you have a family garden and a farm which is capable of producing enough food throughout the year, you will have a lot of free time during winter to engage in many other activities that would benefit your performance next year. For example think how to improve the machinery that you use to work more efficiently, so that you could spend less time working on the farm and more time entertaining yourself.

Don't get me wrong, profit and competition isn't a bad thing, but it's the experience that you get throughout your life that matters most and too much concentration on profit would lead to greed and that in turn would lead to fear of loosing what you have so that you become obsessed with power and control.


If reading those articles didn't empower you to produce any variant of a meaningful answer to the questions being discussed or at least a simple approximation of an answer, then what makes you think that me reading those articles would produce a different result?

I'm not against backing up your claims with other sources, but I'm not very comfortable with just sources and no claims.

As I've already mentioned, I'm not very interested in how things are called, but rather how things work.
If you can provide a good explanation of how the system that you are defending would work, I would be willing to engage in a meaningful discussion.

I'm sorry I have disappointed you.
I was just politely asking what people would consider a reliable source of the "truth".
What makes you think I wasn't baiting BR0KK? Oh, I know I forgot the smiley , my bad.

I can explain the method that works for me and I'm not expecting it would work for everyone due to the difference in conditions. My method is to connect to as many sources of information as possible and to listen to as much of what people say and see what pieces of information start to form into a meaningful patterns and see what sources those pieces are coming from thus giving them more weight. The information that doesn't fit into any pattern just stays in the memory until it does or eventually gets discarded as irrelevant.

This method requires a lot of time and motivation to process information and a lot of memory to work with it to search for patterns. I have a privilege to have both: a lot of time and a very good memory, so I can't possibly expect others to follow my method and I don't blame them. But I'm not being a coward and keep everything that I have figured to myself, instead I came to this forum to share what I know.

The concepts you linked to were invented before the advent of Bitcoin and related technologies, so going back into the past in an attempt to understand how things could have worked back then and why they failed might not be quite relevant today.


It doesn't matter what you call them. It's the most competitive way to survive that people have figured out given the technologies they had. I'm not saying it will stay that way, though. You see, in the beginning there were just people and they were free to discover whatever ways are best for their survival. So you can say we already had a free market in the beginning and it led to the creation of states.


Your argument isn't much stronger. It might or it might not work. Road companies might discover that demand for bridges isn't that high, but we still might end up with dozen of bridges if it would mean going out of business for those who don't succeed.

Because in our attempt to compete with the state on the free market we failed and we had a choice to either die from starvation, go rogue or trade whatever we have left (our freedom) on whatever terms the successful competitor would be willing to accept us. This is how free market works. Is this really what you like to promote? I guess what you have in mind is a free ethical market, but you would need some sort of consensus system to determine what the word "ethical" means in the environment you find yourself in.

In the arbitration example above, the consensus group would at least be able to present cryptographically provable evidence of the achieved consensus of a large group of people to the factory prior to taking any actions violent or otherwise. This proof might have more weight for the factory than claims of some self-proclaimed arbitration company.


So you prefer to not have might and bow down to those who have?
Isn't that what you're doing right now in relation to state? I thought you didn't like it.
Consensus-based system is the way to distribute might but still have it, rather than give it away and bow down.


It all boils down to what happens when a company doesn't succeed on the free market. What is the choice?
Just die? Gather into street gangs to get their way through violence (very viable alternative for a private defense company)? Go to your competitor and ask for help? And what if your competitor is the state and it asks for your freedom?

Contrary to the profit-driven corporations on the market, consensus-based groups would tend to become self-sufficient thus they won't suffer too much from the market conditions. They might still engage in a free trade with other groups or individuals if it's more efficient for them to buy stuff on the market than to do it in-house, but generally they don't have to. By being self-sufficient and no longer profit-driven consensus-based groups would concentrate on improving their quality of life, developing new technologies advancing science and entertainment.