What is your source of the "truth"?
Watching TV? Reading glossy paper magazines?
If a glossy paper magazine says that a group of highly-respected,
well-known scientists discovered the "truth", would you just accept it?
Wouldn't it concern you that they all get paid with that very paper money we've all learned to distrust?

Thanks for the links, but I prefer to be practical and focus on how things work rather than how things are called and what labels are being put on them.

In my view, we have always had a free market and it is our ability to compete on it is what changed over time. From the looks of it free market didn't prevent concentration of power and formation of states. Therefore you cannot blame states for the lack of free market because free market is what created states in the first place. You see, nothing prevents you from putting limitations and regulations on states today the same way they do it upon you. It's a matter of competitiveness and coordination of little pieces of power into a bigger piece of power that allows them to succeed.

You need to create a bigger structure to compete with the state, you cannot just say free market will destroy it (because it created it). I do agree that the emergence of sound money like Bitcoin would weaken the state, but without sound alternative on how to proceed working together states won't go away.

I still have a few practical concerns with your view of free market as I understand it (as a collection of specialized companies working to maximize profit):

1) What would prevent building literally dozen of bridges in the same area provided that all the competitors start at roughly the same time and firmly believe that they will accomplish the job first.
The problem is that only one or two bridges are really necessary and the rest will be unused and go bankrupt wasting resources and hurting the environment.
Consensus-based solution: large enough consensus group would be able to determine the actual number of bridges that is necessary before doing the actual job.

2) In your arbitration example you say that production company would give arbitration company an authority over itself. What would prevent the formation of literally dozens of small arbitration companies all coming to the same or different factories and charging them damages for some alleged complaints from some people somewhere. It would seem like a very profitable business to me.
Consensus-based solution: large enough consensus-group would be able to present the factory with the following alternatives: a) join the group and comply with consensus, b) pay the damages and think again if it's still profitable to continue pollution, c) face violent response from consensus group provided that the group is large enough to prevent factory from hurting the environment, d) small consensus group incapable of influencing the factory might seek to merge with other small groups or leave the area peacefully.

3) Consensus-based groups would tend to be self-sufficient and therefore more stable/peaceful while specialized companies on the market might have a hard time surviving when there is not enough demand for their services. Think of the following case: private defense company is having hard time to find customers because the area has become peaceful and nobody needs protection anymore. If they are profit-driven they might consider creating diversions or false flag attacks so that their services are still needed.

I agree that new technologies will bring us closer to the goal and the difference in understanding that we had comes from the fact that I wanted to be all inclusive from the perspective of free market and considered the state as its equal participant (state is the creation of people after all).

So by definition of free market it should provide an alternative solution to the state that would outcompete it. The system described in this thread might be one of the alternatives that would emerge on the free market as long as there is a need for it (as long as there is a state).


Yes, we already have consensus-based system in its smallest iteration - it's called family.
No one has obligation to marry anyone and no one has to stay married if they no longer agree on how to live together. You probably don't need provable voting for consensus in a family, but as families merge and get bigger they might evolve into a large enough group that will become self-sufficient (grow food, defense, medical help).

Large enough consensus groups would be able to defend the land they occupy and that would give rise to the land ownership without state. Provable voting system would then counter-balance any attempts to acquire and centralize power over that group (a leader might emerge from within the group to attempt to take over). Further structure and topology of society would then solely depend on the consensus of people and their desire to merge and get bigger or to split and form new smaller groups.

The major difference is that consensus groups in proposed system are voluntary to begin with and members are free to leave as they wish. The only thing that needs enforcing is that everybody complies with achieved consensus if they decide to stay in the group and receive the benefits it provides.


Have we ever had a free market in history of humanity in your definition?
If yes, what caused it to collapse into what we have now (not free market in your terms)?
What would prevent it from collapsing again in case it emerges in the future?
If no, why free market doesn't emerge provided it is such a great idea?
Why would it ever emerge if never emerged before?

I don't want to turn it into a heated debate, so I will help you a bit
Because not all market players are profit driven!
Once they accumulate enough wealth to enjoy all the material values they can ever dream of they begin their battle for power and control because they become afraid of loosing what they have achieved.

So either we eliminate all the fear on this planet or we need another way to keep those who are still in fear contained within what the rest of us agrees to be acceptable behavior.

Please keep in mind that consciousness is the last frontier not fully grasped by science, partly because consciousness is what created science in the first place, funny huh?

You cannot prove to anyone that you have consciousness and likewise nobody can prove to you that they have consciousness, so relaxing some expectations about hard evidence might be a good start to tackle this question. The only thing that you can really prove is that you have an experience and you can only prove it to yourself, the rest is just a speculation. Remote viewing is a phenomenon closely related to consciousness so studying it might require new methods and new agreements on what is considered as evidence.

I would recommend this video first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE


I know how it sounds and I would gladly join you in ridiculing of what has been said to fully share your joy, but knowing what I know I can't.


LOLOL


+1


There is other evidence of non-locality of consciousness which is not explained by today's science, which very well fits into the new model that is being proposed.

For example, the research into influence of people's emotions on water conducted by Dr. Masaru Emoto from Tokyo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAvzsjcBtx8
or similar research into water memory by an institute in Stuttgart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILSyt_Hhbjg

In your arbitration example it seems that arbitration company has some authority over producing company. In free market who gives it that authority? What if I and other couple of guys want to start our own arbitration company, who will give me authority to charge polluting factory any damages?


Why is this not happening in today's free market? What would be different in your model of free market that would prevent things that are happening today?


The whole point is to make voting as simple as possible, so that you can finally vote for things that matter sitting on your sofa at home instead of physically gathering in one place to elect another human and give him all the power, because voting in this way is not practical for anything else. With this new system people will be voting how to spend the budget they contributed to, or how to resolve the conflict of any kind.

I see, it seems like with the free market it's always somebody else who will solve the problem and not the people themselves. I think this kind of attitude is what led us to where we are.

What if all those companies and providers not constrained by anything else start realizing that there are ways to collude and form cartels which would eliminate possibilities for competition thus allowing them to do less work for more profit.

And that is not a hypothetical scenario, that's precisely what we have now.
The consensus-based system would open the decision making process in society in the same way the blockchain opens the information about financial transactions.

No, the evidence is that the converging result of the sessions matches the target in case if it's physically accessible after the fact. And of course you want to train yourself and demonstrate results on "easy" targets first.

I mostly gathered what I know from videos, so I cannot recommend any literature at the moment.
Will post later if I find something interesting.

Does free market provide arbitration? I thought it's more like you are on your own...
And what if that polluting company pays to the arbiter to not take any action against it?

They use a naturally grown one, which is your body

It's not about rewriting the current science.
It's more about resolving something that current science doesn't have an answer for.

The procedures are quite rigid, they determine the properties of the target in a binary format (yes/no).
For example, is target man-made or natural? Is it solid or liquid/gas? and so on.

So if enough number of independent sessions converge to the same results, the experiment is considered successful.

You can watch this video as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkr7pOWQZ0

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

In a black-and-white case like that yes that would be an attack.

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

Unfortunately it's a bit wider than self-defense.
If I build a factory that produces chemical waste and start dumping that waste into the river you drink from you would have to "attack" me to prevent me from doing it.

I know it sounds a bit non-scientific, but he used the term "angels" only because it was the best representation in our language of phenomenon that he has come across during his research.
He originally called them "outside agencies".

From what I've learned independently "angels" are actually a part of the split that happens when you enter the physical reality. So the "angles" are actually a part of bigger YOU.
Your immediately aware consciousness is just a tip of the iceberg, there are other parts.

I like NAP and I'm all for it, but the paradox is that trying to enforce it would be in violation of NAP.
So NAP is the ultimate goal for society, but we only get there when everybody accepts it voluntary.
The consensus-based approach might be a first approximation, a first step in that direction, because it will at least create the awareness of what people are willing to do with their time and their money and it will highlight those things that are not yet representative of the ideas proposed by NAP.

He talks about relevant stuff at 2:13

I'd say it's more like trickery and bribery on the mass scale is what resulted in our today's society.
The use of force is sold under "protecting the people" or "fighting for democracy" via large broadcasting networks, that's why it is accepted by the masses. But none of these phenomena is prohibited by the free market.

So again it boils down to a lack of coordination on the people's side rather than lack of overall power.
We need to figure out how to consolidate this power so that it is able to protect itself.