What's impossible is the nonexistence of a power vacuum. Monopolies on force can be reduced below minarchism down to just the bare static principles to rein in the emergent dynamic principles.
Minarchism is a new concept to me are you an advocate for it?
I used to be a Minarchist until I realized the law can be manipulated to those in power at will.
That is also what I'm thinking.
Such things will be constrained by the inherent altruistic/exploitative characteristics of human agents and how agents within society participate.
I'm beginning to think that human society should be based around the flow of information between human agents. Both the amount of information and quality of information. There would be one obvious issue, I.P. But to me I.P is way of receiving recognition, so when transferring the I.P concept into the new "Information based society" you we need to ensure that the flow of information contains the "recognizing component" of I.P.
I guess another issue is when you have two "Information" states at war, hence the flow of information within each state would need to change in some way to protect each state.
But I guess the biggest issue is the coercion of agents to exchange information. Would coercion be necessary?
Maybe not. Agents would have an incentive to exchange information to gain the insight of other agents. Then what is guaranteeing the exchange protocol?
What information should be shared? Any information that affects the welfare of other agents. <-- Principle 1.
Okay, would coercion of agents to exchange information be necessary?
Given Principle 1. then this will depend on the altruistic/exploitative nature of the agent. It will depend upon the irrational components of the agent governing its existence and how these irrational components relate to other agents. For example human decisions are driven by emotional things like, hunger, the love for family, the empathy for another individual, the hate for another individual and the desire to see them suffer, the fear of others opinions, etc. Naturally this will vary from between individuals. I will concede that in IMO based upon my empirical view of the world, that some amount of coercion will be necessary. Hmm does this imply that no practical ideology can exist without coercion?
What about the case of "no information" ?
Moving on. Coercion will be necessary. <-- Principle 2.
Prove this. Must prove that there will exist a set of circumstances where a human agent will not share information that affects the welfare of other agents. Why would they not want to share information? A side point: That there is a limit on the transfer rate, but this is not really relevant, in such a scenario there would be some pre-defined set of protocols assigning transfer priorities to different types of information and the society as a whole would be responsible.
Why would they not want to share information? Because it is impossible to have an entire set of emotional protocols for each other human agent?
Okay so given the ideal case where each agent has a set of emotional protocols for each other agent in the Society. An emotional function is a function governing a particular emotional response an agent will have to a scenario. The welfare function is a vector representing the sum of all emotional functions. All other agents within society seek to maximize each others welfare function, based upon the maximiseWelfareFunction. The maximiseWelfareFunction takes the vector from the welfare function and outputs a vector of length 1.
So given the ideal I_WelfareFunction, a hypothetical function that will correctly output the welfare_vector_1 of an agent for all emotional function outputs. Okay implicit constraints, the set of emotional functions must be non-infinite, emotional functions must be static.[Assume this based upon real life, i.e for any agent to survive throughout time it must change it's emotional response to the same hazardous situation in life]
Prove emotional functions are dynamic, that they change through time. This implies that I_WelfareFunction can never exist as it would require knowledge of future events, and that the set of I_WelfareFunction functions each agent has would be imperfect. [Assume this based upon real life, i.e people's emotional responses are shaped by others]
Prove that there exists 2 agents whose WelfareFunction is determined by each other. This is situation is impossible because as soon as one individual's WelfareFunction changes then this would start a never-ending change of each others WelfareFunctions. Hence it is necessary for the existence of "no information".[This can be proven from real life.]
Prove that there exists for the set(InformationTypes) a situation where WelfareFunction("No information") results in the a maximum. This shows that there will be a situation where someone will think that to maximize an-others WelfareFunction it is best not to send information, but given that the WelfareFunction is imperfect then there will be time when this is incorrect, and should have shared information. This is a poor point in itself.
Somehow prove that on average; given any agent(1) with WelfareFunction(o..1), let WelfareFunction(c..1) represent Community Cumulative Welfare Function of agent(1), that for each individual WelfareFunction(i..1) representing the WelfareFunction agent i has of agent 1, that WelfareFunction(i..1) will on average perform less than WelfareFunction(c..1). Do this for all agents. This is essentially saying that on average the community will be a better judge of someone else s WelfareFunction than any one particular individual. This implicitly shows that information about any agent must be transferred to achieve the maximization of the WelfareFunction.
Show information -> welfare.
information is the change in energy configuration, and given energy <-> mass, then information -> mass?