9. The Solution

How to Address Parasitic Irreciprocities and Prevent Crimes That Lead to Revolution

The purpose of all of these irreciprocities is to sequester a group outside of market forces, while forcing other groups to bear the costs of market forces.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a powerful insight — irreciprocities work precisely by creating symmetric burdens where one group is insulated from market forces, while others are forced to bear the full weight of those forces. This adds another layer to your argument: the purpose of your framework is to reintegrate all groups into a system where no one is sequestered from the market and where everyone is accountable for the costs they impose.

There is always and everywhere a demand for stability that was historically provided by aristocracy(state, economy) and nobility (church, culture), and that unlike the low time preference and ownership philosophy of those older institutions, newer democratic systems and professional credentialed bureaucracies demonstrate high time preference and renter philosophy of our institutions leading to tragedies of the commons in all walks of life, which is essentially a summarization of the results of all existing institutions: hyperconsumption and especially hyperconsumption of genetic, cultural, informational, and institutional capital.

This reflection deepens the critique of modern institutions by contrasting them with historical structures that maintained long-term stability through low time preference and a sense of ownership over societal outcomes. Aristocracy and nobility ensured that decisions were made with the future in mind, protecting the genetic, cultural, informational, and institutional capital essential for societal continuity.

In contrast, the high time preference of democratic and bureaucratic systems, which operate more like renters than owners, encourages short-term thinking and the over-extraction of resources—leading to the tragedy of the commons on a larger scale. This hyperconsumption diminishes not only economic capital but also erodes the genetic, cultural, and institutional foundations upon which societies depend.

Institutional Failure and Parasitic Behavior in Modern Systems

I. Historical Stability Provided by Aristocracy and Nobility

• Historically, stability was maintained by aristocracy (who controlled the state and economy) and nobility (who oversaw culture and religious institutions). These classes operated with a low time preference, focusing on long-term stability and protecting their ownership stake in societal outcomes.
• The aristocratic model of governance ensured that decisions were made with future generations in mind, carefully protecting genetic, cultural, and institutional capital that formed the bedrock of society.

II. Modern Democratic Systems and Bureaucracies

• In contrast, modern democratic systems and credentialed bureaucracies operate with a high time preference, often making short-term decisions with little concern for long-term consequences.
• These institutions reflect a renter philosophy: they seek to extract value from the system during their tenure, rather than protecting or enhancing the capital that sustains societal prosperity.
• This results in tragedies of the commons in all areas of life, particularly:
  • Genetic Capital: Short-term social policies erode the biological foundations of a society.
  • Cultural Capital: Rapid consumption of cultural resources without replenishing or nurturing their foundational values.
  • Informational Capital: Over-extraction of knowledge, leading to informational chaos and loss of trust in institutions.
  • Institutional Capital: Government and organizational structures are used up, corrupted, or allowed to atrophy without being renewed or protected for future generations.

III. Hyperconsumption and the Tragedy of the Commons

• Modern democratic and bureaucratic systems, in their quest to maximize short-term gains, create hyperconsumption of capital. This includes not only economic capital but also the genetic, cultural, and institutional foundations of society.
• The result is systemic degradation—the very fabric of society is consumed faster than it can be regenerated. This hyperconsumption is facilitated by:
  • High time preference: Immediate rewards and benefits are prioritized, while future costs are externalized or ignored.
  • Disconnection from ownership: Without a sense of responsibility or long-term stake in societal capital, democratic and bureaucratic actors fail to preserve valuable resources.

Conclusion: A System to Prevent Hyperconsumption and Parasitism

I. The Integration of Stability and Reciprocity

• Our framework seeks to restore the long-term thinking once provided by aristocracy and nobility, embedding reciprocity and accountability into modern governance structures.
• By ensuring that all externalities and capital are accounted for, the system you propose would prevent parasitic behaviors that lead to hyperconsumption.

II. Reconnecting Groups to Market Forces

• The purpose of irreciprocities, both in the past and today, is to sequester groups outside of market forces while forcing others to bear the costs of those forces. Your framework reintegrates all groups into the market by forcing accountability for all externalities and parasitic behaviors.
• This means that no group can shield itself from the market while burdening others with the costs. Reciprocity and full accountability will eliminate the structural incentives for hyperconsumption and exploitation.

III. A Path Toward Long-Term Stability

• Our system of legal and constitutional reform, project-based governance, courts as markets for decidability, and full externality accounting ensures that no group or institution can engage in short-term, high time preference behaviors without facing immediate consequences.
• This would restore long-term stability by creating a system where all capital—genetic, cultural, informational, and institutional—is preserved and responsibly managed for future generations.

---

This framing adds the historical comparison and emphasizes how modern systems have moved away from the stability provided by older institutions, resulting in hyperconsumption and parasitic behavior. Our proposed system becomes the solution to restore accountability and prevent tragedies of the commons across all forms of capital.

I. The Framework for Addressing Parasitic Irreciprocity

• Measurement of All Capital:

  • A key element of our framework is the measurement of all capital, including not only financial or tangible assets but also informal and human capital (e.g., social trust, education, reputation). By accounting for all forms of wealth and influence, society can expose hidden asymmetries that allow elites or ascendant classes to extract parasitic rents.
  • Purpose: Expose the full scope of resource control and influence, making it harder for elites or rising classes to wield unseen power over others.

• Full Accounting of Externalities:

  • Our framework requires that all external costs—whether environmental, social, or economic—be internalized. This would ensure that those who benefit from wealth extraction also bear the real costs of their actions, preventing the ability to pass these costs onto the population at large.
  • Purpose: Prevent elites and others from imposing unseen costs on society. Full externality accounting forces transparency and accountability for actions that would otherwise go unchallenged.

• Prohibition of Irreciprocities:

  • The core of our system is to prohibit irreciprocities: those actions or systems that allow one class or group to extract disproportionate benefits from society without providing reciprocal value. This can apply to both established elites and ascendant classes.
  • Purpose: Ensure that every action or transaction has a reciprocal, measurable benefit, making parasitic behavior impossible. This would eliminate rent-seeking, corruption, and other exploitative practices.

II. Addressing Established and Ascendant Classes

• Suppressing Parasitic Irreciprocities from Established Classes:
  • Rent-Seeking and Regulatory Capture: By measuring the influence and capital control of elites, your framework would expose their monopolistic practices and force them to internalize the costs of externalities (e.g., environmental degradation, regulatory favors). This would reduce their ability to capture policy for their own benefit.
  • Dynastic Wealth and Foundations: While dynastic wealth dissipates, foundations created by this wealth continue to exert disproportionate influence. Our framework would require that these foundations be fully transparent about their influence and account for the externalities they impose through political or cultural manipulation.
  • Financialization and Speculative Markets: Financial actors often engage in speculative activities that enrich a few while destabilizing the economy. Full accounting of their externalities would prevent parasitic rent extraction by exposing the social and economic costs of financial speculation.
• Suppressing Parasitic Irreciprocities from Ascendant Classes:
  • Economic Leverage: Ascendant classes can use their newfound economic power to impose parasitic irreciprocities on higher classes, as seen in oligarchic control of key industries. Our framework would measure and expose the full extent of economic control to prevent monopolistic practices from new actors.
  • Technological or Scientific Innovation: Innovators or tech companies often wield disproportionate control over the economy, as seen with Silicon Valley. By accounting for the social and economic impacts of technological monopolies, our framework would prevent ascendant groups from extracting value without creating reciprocal benefits.
  • Cultural Movements: Rising ideological or cultural movements can delegitimize traditional elites and impose new non-reciprocal norms on society. Our framework would measure the cultural capital these movements accumulate and account for the externalities they create (e.g., polarization, social division).

III. Restoring Reciprocity and Accountability

• Restoring Balance Between Classes:

  • By ensuring full measurement and accounting, our framework restores reciprocity between classes. Whether addressing established elites or newly powerful groups, the aim is to create a system in which everyone contributes proportionally to what they extract from society.
  • Purpose: Prevent any class from becoming parasitic, whether through inherited wealth, technological dominance, or political manipulation. Every group must bear the costs of their actions and contribute reciprocally.

• Addressing Externalities and Long-Term Impacts:

  • Revolution and conflict often arise when one group’s actions impose unseen costs on another. By addressing long-term externalities and requiring full transparency, your framework would prevent grievances from accumulating unaddressed.
  • Purpose: Ensure that the hidden costs of exploitation are measured and internalized by those who create them, preventing resentment from festering among the populace.

IV. Practical Applications for Preventing U.S. Revolution

• Addressing Economic Inequality:

  • Economic inequality, driven by asymmetry of wealth and power, is a primary source of unrest. Your framework could help reduce inequality by measuring the true capital of both elites and rising classes and ensuring that wealth is earned through reciprocal contributions rather than extracted through parasitic means.

• Preventing Elite Capture of Institutions:

  • Our framework would prevent elite capture of political, legal, or cultural institutions by ensuring that any influence they wield is fully transparent and justified by their contributions to the public good.
  • Example: Foundations would need to justify their influence through measurable, reciprocal benefits rather than through accumulated wealth or ideological control.

• Balancing Power Between Regions:

  • Our framework could help address the regional divisions in the U.S. by measuring capital and externalities at the regional level, ensuring that each region contributes proportionally to the federal system and receives benefits in return. This would address grievances from both urban and rural areas, preventing regional dissatisfaction from escalating into conflict.

V. Courts as Markets for the Suppression of Parasitism

I. The Role of Courts in Identifying and Suppressing Irreciprocity

• We have produced a science of decidability, applied it to economics (positiva) 
• Legal Reforms as a Mechanism for Decidability:
  • Under our framework, courts will serve as arbiters of reciprocity, ensuring that all actions, contracts, and transactions are reciprocally beneficial and that no party is extracting disproportionate benefits without contributing equal value.
  • Legal reforms would empower courts to test whether externalities—social, environmental, or economic—are being properly internalized and if parasitic behaviors are suppressed by restoring balance between all actors.

II. Courts as Markets for Decidability

• Decidability as a Market Process:
  • Courts would act as markets of decidability, where each party (whether public or private) submits their case for adjudication based on reciprocity and accountability.
  • Each claim would be evaluated to determine whether reciprocal obligations have been met. If irreciprocities are found, courts will enforce warrants for compensation or restitution.
  • The process would be open, allowing public observation, which functions as a deterrent against those seeking to externalize costs or act parasitically.
• Externalities and Legal Responsibility:
  • Courts would ensure that all externalities are measured and accounted for. Whether environmental harm, financial exploitation, or social manipulation, the legal system will provide a framework where violations of reciprocity are rectified through legal restitution.
  • By embedding externalities into the legal decision-making process, courts act as a regulatory marketplace where those imposing costs on society must pay for their violations.

III. Suppression of Parasitic Behavior

• Suppressing Parasitism in Both Public and Private Sectors:
  • In the public sector, courts would address government inefficiencies, mismanagement of resources, or bureaucratic overreach, ensuring that public officials act in a reciprocal and transparent manner.
  • In the private sector, businesses or individuals that engage in parasitic rent-seeking, exploitative practices, or fail to internalize externalities would be held accountable and required to reciprocate value back into society.
  • Case Example: A private corporation that benefits from public infrastructure but refuses to pay taxes or compensate for the externalities it creates (e.g., traffic congestion, pollution) would be legally required to remedy the imbalance.

VI. Project-Based Institutions and Dynamic Governance

I. Replacing Departments with Project-Based Institutions

• Project-Based Governance:
  • Instead of expanding bureaucratic departments, your system would rely on project-based institutions. These would be temporary, goal-oriented bodies created to address specific problems, handle crises, or execute large-scale initiatives, and then dissolve once their mission is complete.
  • This modular approach ensures that resources and expertise are deployed efficiently, without creating the long-term bloat or inefficiencies that plague traditional bureaucracies.
• Adaptability and Accountability:
  • Project-based institutions are highly adaptable, allowing rapid mobilization of resources and expertise to address emergent problems without the long-term entrenchment seen in permanent departments.
  • Accountability is built into the system, as projects are designed to self-terminate or shift into other phases based on results. This prevents parasitic inefficiency, ensuring that public funds are only used to achieve reciprocal results.

II. How Project-Based Institutions Address Parasitism

• Targeting Externalities:
  • Project-based institutions could be created to address specific externalities—such as environmental cleanup, infrastructure projects, or social reforms—allowing for focused attention and measurable outcomes.
  • Each project would have a defined purpose with reciprocal objectives clearly laid out, ensuring that public investment produces commensurate public benefit.
• Preventing Institutional Parasitism:
  • By avoiding permanent departments and relying on goal-driven institutions, the system prevents the creation of permanent bureaucracies that often become parasitic over time. Project-based institutions will sunset after achieving their objectives, preventing the institutionalization of inefficiencies.
  • Each institution would be evaluated on reciprocity—whether it creates value proportional to its costs, measured in both direct and external effects.

V. A System for Stability

• Eliminating Parasitic Behavior: The key to preventing revolution and civil war is to ensure that no group or class can engage in parasitic behavior without facing accountability. Your framework achieves this by:
  • Measuring all forms of capital.
  • Internalizing externalities.
  • Enforcing reciprocal obligations.
• Purpose: This creates a system in which injustice, inequality, and non-reciprocity are systematically exposed and corrected, reducing the need for defection from cooperation and preventing the build-up of pressures that lead to revolution or civil war.

You said: