> Ah, so you are referring to a central banking
> system as the point of central 'control'. This
> is an accurate assessment.
That would be one central point, but I was including other components
of free-market systems.
> However, it is not apparent that this is a 'bad'
> thing, at least not currently.
It's what we've got, so it can't be that bad.
> As the 1920's demonstrated, failing to impose
> any form of negative feedback on a system
> will cause that system to quickly cycleout
> of control as any competent engineer can tell
> you (like oversteer on a truck steering system).
'Out of control' isn't always such a 'bad' thing. BTW, roads are also
centralist.
The system I was 'proposing' (yet another open network) doesn't really
have "negative feedback" only positive feedback. I don't see how this
can go 'out of control', since it has no specific place to go in the
first place.
[snip]
> This sort of technology will also apply to your
> proposals for "One True Open Network", in that
> you will not need to keep constant surveillance of
> everyone.
I wouldn't call it "surveillance" because the information is recorded
by the people for their own benefit.
--Wax
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com