Why aren't financial relations "meaningful"?

Expand full comment

First of all, well done, its such a great article. I believe the major challenge is that most adults be it at the individual level, family level, organizational level or nation-state level are not willing to take responsibilities for their dependents misdeeds. Although, the rate of the above differs but the fact remains, at any level, most adults are only willing to be accountable to their own actions and not that of their sub-ordinates (to a large extent).

The thing is, these adults at all levels only limit the behavior of their dependents and to a large extent is of great importance because it maintains or rather brings sanity to the environment at large but taking responsibility or accountability of their dependents is totally out of it I believe because majority of adults (if not all) seeks to benefit either in a short term or long term from their dependents.

This boils down to our human selfish nature generally. if that can be removed from our societal and cultural norms, there will be more to give back both as adults and dependents to the general universe.

Expand full comment

You must have a bond for the relationship to be meaningful. Might be hard to engineer

Expand full comment

Yes I think orgs can be usefully combined. https://www.overcomingbias....

Expand full comment

Humans already have relationships with multiple organizations. Governments, employers, insurers, banks, retailers, credit agencies, licensing bodies and so on. The humans are sometimes described as "self domesticated" - but the reality is that they have been domesticated by these various types of organization, that collectively handle feeding, clothing and protecting them. Perhaps we need more organizations to help handle all of our needs. However, it is not clear to what extent these organizations can usefully be combined - so we don't have so many separate orgs to deal with. Can we combine all our insurance needs into one organization - for example? So far, the answer seems to mostly be: no.

Expand full comment

You have a point that the "clients" of private prisons don't choose the private prisons. Perhaps that makes your "adult org" proposal different enough that the abuse of power by private prisons is not relevant to it. Perhaps not. Abuse of power is universal, and I think private prisons are relevant in that they show what happens when a profit-motivated organization gains total control over a group of people.

You are right that if clients can freely move from one adult org to another with few barriers, this should provide some serious accountability for the adult orgs. However, precisely because this would provide accountability, your proposed adult orgs would have every incentive to obstruct their clients from exercising the right to switch. What methods might the adult orgs use?

They might mandate the use of scrip, so that if a client switched orgs, they would lose all their money.

They might engage in predatory lending practices, so that if a client switched orgs, they would not only lose all their money but be in severe debt to the original org.

They might require their members to avoid contact with those who leave the org, so that to leave the org you would have to leave all your friends and family. Certain religious organizations have an explicit policy, where those who renounce the faith must not be spoken to by those still in the community.

They might make themselves the only or almost the only adult org in a certain geographic area, helping them gain control over the local government. So that to get away from them, you would have to leave the area, which may lead to having to give up your house and job.

They might engage in no-poaching agreements with their fellow adult orgs.

They might lobby government to put legal restrictions on when and how people can switch orgs (e.g. review boards for your reason to switch, waiting periods to switch).

Back on the subject of private prisons, this page describes some alarming statistics, including:

* The average cost of housing a medium security inmate in a public prison in 2010 was $48.42 compared to $53.02 in a private prison

* An estimated 49% more violent incidents and guard assaults are reported in private prisons than public, and inmate on inmate assaults are said to occur 65% more in a private facility

Privatized prisons lead to more inmates, longer sentences, study finds

Study finds private prisons keep inmates longer without reducing future crime

Expand full comment

Huh? Private prisons only account for a tiny % of prisoners in the US, have similar outcomes, but are cheaper. But as they are chosen by govt, not prisoners, they have little relevance to my vouching proposal. The main accountability for vouchers is the fact that clients can choose them, and contract law.

Expand full comment

As always, the problem with concentrating power is accountability. These "reasonable adult" orgs that you propose adults would have to register with and submit to, have a motive to increase the wealth and power of the org. Making life better for the people is secondary.

We actually already have private orgs that certain adults, who are not considered responsible, are required to register with and submit to. These orgs control every aspect of the lives of those adults. Naturally I am speaking of private prisons.

These prisons do not rehabilitate their prisoners; prisoners have great difficulty adapting to modern life when they leave. The prisons profit by giving the prisoners manual labor for pennies a day, which is the only way the prisoners can make any money. It is essentially slave labor. The prisons successfully lobby the government for stricter criminal punishments so that they can fill more prison cells and make more profit. None of this is good.

The problem, of course, is accountability; prisons are not accountable if their prisoners leave prison and can't adapt. In fact, the prisons profit more if that happens, because it means the ex-prisoner will soon return to them. Prisons are not accountable for the financial well-being of their prisoners, allowing them to pay the prisoners almost nothing for their labor.

So the solution could be to pass laws to make the private prisons (or your "adult" orgs) more accountable for stuff like that. But naturally, any organization will strongly resist attempts to hold it accountable for its actions. Your "adult" orgs would lobby the government to remove as many of those accountability laws as they can get away with, so that they can exploit and abuse those in their charge to get the maximum amount of profit.

Expand full comment

I propose that if we can't construct a "public option" which applies to the un-vouched, then vouchers can't drop clients until a replacement has been agreed to. In anticipation of this, I expect voucher-client context will by default get worse over time for clients, giving them incentive to renegotiate or find replacements.

Expand full comment

Hi Robin. I realize these two sentences were not the main topic: "The industrial revolution was primarily driven by the rise of new larger orgs, such as for-profits, non-profits, and government agencies. (Science & tech were side effects of those new orgs.) "

I'm not sure I've seen you arguing the industrial revolution should be explained as a result of new types of orgs. Do you have a post that fleshes out this idea more? If so, do you mind posting a link? Or adding it to those two sentences? thanks?

Expand full comment

I like this idea. How do we deal with corporate adults disowning their kids (i.e. firing their employees) if the kids can’t find new parents within a few months?

Expand full comment

Robin already linked to his "vouching proposal for criminal law reform". Did you read that linked post? It has very concrete "specific examples", and is very different from "today's set up in the US and other countries".

Expand full comment

I found this to be an interesting perspective. But I’m not clear on the specific types of policies and behaviors you are proposing and how it differs from today’s set up in the US and other countries. So I’d find it instructive if you shared some specific examples of what you mean here.

Expand full comment

We Westerners have never agreed on what we mean by adulthood or social maturity.The Chinese unanimously agree with Confucius: only 'fully mature men,' junzi, are fit to serve in government.

Junzi can live with poverty; Junzi does more and speaks less. Junzi is loyal, obedient and knowledgeable. Junzi disciplines himself. Among all his virtues ren, compassion, is the core of becoming junzi.

To Confucius, junzi sustain the government and social stratification through their ethical values. They comprise a natural, or just elite, who rule by setting an example and acting virtuously themselves.

Let people see that you only want their good and the people will be good. The relationship between superiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and the grass. The grass must bend when the wind blows across it. If good men were to govern a country continually for a hundred years they would transform the violently bad and dispense with capital punishment altogether. Analects. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Expand full comment