Difference is that no contract of the commons may violate the law of reciprocity

Difference is that no contract of the commons may violate the law of reciprocity, so everything must be constructed as a contract – not legislation – with a full accounting.
Also there is no ‘general fund’ and no ‘pooling and laundering’ of revenues. And all contracts terminate.


Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 17:53:33 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188514084314079232

Reply addressees: @directdemocrac7 @Nalo_Nei @JohnMarkSays

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188513805682270209


IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@directdemocrac7 @Nalo_Nei @JohnMarkSays Then, again we list the choices: either top down proposal by a monarchy, or cabinet, and public opportunity to veto. Middle down; Or bottom up; market for contracts of the commons, by equal or proportional vote, equal or proportional contribution; or a combination of.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188513805682270209


IN REPLY TO:

@curtdoolittle

@directdemocrac7 @Nalo_Nei @JohnMarkSays Then, again we list the choices: either top down proposal by a monarchy, or cabinet, and public opportunity to veto. Middle down; Or bottom up; market for contracts of the commons, by equal or proportional vote, equal or proportional contribution; or a combination of.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188513805682270209

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *