sugioyuu - Tumblr blog

sugioyuu · 2 years ago

Text

freeism

About "Free Principle"

"Freeism"

sugio yuichi

We have conceived of the "free principle" as an alternative economic mechanism to capitalism.

It gives a new alternative to economic mechanisms that have had only limited choices, such as capitalism and socialism.

I know that many people are already thinking about this kind of thing, but I would like to implement it not as an empty theory but as a real part of the social structure, and eventually create a society in which the entire economy revolves around free money rather than capitalism.

The Basic Mechanism of the Free Principle

Let me explain the basic mechanism of the free principle.

The supply side is asked to provide all types of goods and services free of charge, and those who provide them are given contribution points (i.e., scores).

We will provide multiple ways to calculate contribution points, and we will also create a mechanism to provide them.

The mechanism is described below.

For goods and services that are not available to all who want them (hereinafter referred to as "limited items"), the points (hereinafter referred to as "quota") will be set to the square root of the contribution points, and those who offer to use the most quota will be given priority to use the quota.

Instead of consuming contribution points as compensation for obtaining goods or services, they should only be accounted for so that they cannot be used to obtain other limited items.

Therefore, contribution points do not decrease even if a limited item is obtained, but accumulate (exceptions apply. See below)

Necessity

The necessity of the quota is described below.

The method of calculating the quota is also described below.

This type of economic mechanism is called "free principle.

The free principle will be an economic model that can finally be established using technologies such as data analysis, blockchain, web apps, etc.

Dig a little deeper into the mechanics of the Complimentary Principle.

This section explains each of the mechanisms that make up the Complimentary Principle.

Rules of Contribution

The rules of contribution are the laws by which we live in a free-market society.

Or the country in which the law exists.

At first, only one rule exists, but just as there are multiple countries, multiple rules of contribution can be created.

The contribution rules should be easy for anyone to create.

I want the rules of contribution to be divided by ideology and taste (only some people emigrate based on taxation, culture and taste, but for the most part, the current country is determined by birth and upbringing, and there are people with different tastes, values and ideology in the same country, which creates conflict).

That is why we create the right of non-interference as the right not to interfere with others.

Each contribution rule has an end goal.

The end goal is discussed below.

Complimentarism Platform

The Complimentarism Platform is a mechanism to manage the rules of contribution.

The rules of contribution play a legal role.

The Complimentary Platform becomes a higher level entity like the Constitution OR the UN OR the federal government.

The egalitarian platform also has rules, and within the scope of those rules, they get to make the rules of contribution.

There will be multiple egalitarian platforms, and people will be able to join any egalitarian platform they like.

The pro bono platform may also have an end goal.

The end goal is described below.

Final Goal

The end goal is the goal that each free-to-play platform, each contribution rule, and each project (like a company) is aiming for.

It can be set by vote, decided at the establishment stage, or left to the decision makers to set.

Set goals that you want to achieve, not goals or KPIs to achieve subdivided goals.

For example, "increase in happiness," "degree of health," "increase in productivity," "increase in the number of rational decisions made," "crime rate."

It is unclear if we would set "lower crime rate" as a goal, since even "lower crime rate" might be a goal to achieve higher levels of happiness. We really want to set a goal that we are ultimately aiming for.

For the free principle, we should set an end goal for the free principle platform, an end goal for the contribution rule, and an end goal for the project, and then calculate the contribution according to how much we have contributed in approaching or achieving that end goal.

Examples of final goals

Increase in productivity (working hours required to obtain goods or services) within the limits of the law

Increase in happiness within the limits of the law

Contribution points

The points required to obtain priority for limited items

How Contribution Points are Calculated

Contribution points to be earned are calculated based on "the degree of contribution to the final goal" ✖︎ "market principle" ✖︎ "different weighting and rules for each contribution rule.

Until now, it was "market principles" ✖︎ "different weighting/rules for each country or region rule", but we will add "degree of contribution to the final goal" to it.

I think the market principle is encapsulated in the degree of contribution to the final goal, but if you still want to make further use of the market principle, you can give contribution points based on "market principle x degree of contribution to the final goal" or "market principle only".

The degree of contribution to the final goal could be calculated using multiple regression analysis or other data analysis methods or methods to visualize DAO's task-based contribution.

See below.

Quota

The quota is a mechanism to avoid monopolizing the service, and if the service can be provided to everyone, the quota is not used.

Each contribution rule has a different way of calculating the quota, and each person is given a quota weighted by contribution points (contribution points ✖️0.9 = quota amount, etc.) or the square root of contribution points.

The amount of quota used will be the price.

There is a negative correlation: the lower the winning rate of a product or service, the more quota it occupies, and the closer the winning rate is to 100%, the less quota it occupies.

In the free principle, the quota is always used while the limited item is in use, and the amount used always reflects the market value, not the amount used at the time it was acquired.

The structure of the quota differs for each contribution rule.

The period of time you occupy a quota should be the period of time you own that limited edition item.

If you give it away or throw it away, you can apply for it on the free principle platform or the service will automatically detect it and release the use of the quota.

To prevent "false applications" where the user applies to give it away when he/she really owns it, make it necessary to give it away or throw it away in a defined place or app.

Create an incentive to have it detected through the app, since it should be detected from each app and if not through the app, it will occupy the frame all the time.

Make it impossible for people to report that they have given it away from themselves, other than by having it automatically detected by the app.

Free principle

In the free principle, if other people refer to the products, services, source code, or other deliverables developed by each person, or know-how and other things such as research findings, they will receive only one part of the contribution points earned by the person they refer to, such as 0.5 times the contribution points earned by the person they refer to.

Thereby.

If someone only submits an idea and others implement it, the person who submitted the idea will also receive a portion of the contribution points earned by the person who implemented it.

If there is another company that started a business and failed, but was successful in running it by avoiding the strategies of the failed company, then allow the people who worked in the failed company to receive a portion of the contribution points earned by the successful company.

That way, where it was 0-1 to succeed or fail, maybe we could make it so that even if it fails, it is not 0-1 financially, but there is some benefit.

Since points are just points, unlike currency, they don't have to be distributed and can be offered to both.

But it's hard to determine if that's what I was referring to.

I will discuss this later.

We want a society where everything is open source.

I want to create a society where every no-how, patent, and other things are open source, by weighting the contribution points that can be earned if others use the no-how, and by weighting the contribution points that can be earned just by making it open source, such as 1.2 times the contribution points that can be earned by making it open source.

Everyone gets it without having to distribute, and being open source could lead to more compensation for sharing without monopolizing rather than monopolizing and competing.

But if the relative position without distribution determines whether you get a limited product, is it the same as when profits were shared?

It's more mentally stable because you don't have to fight for a piece of the pie.

The basic idea is to think in terms of rules of contribution, where the only rule is the degree of contribution to the liberal end goal, but when considering various rules of contribution, we can make a law that regulates each of them in a way that is characteristic to the sound of each rule of contribution.

Even whether any action is a bad action or not, we will stipulate that only actions that have a bad impact on the final goal contribution level are bad actions.

Even theft would not be a crime if it did not have a bad impact on anyone.

Somewhere the idea is like a woman who says it's not cheating if she doesn't get caught in a love story about whether or not she qualifies as cheating.

The position of each

In the complimentary principle, the system is divided into the complimentary principle platform, contribution rules, projects, and other mechanisms.

The free principle platform is the role of the federal government, the contribution rule is the role of the state government, and the project is the role of the company.

Project

The role of the company.

Since we want to make everything open as part of the free-for-all concept, should all corporate data that is currently hidden be shared and made available for anyone to see, so that the contribution points earned are weighted about 1.1 times more than the points earned?

Or, by being more open, make the service more technical and reliable, so that it is seen as contributing to the well-being and other end goals.

Price

The lower the quota is won (the percentage of people who apply who win), the more quota is occupied and the more the beneficiary pays for it.

Since the amount of quota used becomes the price, the higher the winning rate, the higher the price becomes "completely free" with zero quota use for zero price.

In capitalism, even for products with high demand and high supply, the price is close to the cost, but the beneficiary bears the burden.

In the free system, however, the price is negatively correlated with the winning rate, regardless of the cost, so the overall product or service becomes cheaper.

Furthermore, since the added value cannot be added to the price, the price becomes cheaper by that amount, and the beneficiary burden of the free principle is better than the beneficiary burden of the capital principle.

The provider of the good or service receives nothing from the beneficiary for providing the good or service, and the beneficiary pays nothing to the provider for acquiring the good or service, which only increases the amount that occupies the quota managed by the free-market platform.

The provider can offer goods and services to those who cannot pay for them, and if they do, the business will be compensated.

Life of Complimentarism

Let's imagine and write about what society would be like in a society where gratisism is a reality.

Download or use from a browser any of the web apps, native apps, VR or AR apps of the Free Principle App (an app that also serves as the Free Principle Platform) that manages all the functions of Free Principle.

In the Complimentary Principle app, choose the rules of contribution to which you want to belong.

Enter various information about yourself, link it to the contribution rule you have chosen, and generate an account with the data for that contribution rule.

You can put the data of the contribution rule you belong to as a property in your wallet for Web3, or in your Google account for Web2, etc.

With the account containing that data, data is acquired from various applications, and the data is used to calculate the contribution rule.

Furthermore, according to each contribution rule, you can display 00 content on Twitter, but not 00. If the content is prohibited by each of the respective contribution rules, such as "00 content is allowed to be displayed on Twitter, but 00 is prohibited," the respective contribution rules will be detected from the account and automatically hidden.

When you want to get products or services on the respective platforms of free principle services or existing services (Amazon, Spotify, etc.), the contribution points of the person and the quota calculated from them are displayed from the API that can get the contribution points of each person managed by that free principle platform. Do you want to display the quota calculated from it, and have an input field in the platform, such as Amazon, where people can input how many quotas they want to offer, and those who offer a higher amount will be given priority?

Is it faster to create a new one?

Those who offer limited items in the above process will receive contribution points for the contribution rules to which they belong.

There is no such thing as an exchange rate between multiple contribution points, so the more contribution rules that contribute to the ultimate goal of the Complimentarism platform, the greater the percentage you offer (tentative idea).

(Compatibility between complimentarism platforms is discussed below.

Advantages of the Complimentary Principle

Summary

Characteristics generated by the free-for-all mechanism and benefits generated by these characteristics

Open source

→ You get contribution points for open source.

All data becomes open.

If you get a reference, you get paid for it.

Prices become cheaper all at once

Right of non-interference

→Separate by ideology for each contribution rule.

Tagging keeps content safe without removing it

No need to engage with people you don't want to engage with

Rational decision making

→Rational decision making recommendations and market-reflective pricing using data made open by the free principle.

More rational decisions can be made automatically or with assistance.

Open source brings data together and facilitates rational decision making.

Free but good. Bad but no punishment. Possible to deal with

→ Because compensation is given based on the degree of contribution to the ultimate goal, it becomes possible to provide services to those who cannot pay for externalities or compensation.

Free but gives compensation for good. No punishment, but punishment for bad things. It becomes possible to

Can respond to times of technological unemployment.

→Free-ism can raise the bottom line because the incentive to provide for many people is higher than capitalism.

In the future, there will be further polarization between smart people and stupid people, so some people still say that capitalism should just distribute, but such distribution policies and rule making will not go well, so we need a system that can automatically save those in the suffering class when the polarization occurs without redistribution through free-ism.

It is useful as a mechanism for an economy that is a stopgap until a general-purpose AI that is smarter than humans is realized.

A society in which people can own only what they use.

→Since the ownership of goods is limited to the extent that they are used, there will be no price hikes due to resale, etc. The method of creating a society in which people can own only what they use is described below.

Since only the right to use the asset is held, the price will be lowered at once.

There is a mechanism to retain the benefits of investment, but speculative behavior can be restrained.

Learn More

Open Source

All data, know-how, source code, existing patents and copyrights, and much more will be open.

Summary

Benefits include

Increased interoperability will prevent network externalities.

A society that shares rather than competes.

Compensation will be obtained just for being used and referenced.

Increased transparency

Independence rather than dependence

Increased amount of data and new correlations can be discovered.

A safety net can be created in the IT field.

Lower prices for all goods and services

The abolition of competition between countries and the emergence of a shared society.

The ability to constantly see the internal conversations and strategies of different companies.

Specific Mechanisms for Open Source

Mechanisms for Open Source

The more you open source, the more you are rewarded.

Weighting so that the more you open source, the more contribution points you receive.

It would be good to simply create a mechanism where the more open you are, the more you are rewarded, regardless of the end goal, the freebie rate, etc.

Always automatically adjust the contribution points earned by open sourcing to be greater than the contribution points earned by monopolizing.

You could also create a system where rewards are earned simply by increasing mutual insolubility, regardless of the end goal or the freebie rate.

Create an incentive for people to open their technology, know-how, or source code by a mechanism that allows people who reference it to earn a portion of what they earn when their code is referenced.

There must be a way to detect whether or not a reference has been made.

We would like to provide the following types of methods to determine if you have made a reference.

A method in which a person declares that he/she has referred to the site, a method in which a third party judges, a method in which AI automatically detects, a method in which the person who developed the site detects, a method in which the system detects by name or content, browsing history, data analysis, and a method in which a person who developed the site detects.

Detected by registration of name, know-how, etc.

Like Wikipedia describes a certain subject using each different word, we can calculate contribution points by looking for how much and how many elements make up a certain subject in order to establish it.

Not only detecting by name, but also by name, idea, no-how, technology, and source code can all be registered, and if registered, the same thing can be considered as a reference even if it is used in other situations by someone later than at the time of registration.

In this way, the system for registering names can be built in, so that when someone registers a source code, know-how, or technique as a list of numbers such as part numbers, or as a name given by the user, and when someone else uses it as a reference and registers know-how, etc., it can be regarded as a reference by using the name of the source code. You can do this.

If you have an idea or know-how that you have developed, you have an explanation for it, and if there is a name registered by others in the explanation, you are considered to have referred to it.

If you use a name registered by others to explain the subject you are registering, you will regard it as a reference, and also create a system to find similar things other than names, such as direct know-how, techniques, and ideas, and regard them as references.

The elements that make up the object to be established will be registered by each person on the platform that incorporates the blockchain.

How to register each element

If you register your idea or technology on the blockchain, even if others later claim that it is your idea, they will detect and eliminate it on their own because they all know the same idea that has already been registered earlier, and they will also be able to use the idea or no-how that has already been registered as a It is also possible to record a timeline, like an NFT, of the ideas and no-hows that have already been registered, as well as their reference and secondary use.

Depending on the degree of use of each element, the person who developed and registered each element gets a portion of the contribution points of the person who referred to it.

That partial percentage is determined by the importance of each element, and importance is calculated using a system that measures substitutability.

A mechanism that ensures that the person who developed the element and the person who registered it are absolutely the same.

If each technique or no-how was designed or thought about, there will be data somewhere, so that the data must be brought in, and if someone else logs the same kind of data before that person, that person will not be able to register, and no one will be able to be referenced regarding the situation, but no one will get any contribution points would not be earned.

Detection by AI

By actively writing about an idea you have and also writing a commentary, if there is a service similar to it, the person who came up with the idea will also earn contribution points the more that service earns contribution points.

Of course, the idea needs to be written before the service is created.

If there is a feature that you want, make it so that the idea you want also needs to be submitted before it is implemented.

When you try to register an idea, the AI, which understands the context, has already registered something similar. I want to make it easier to search for the referenced subject by making it possible to make a recommendation like

Detection by a third party

The way to check if an idea and an actual service are similar is that a third party can monitor and judge whether or not it is a reference, or the AI can automatically give evaluation points if the text explaining the idea and the actual service are similar.

The person who wants to monitor and judge should also be able to get contribution points.

Like a consensus algorithm for blockchain.

Detection through data analysis

If you just come up with an idea and publish it, and data analysis determines that the person who saw the idea had a positive impact on earning contribution points, that's all you need to do to get contribution points as well, so others don't bother to check.

There are cases where someone develops something by referring to a subject they are not aware of, so data analysis or AI can be used to find this out from the person's past browsing history or what is registered as a reference by the person who saw the idea.

If you present at least three references from what you came up with yourself and tell them that they were generated from other experiences, you give contribution points for all the things the person has been involved in up to that point. But when you divide the contribution points by the element of experience, you get less than three or more main references.

How to detect by name and third party

Just as the name of the idea, no-how or technology you developed is judged to be the same, even if it is not the same word as the no-how with the same content as others, the third party person judges by how similar the text describing the idea is, and the part that says it is similar but is not a reference is judged by the third party person.

If there's not enough people to make that judgment, then we'll make sure that there are enough people to make the judgment, because the supply in the supply and demand will be low and the demand will be high, so that we'll get a lot of contribution points.

That also creates a mechanism to prevent people from making stupid or wrong judgments . Reward people for pointing out what is wrong?

Ideally, when we develop something, we should ask people to self-report all the elements they referred to before coming up with the subject.

But it's tedious and there will be omissions.

No need to distribute.

The person who developed it and the person who made secondary use of it don't have to share the reward, so they can declare as many references as they want, and not only does the system automatically find out if they have signed up, but the person who is making the reference signs up as a sign of appreciation, like a like on a social networking site, from his/her own.

Basically, we want to detect by name or registered information and let a third party or AI find the rest.

The more open and developed the system is, the more convenient and reliable it will be.

The working environment of a company, the content of chats and other information within a company may need to be all open to gain trust and not gain workers.

Furthermore, services that are more interoperable will be used because the customer experience is better.

Force them to be open source.

Because the free principle is a system where one economic incentive after another becomes unnecessary, people will be less likely to open source only with economic incentives such as giving contribution points if they are not physically made to open source.

We want to make open source mandatory in some contribution rules while creating benefits for open sourcing other than economic incentives.

I want to calculate the percentage of the no-hows I make that I open source, so that if I want to use an open source product or service that others have developed and released, I must also open source a certain amount, while making sure that I get paid if I open source it, as well as Increase the benefits of open sourcing everything else.

Specific ways to increase interoperability without network externalities at work

How to increase interoperability

Incentives for two or more others to start sharing by breaking out of the loop

If you don't make everything open or interoperable, other projects and services will not provide interoperability to you, and you will inevitably be forced to provide it.

If we don't each share and cooperate with each other, we won't be able to enjoy the benefits of other services.

Other than the economic incentive, you can't use other open source services and features unless you open source your own.

The problem is that if we share and create from each other, if we can fulfill the importance to the limit, we will have an incentive to create functions by having other companies provide them to us as their own services until now where we have been cooperating with each other, which will create wasteful development.

It would be better to make it so that contribution points are not earned by developing similar services that already exist.

How not to work with network externalities

While providing interoperability as a premise, make it impossible for the party providing interoperability to stop providing interoperability on its own.

Specific Benefits

Become a society of sharing rather than competition

A society that is more sharing than competition.

Specific realization methods

Become a society of sharing with high interoperability rather than competition by enclosing to earn contribution points because sharing is more conducive to the ultimate goal than monopolizing.

Benefits of a society that competes on the quality and quantity of sharing

Technology will be shared more than ever before, and innovation will advance faster.

By not allowing monopolies, market failures will not occur.

Monopolies impede scientific and technological progress.

Currently, monopolies increase the added value, price and compensation for themselves, so they have an incentive to hide from those around them.

I would like to make it open source, a form of contribution that is more beneficial to me if I share it with all kinds of people.

By doing so, we want to eliminate unnecessary monopolistic competition among companies and to eliminate conflicts among other countries.

There will be no more redevelopment of the wheel.

Even if it becomes open source, there will be cases where people will think for themselves without knowing its existence, so we will also create such a system because it is impossible to get into the habit of always looking things up unless we can make recommendations without having to look them up in some way.

The strategy of enclosure becomes unnecessary.

Create a society where people can share data and other information without being enclosed by a single service.

By making everything open source, we will create a society where competition will virtually disappear.

Rather than enclosing customers, it will be better to share customers and openly share data and other things without enclosure, and receive contribution points for doing so.

We don't want to be left out and compete.

We don't want to compete, and we don't want to be compensated more for loopholes, copying other companies, and crushing others.

I want to create a society where sharing and helping each other is rewarded.

We do not want to create competition.

Want to cooperate so that both parties can benefit.

Do not want to work hard to be competitive with other companies and want to cooperate with other companies to create a

Competitive monopoly market

Currently, we have a monopoly market without competition, which forces consumers to use inconvenient services, but we can create a monopoly market with competition through the free principle.

A state of monopoly & perfect competition

In the free principle, there is an incentive to increase interoperability, such as a state where other companies can use the production facilities, know-how, product offerings, and others immediately, without giving them a monopoly at all.

It makes it so that no one project (company) can monopolize, yet because of the interoperability, everything is shared, so other companies come in but in the aggregate, it's like a monopoly, working economies of scale like a single company monopolizing, but because each of them provides Competition works.

Companies that don't share become forced to share even if they don't want to, because they can't enter the economic sphere while sharing everything in its entirety.

Because of interoperability and sharing everything, it becomes like the greatest economies of scale are at work, and costs are reduced.

It will be like a monopoly and not corrupt or less competitive, when in fact it will increase productivity.

Increased interoperability will prevent network externalities from working.

The following problems exist

You really want it to improve, but network externalities prevent you from forking out and improving it.

The lack of interoperability also makes it impossible to provide an improved version of the functionality as an extension.

Advantages of not having network externalities

It is possible to create services that are basically the same but have different partial functions, and services with different partial functions can be linked to each other.

This makes it more convenient for users A to be able to talk on LINE and B on Slack.

How not to work with network externalities

By increasing interoperability, network externalities are prevented from working.

To be able to contribute to the achievement of the final goal, it is necessary to increase productivity and convenience, so it is important to increase interoperability for this purpose.

Services that are more interoperable are more likely to be chosen by customers.

Since society will become a society where various projects will create their own functions, it will be less convenient if one company develops all the functions without interoperability.

Composability will be higher than Web3.

You get paid just for being used or referenced.

You can create a system where others can use your know-how, ideas, source code, Twitter posts, currently patented technology, copyrighted works, etc., and receive a portion of the contribution points earned by those who use them.

The percentage of contribution points earned by the user can be determined by the degree of influence on the user or the contribution rules.

If possible, we would like to create a society where permission is not required for any use, and secondary use is possible without permission.

We will prepare rules of contribution for this purpose.

If a reference is made, the person who made the reference is treated as a person who contributed together with the person who made the reference, and the person who made the reference gets a part of the contribution points earned by the person who made the reference.

The method of detection is described below.

Currently, research often has positive externalities, but we want to create a society where all gratuitousism is compensated by internalizing externalities, and this can be achieved through a system that detects people who refer to it.

A better way is to use patents as a way to reduce the positive externalities of research and get proper compensation, but patents alone are rarely rewarded properly, and applying for patents requires a lot of resources, and the exclusivity of patents can cause problems that can stifle other innovations. Use a mechanism to receive a portion of the compensation from the person being referred to.

A mechanism that detects whether an idea is being referred to, so that even if you just come up with an idea, you will be evaluated.

Without a mechanism that evaluates and rewards people just for coming up with ideas, and without creating an incentive to actively write down ideas, people who have ideas but lack the ability to implement them will be less likely to write down good ideas that are lying dormant.

AI's Image Generation Problem

With the current technology for AI image generation, there is the problem of whether it is legal to learn from images that are on the Internet without regard to copyright, although it is legal to do so, and there is also the problem of whose copyright the generated images become.

Even if it were legal to use data on the Internet for the service of generating AI, the person who created the training data may not be convinced, but if we give them contribution points as a reference, some people may be a little more convinced.

You can give compensation for failure.

I want to create a society that gives contribution points for a project, even if it fails.

If the contribution points are lowered if the project fails, no one will want to fail and will not take risks.

You can get contribution points simply by disclosing your experience or some kind of know-how, so the service itself does not have to be successful.

If you publish data, source code, and reports of what you have done and what you have failed to do, they will be viewed, and if other people refer to them and the person who started the business succeeds and earns contribution points, the person who was referred to will also earn contribution points.

The bad thing about capitalism is that people who fail are not valued.

Even if they fail, they should be valued just for trying, and there are people who fail but succeed because other successful people see them fail and avoid that failure or use that failure as a reference.

Currently, those who fail have zero or near-negative financial returns and can only gain experience, contacts, etc.

But those who fail must also be contributing to the success of others in the present, such as those who succeed by referring to those who fail and developing strategies to avoid them.

But we also want to create a system that prevents people from knowingly failing.

Piracy of all kinds will cease.

A system where everything will be free but rewarded, so fewer people will bother to look at unofficial pirated copies.

Patents will be abolished, but compensation will still be obtained.

People who have developed products but do not have rights to protect them, such as patents and copyrights, and who do not receive fair compensation, will be able to get compensation for their development.

Currently, there are many cases where people who have developed no-how like patents and copyrights but have no mechanism to get compensation for their development OR they really want to apply for patents and copyrights but do not apply for them for the overall benefit OR due to problems that make it difficult to apply for them, the people who developed them are not getting any benefit at all.

For example, if you develop a recipe for cooking, fashion, comedy, fonts, financial methods, or any other kind of no-how or technique, and it is determined that this is a reference to a person with 00, because the person who developed it will be copied by others without any profit, the developed no-how, etc. If it is determined that this is a reference to the person who developed the no-how, etc., the person who developed the no-how, etc., should get a portion of the contribution points earned by the person who developed it.

If even a trivial thing is referred to, the person who originally developed it should be able to earn contribution points earned by the person who referred to it.

By becoming open source, the disadvantages of patents, which inhibit innovation, are removed.

The loss of exclusivity could be a disadvantage for those who developed the product.

The absence of patents would also reduce the price of the drug.

Since they do not have patents and do not add value, they can be sold at a lower price.

Problems with the medical system

Fewer doctors.

In the case of the U.S., drugs are about 3 times more expensive than in developed countries, and although the patent for the drug itself has already expired, the patent can be extended for 20 years by making improvements to the drug, so the patent can be maintained by making small changes. Since they can take advantage of this, the drug companies set up large charitable organizations to subsidize patient co-pays, thus keeping the price of the drugs inflated.

Instead of costly new methods and tests being introduced, many are of dubious efficacy.

In the UK, regulatory agencies estimate how much health is improved for every pound spent and check whether minimum standards are met, but this does not exist in the US.

In the free principle, all information and know-how will be open, so people who are currently withholding information will be more and more open, many benefits will be enjoyed by many different people, and the whole will benefit.

Those who are not familiar with technology will have their literacy raised by the open information, and smart people will save money and effort in coming up with ideas for new technology development.

I think the only people who will lose by having all information open are those who sell false information that is wrong.

By sharing your ideas, you can let others know what you are thinking, connect with like-minded people on social networking sites, and gain new useful information from them.

By publishing ideas, source code, and other information, you can force the idea to become a commodity and let the middle class decide if it is right or not and give you advice.

We also want to create a system that allows people to submit ideas completely anonymously, because there are still people who are too afraid of criticism to transmit their ideas.

There will be no need for industrial espionage.

We want to create a society in which people who come up with ideas, the first penguins, are more valued.

In capitalism, businesses that go from 1 to 10 or 10 to 100 are often more profitable than businesses that go from 0 to 1 in basic research or in the market development stage, but I want to create a society that rewards people who are involved in 0 to 1 rather than capitalism.

Currently, the person who implements the idea is valued, but just coming up with an idea is often not valued. But if ideas alone are disseminated around the world, people who can implement but do not have ideas can reduce the amount of time they spend thinking of ideas and implement them.

Just thinking of an idea and transmitting it should be a contribution.

Currently, even if you think of an idea, it has no value unless you implement it, but there is a time gap between those who can only think of an idea but came up with it first and those who came up with the idea and implemented it

So, if we value people who can only come up with ideas, why don't people who can implement the idea find the idea and implement it?

Currently, even if you come up with an idea, you don't get paid for coming up with the idea, so you don't bother to post it. By not telling others, aren't we slowing down innovation?

I think that if we can create an environment where people can anonymously say, even if it is just a hypothesis or a bad idea, the free principle can contribute to innovation.

Ideas are being sent out on various social networking sites, and one person can post an idea compiled from various media on Twitter, and the "person who came up with the idea," the person who compiles and sends out the idea in one place where ideas are posted on various services, and the person who implements the idea can earn a contribution.

The society will become a place where various people can use the service in ways that were not even imagined.

Increased transparency

By being open within the company, there will be no more injustice.

There will be no more slugs at Osaka Osho, no more accounting irregularities, and no more fraud and corruption in other companies.

There will be less corruption.

With all information open, corruption will be reduced by being able to detect any misuse immediately or by monitoring each other.

Will there be no more confidential documents, etc.?

You can always see the internal conversations and strategies of various companies.

I would pay to observe management meetings (board meetings) of various companies, but it is currently not possible.

You can freely watch the meetings and the contents of Slack and Discord, and see the companies you want to support and the companies that are developing the products you want.

Even if we can't attend those companies, we can look at their strategies and give advice from the outside.

You can get rid of the instructional kitchen, so that only those who give constructive advice remain.

Any small business today will be able to see what the company is about.

All information in the project should be open.

B2B, B2C, but there will be no asymmetry of information when offering a product.

Abolition of competition between countries and the advent of a sharing society

Currently, countries monopolize each other's rockets, semiconductors, and other technologies, but we want a society where everything is open source and shared, with no more monopolies due to the free principle.

Prices will become cheaper.

By becoming open source, prices will become cheaper all at once.

People will actively use services they used to pay for and did not use before, and various operations will become more efficient.

Even trade between countries will be able to be offered at lower prices than now due to the elimination of middlemen.

We will have to pay higher trade tariffs alone.

Imports from Sri Lanka to Japan alone are about 600 billion yen for 6 years, and the trade insurance paid is on the order of 25 billion yen. Customs revenue alone from trade between Japan and Sri Lanka is over 8 billion yen per year!

The cost of providing the service can be reduced.

Because the source code is publicly available, the need to create the same functionality in each of the business chats such as Slack, ChatWork, etc. will be eliminated, which will eliminate redevelopment of the wheel and lower costs.

In addition to the source code, all know-how will be made public and technologies currently protected by patents will be opened up.

Even if there are no patents, if others use the technology that has been properly developed, they will also receive the contribution points that others have earned, so they can enjoy the benefits of having a patent.

We can create a safety net in the IT field.

Open source becomes a safety net for the IT field.

It would be a relief to have a system in the IT field that can be used in any worst-case scenario.

Currently, if there is no system in open source, trying to develop a system is costly and time-consuming, and some users and companies have to accept market prices, such as high prices for products with short delivery times in spite of the worst business situation for some users and companies.

Having a system that can be used in the worst-case scenario would help companies.

But currently there are few safety nets in the IT field, namely open source software.

In fact, we would like to have a safety net outside of the IT field that can be used in the worst-case scenario.

Currently, if a business goes bad, it will just fall down, so I would like to provide a safety net by offering products and services in each industry that can withstand the situation if only this is used.

Is there a financial industry? A system that will survive as a zombie company.

Some might say, "If a company needs a safety net, let it go out of business."

More data and new correlations can be discovered.

Until now, data obtained during operation has been monopolized by each company, but now it will be shared by all, so the amount of data will increase and data will be gathered to be used for AI, research, etc.

Of course, mechanisms to protect privacy are necessary.

The increase in the amount of data will allow us to find valuable behaviors that were not discovered before.

The open data can be used to evaluate each of us one by one with greater precision, solving the problem of reduced productivity in our own work if we feel that our results are not clearly valued.

People whose salaries are being increased simply because of bad human decision-making or pandering to their bosses would also be evaluated fairly.

We can examine the actions that are currently thought to increase productivity from one side to the other through data analysis, and we can better examine whether they are really increasing productivity and whether there are other unexpected factors that are increasing productivity.

We would like to create a system in which projects that are not productive in the way they are done are quickly weeded out by being forked over, so that old hands cannot exist.

We can discover that what we have been led to believe, such as "doing 0 will increase productivity," has no correlation at all, or that what we thought was completely unrelated is a factor that has a positive impact.

We can be independent.

By being open, we become less dependent on everything.

All kinds of know-how will be open and inputs can be acquired by using the framework.

Russia is good because they started a war, got sanctioned and isolated, and all kinds of services are no longer available, but if they were to be cut off from support or sanctioned for doing something good, such as if it is a good thing in the long run but the research stops because of lack of buy-in from others, they would not be able to use various services now .

If various services are provided free and open and without anyone's permission, so that people can live independently, they can operate freely and satisfactorily, thereby creating an environment where it is easy to try good and challenging things that are criticized by those around them but are really good.

But it is more likely that people will do bad things, such as start wars.

If they abuse it, they may be able to avoid it by lowering their contribution points, since there are fewer slots for them to use, but since everything is provided to most people for free by the free principle, contribution points will become less and less necessary, and more and more people will be in a situation where it won't hurt them even if they do abuse it. Of course, a small amount of slots can be a challenge.

Of course, more people will be able to take on the challenge with a smaller amount of slots.

There will be many cases of abuse, but we want to create a society that is resistant to sanctions.

If possible, I would like to make it possible for individuals, companies, and countries to have tolerance for sanctions.

The right to non-interference

By using different rules of contribution, we can create a society where people live separately by ideology.

Where previously we had to make rules with consideration for people with various interests who separate in the same place, we can now make rules for each region with a specific focus on a particular ideology.

The right of non-interference and the right not to be interfered with.

Problems with the current situation

It is a middle ground.

Because people with different opinions try to fulfill the demands of both sides in the same region or country, it leads to politics and policies that are half-hearted and benefit neither side.

Deleted.

Even if it is beneficial to one person, if some people don't like it, the platform will delete it so that not everyone can see it.

We need a system or service that does not make some people feel bad and does not allow the contents of social networking posts, memos, or Google drive to be deleted without their permission.

The only way to have a safe society is to be divided by ideology.

Once people have their own ideas, they will only have evidence that justifies their opinions, and if they are denied as fact, they will hold on to their wrong opinions even more strongly. Therefore, we have no choice but to divide ourselves by ideology based on the rules of contribution.

The area where you were born or raised becomes your country.

The country where you were born or grew up becomes your country of belonging, and you are not free to change from there, or you have to live in the same place with people of separate ideologies because of the hurdles to change.

In a free society, we want a society where people can easily migrate to other rules of contribution and live under separate rules of contribution based on their tastes and values.

Even if there is a screening process, a contribution rule could be created that would set out requirements such as whether you really hold those values through a modern version of the psychological test of picture-stamping, or whether you can prove from past data that you hold those ideologies.

We would like to divide people by ideology so that they are not divided in the same land just because they have different ideologies.

But being of the same ideology will not reduce small conflicts.

Concerns of a non-interfering society

Problems that divide by ideology

Even the unsubstantiated information that corona vaccination causes autism, we lose sight of the actions of experts who show us evidence that they are wrong, and we live according to conspiracy theories and wrong evidence.

It would be nice if that would increase happiness, but it would only increase short-term happiness, and in the long run, I think we would be happier and live longer if we took scientifically proven, evidence-based actions.

The echo chamber effect will occur because people will not try to communicate with people of other rules of contribution that say they are divided by ideology.

People tend to act and play together with people who share the same political ideology in terms of ordinary hobbies other than politics, and even in social networking sites, people rarely follow each other and do not try to play with people who share different political ideologies, which has started since the development of social networking sites.

The Society We Want to Realize

People are divided by ideology, values, occupation, and hobbies.

The country or region where people live should not be determined by their upbringing or birth, but should be determined or divided based on ideology, hobbies, and values.

Even today, people with resources such as money and time can emigrate to countries with cultures that suit them and policies that they agree with, but not everyone can do this, and the hurdles are high.

However, this is not possible for everyone, and the hurdle is high.

Create a society where people with different ideologies and values are separated by different lands and rules, and if they don't like it, they can move to another community.

Have any ideology you want.

A system of free-ism so that people don't have to engage with people they really don't want to engage with.

Complacency ideology allows people to freely have any ideology they want, but does not interfere with those who have a different ideology.

You are free to have a separate ideology or crime, such as eugenics, but you are not allowed to interfere with people who do not have that ideology.

Not to be deleted

No matter what the content is, it will not be deleted, only hidden (or not hidden if it is for personal use only).

Concrete ways to achieve a non-interfering society

If you don't like it, leave.

In a complimentary system, instead of responding to criticism, we would make it so that those who criticize must leave the criticizing party.

We want to do this so that possibilities will not be crushed by criticism by stupid people

Don't force your ideas on others

Instead of imposing my ideas and rules on others, I will make a society where people just go where their ideas are.

In other words, a society where I don't move and impose my ideas on others as I do now, but if I don't like it, I don't impose it on others, but instead I make a place for those ideas or move to a place where people with those ideas can gather.

I want to eliminate the idea that "others should have the same idea as me."

But if we go too far, we will not be able to tell others what is scientifically correct, so we should participate in the rules of contribution that represent our ideology at the beginning, and within the rules of contribution, we can actively appeal to others to have the same idea as us if it is related to that ideology. You can do that.

Removing content from services

In services such as Twitter and Instagram, content that is unfavorable to those who meet the rules of each contribution level will be hidden, and those who have other ideologies can speak freely by deciding which expressions to restrict according to the rules of each contribution level, without restricting that content at all. This will make it possible to create "freedom of expression of convenience".

The concrete way to achieve this is the "tagging" method.

Tagging

By "tagging," any post, content, file, project (company), etc. that has been tagged cannot be deleted at all, but if others can see them, those who do not want to see them can simply select the content they do not want to see from the tagging list and not see it.

All content could be tagged automatically.

And with that tagging, the platform operator would have less need to respond to requests that content that the majority of people do not want to see should be removed, and would have the right not to accept or not accept blame for not doing so.

Will bots and other content that technically interfere with the operation of the service be removed? Posts that overload the servers, etc.

If we apply that to free-ism and contribution rules and projects, some products and services will be tagged with projects we don't want to see or limited products we want regulated, making them basically invisible, but still visible to those who want to see them.

In a liberal society, each person of various interests and tastes will be taken into consideration, and what can be done normatively will be restricted, taking into consideration all values and tastes, but on an individual basis, there will be content that people want to see.

In a liberalized society, people have a wide variety of likes and dislikes about all kinds of subjects, and the sheer number of choices makes it difficult to relate to the right people, and the best way to get along is to avoid sharing too much information about oneself with others, or to avoid talking about oneself. It is the best way to get along with others.

So, without being able to say anything, more and more people are getting to the point where no one has any friends, which is why we need AI friends, but we can't have them right now.

So, while tagging people to exclude them if they don't want to see it, content can be seen by a small number of people with a few tastes and values without being deleted.

In other words, I want a system where I can exclude myself so that I don't have to watch it, but not exclude the opinions of those who do.

Never delete content, no matter how extreme the political ideology or sexual orientation, but allow it to be tagged.

Since tagged content might be discriminated against, tag all content, and basically only display tags that most people accept as standard, and then allow people to change what content they can see by tweaking their own settings.

If we don't put a lid on content that we don't want to see, and later allow people to see content even if it is criticized by others, we will end up with a society where no content is allowed in an increasingly liberal society, and those who don't transmit content will benefit the most, so we need to promote this system to protect freedom of expression. I want to push for such a system to protect freedom of expression.

I don't want to see it, but I want to create an environment where people with different opinions, values, and tastes can exist normally.

We can achieve this with the same mechanism and technology as before because we can just automatically tag people where we used to delete them, and all we have to do is wait for more people to accept the idea.

If there aren't more, then we can practice the free principle with rules of contribution only for those who accept it.

By doing so, YouTube, Facebook, and other large services in all fields will adopt such a technique.

It is currently only considered good for one small service or academic discipline, so we will introduce it on a national basis or even in large services.

Returning to the topic of complimentarism, using the above technique creates an "effective information asymmetry" in the complimentarism platform by not prohibiting, but seeming to prohibit what you don't like.

In general, information asymmetry is used by companies to make profit, but not by consumers, but by creating information asymmetry, the user creates a situation whereby each individual appears to be prohibiting, but in fact is not prohibiting, the information asymmetry. By creating asymmetric information, the user creates a situation whereby each individual appears to be prohibited, but in fact he/she is not.

However, by making oneself invisible, services related to the invisible part are not displayed to oneself and services cannot be used, thereby making oneself immune to fraud and eliminating the disadvantages caused by asymmetric information.

Furthermore, since different contribution rules share the same information, we would like to make it appear as if the above method is used to forbid changing only those parts of the rules that are shared but different from each other, so that the services can be changed according to the rules.

Wouldn't that be a self-responsibility argument?

Feeling compelled to look at it even if you think it makes you feel bad about yourself.

Even without changing the contribution rules, tag all content and allow people to choose what content they don't want to see.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who still think feminist views are ridiculous, but they don't hide them and discuss or criticize them.

I want a society where it's normal to always mute

Allow people to set what content they don't want to display for each contribution rule, or even on an individual basis, to choose what content they want to see or not. The decision of whether or not to display the rules of contribution is more important.

At the stage of the tagging method, it is feasible regardless of the free principle, but doing so with the free principle will make it more feasible.

Benefits

It changes the form of deregulation.

When a certain activity is prohibited by the rules of one contribution level, it can be unregulated by going to the rules of another contribution level, so that if you want to do a certain activity, you can provide a new technology or service by not being regulated. If it is found to be good for the society, other contribution rules can be introduced more and more.

If the deregulation of each contribution rule is implemented, we can see what kind of society we can create by first trying out the deregulation of the contribution rule without any regulations, and we can easily refer to the deregulation of other countries. This will also allow businesses to easily move to unregulated countries and try it out, which will change their business strategies.

We want to have contribution rules that range from completely unregulated to mostly regulated, so that every business or activity is absolutely unregulated by some contribution rule.

The contribution rule that attracts early adopters through the free principle is a rational decision that leads to the introduction of new products and services one after another.

We will experiment with cloud services that make operations more efficient, financial regulations, and other areas that are currently regulated but need to be relaxed to see if we can deregulate them and create a better society.

By deregulating more and more, and by using different rules for the contribution of those who want to develop new technologies and those who are conservative, there will be no more cases where people want to develop new technologies but are prevented from doing so due to safety and other issues.

There will be no major division of thought.

Because people with different opinions will be subject to different contribution rules, there will be no major division of thought within the same country.

It will be better for people to move to different contribution rules if they have different opinions.

It is fine to express an opinion, but just move to a different contribution rule.

In order to divide where people live according to ideology, we will create cities where people live together only in favor of the idea and cities where people live together only in opposition to the idea.

That would eliminate the need for discussions that create major ideological differences.

Within the rules of contribution, there will be no major divisions, so the adjustment will only be made through democracy.

There will be no need to engage with those on the left or those of extreme or opposing ideologies.

By allowing "the right and the left," "opponents and supporters of cervical cancer vaccines and abortion," "proponents and opponents of startup deregulation," and others with opposing views to live under separate rules of contribution, they would no longer live in the same place and would have no need to argue with each other. There will be no need for them to argue.

We want to make it so that people who have developed conflicts with each other will not have to prepare compromise plans.

We will also be able to have a very flexible way of setting contribution levels, saying that we are for the 00 part and against the 00 part.

We would like to be able to fork and change one part of the contribution calculation method to say that we are against the 00 part.

Furthermore, if you are in favor of everything except for that one part, you should be able to participate in the same opinion community and contribution rules except for that one part, so that instead of being a completely different group with one part that is different and a group that is in favor of everything else, you can be out of one part and in the same group for the rest of it. By making sure that they do so, we will avoid unnecessary fragmentation.

No AI should have human rights or live in a virtual world. In order to prevent such rules from being applied to the entire society through populism, it is necessary to have a system that eliminates the need to associate with people who do not agree with one's ideas and does not interfere with others.

Diversity is created.

By not interfering, diversity is created.

Diversity is created by not interfering with other people's opinions because any opinion is tolerated.

Separate and subdivided according to separate ideas, values, and places of residence, so that decision-making proceeds smoothly one after another with little or no conflict, and also so that there is little or no conflict due to speech

We can reduce discrimination.

Since discrimination can never be eliminated, we will take a different approach to reduce discrimination from what it is today.

Respect other people's values and create a society and right to not share information about one's own ideology and hobbies and preferences with others.

I want to make sure that no other human being should know or try to know information about my values and ideology, my gender, my religion, the rules of contribution to which I belong, etc.

Currently, in order to be oneself, it is considered good to transmit what one has hitherto kept hidden in order to be oneself, but in the future, it will be the opposite, hidden and seen by a society that is really more like anonymous, but where each person is free to deepfake and process the people around them from easy to convenient for themselves, while hiding them. I want to be able to make people look as they see fit.

If you don't want to discriminate, you can process and make it appear as diverse as you want.

No matter how much diversity you want, some people with certain attributes will still discriminate against you in their hearts, so you just have to process it to look convenient and like yourself for diversity.

Rational Decision Making

A society will be able to make more rational decisions than before, in terms of economic, well-being, productivity, and health, respectively.

More rational decision making will be possible automatically or with support.

Open source will bring data together and make it easier to make rational decisions with it.

Rational decision making can be made more rationally by using the tools of rationality.

Rationality is discussed below.

Technological Unemployment

In the future, society will be able to help people without advanced skills when they fall into poverty.

Complimentarism can cope with times of technological unemployment.

In the future, there will be further polarization between smart people and stupid people, and capitalism will not be able to make good progress in rule-making such as distribution policy.

Free principle can create a system that can help the poor without redistribution by providing more value-added services to a large number of people than to a small number of people for more compensation.

This is useful as a mechanism for a stopgap economy until a general-purpose AI that is smarter than humans is realized.

Right to use

A society will be able to have the right to own only what it uses.

How to create a mechanism that allows people to have the right to own only what they use.

If you do not contribute to the ultimate goal by adding value or increasing user convenience, you will not be compensated.

Mere retention does not earn consideration.

In that mechanism, you can own more than the scope of use just by not getting compensation.

Instead of having the contribution points occupied at the time of acquisition continue until you give it away, the system would always allow your quota to occupy the current amount of quota needed to acquire it, making it impossible to hold it for the purpose of increasing its value.

Still, they would be able to own more than the range they use simply because they cannot get compensation.

The range of use would be until the positive impact per unit on the individual's ultimate goal is below a certain level.

Set an end goal for each individual in addition to the free principle platform and contribution rules and the end goal of the project.

The benefits that emerge from this structure.

Speculative behavior can be discouraged while retaining the benefits of investment.

By eliminating speculative behavior, those who really want to use the product will not have to obtain a limited edition product at a price that is higher due to speculative behavior.

Resale can be prevented.

Decrease in costs

The free principle allows all goods and services to be offered at lower prices than capitalism. The price is the amount of the frame used.

Mechanism for lower prices

Since it is more rewarding to improve the final goal of a large number of people and increase the freebie rate than to sell to a small number of people at a high price, the incentive to increase the freebie rate (the percentage of people who get it among those who bid) works and the price becomes lower.

Of course, there may be an incentive to offer it to a small number of people because you can earn more contribution points by having someone refer to it than by offering it to a large number of people, but would you have that weighted and adjusted for each contribution rule? In that case, arbitrariness would be created.

No one would bear the cost of providing the limited editions, only the cost of getting priority, so the pricing would be set without regard to cost or other factors.

To some extent, the amount of quota used by a company correlates with the amount of quota used for the limited edition product that the company is offering (because if a company uses its limited resources to provide a service, it will become limited edition and its customers will use their quota because it will not have the resources to offer the product to everyone).

However, the quota used by the company and the quota used by the customer will be different, so the cost incurred by the company and the cost incurred by the customer will not be connected.

The goods and services that everyone wants at all costs will be pushed up in price above the cost of capitalism, but they will basically be priced below cost.

No added value, no profit.

A system in which the supplier is compensated for "completely free" goods and services that can be acquired without using a quota.

We could have a society where necessities of life are "completely free".

Everyone cooperates with each other, each providing separately but with a high degree of interoperability, creating a seemingly contradictory situation where one organization provides exclusively, but the effects of competition also work, creating economies of scale that work to a large extent and reduce costs.

In capitalism, there was little for each to cooperate with each other, and in a monopoly, there is little incentive to serve as many customers as there is when competing.

By only being able to own the scope of use, prices are lower due to the elimination of speculative behavior

Summary of the free principle

Less economic loss

Examples.

Gender inequality, loss of poor neighborhoods, loss of ability to educate poor people, economic loss of living in the countryside, etc.

Elimination of economic losses means no more wasted costs and lower costs for more people.

Cost savings.

Products that have little market value in the labor market but are forced to maintain high prices at minimum wage will be cheaper, and depending on the rules of contribution, even if a company hires a worker, it will not use the quota for hiring the worker, so the cost will be lower by the amount of the labor cost.

In addition, all goods and services that could really be cheaper but are not priced below a certain level in order to make a living for themselves can also be cheaper.

When prices are lowered

consumption is stimulated, which is incomparable to capitalism.

A system in which even dumping is profitable for the whole industry.

The current zombie companies in the manufacturing industry only think about making short-term profits, so they cheapen prices, and as a result, the entire industry is sinking to the ground.

With the free-for-all approach, everything is free, and the provider can't even set the price.

If one part of the ultimate goal of the free-ism platform is "increased happiness," there are products and services that are not offered because not offering them would increase happiness.

In some cases, there are many products and services that are not offered because if they do not contribute to the ultimate goal, no matter how much demand there is, they will not be compensated.

Will those who still try to provide them become the new volunteers?

A service like Instagram, where users want it but happiness goes down, might be a formula like the one above, where the Instagram operator gets little to no contribution.

Services with zero marginal cost will soon be completely free to use

All services with zero marginal cost, such as software, will instantly go to all who apply, and all services that they did not use because they needed money but would use if they were free will be available.

All services with zero marginal cost, cloud services, newsletters, Netflix, etc., are free.

Until now, only those who could afford to pay could use them, but with the free principle, everything will be free without anyone having to pay the cost, but still be compensated.

If it were free, we could establish services that are in demand.

There are services that are currently not available due to lack of money, but if they were free, they would be in great demand, and everyone would be able to receive them.

For example, mental health treatment is a service for poor people who are prone to mental illness but cannot pay for it. But there are many people who want to receive such treatment.

Therefore, if people apply for such services on a platform, the more people who apply, the more psychiatrists will receive, and the fewer psychiatrists there are, the more contribution points they will receive, which will gradually increase based on market principles.

The society will become more friendly to the elderly.

Under capitalism, it is economically beneficial for society as a whole if people work when they can and die early to save on taxes.

Since there is no need to distribute money in a pro bono system, social security for the elderly will be richer.

The nurses, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and others involved in the current job of providing social security can be rewarded as much as they want by simply giving them contribution points instead of tax expenditures, which are a portion of the workers' earned money under the levy system, so they can live as long as they want.

Since we live in a society where people can get limited goods for free without requiring compensation, there is no need to subsidize them with tax expenditures, since demand will increase if the elderly need them, thereby increasing the number of people who will work in jobs related to the elderly.

There is no upper or lower limit to compensation.

There is no upper or lower limit to compensation. In capitalism, a cap on compensation may be created because there is not enough compensation to pay, but since there is no need to pay compensation, it can be raised or lowered as much as needed depending on supply and demand.

It can help many poor people.

With free capitalism, the service provider is compensated without having to pay for the service, thereby saving many poor people

The poor also become customers.

Even if people in developing countries do not have the ability to pay at all, they can be incentivized to provide the service, whereas before they were excluded from the customer base if they could not pay.

This allows people in developing countries who do not have the ability to pay to get many goods for free.

Jitteriness and inconsistencies in supply and demand due to price competition would disappear.

Because all goods and services become commodities, in the process, capitalism will have no choice but to compete on price to improve the customer experience while lowering prices to increase the number of consumers as much as possible, so that fewer people and costs can be provided, and eventually even employee salaries will be reduced.

With free capitalism, there is no need to offer everything for free, no need to share compensation no matter how many people you hire, and no need to aim for just barely making a profit.

Final Goal

Conclusion.

Benefits are created by a system that rewards people for contributing to the end goal.

It can eliminate externalities and make it possible to deal with free actions that are good or bad and have no punishment.

It will be a society where all goods and actions have a price and are compensated more than capitalism.

Details.

In the free principle, rewards are determined by the "degree of contribution to the final goal" and the "free principle winning rate.

Advantages of determining rewards based on "the degree of contribution to the ultimate goal

Free but rewarding for good." "No punishment, but punishment for bad things." It is possible to reward good activities for free for some reason.

All activities that are good but for some reason were provided free of charge and for which no compensation was given can now be rewarded.

The donor would receive the same amount of contribution points for donating new clothes as for donating hand-me-downs, because the effect is the same when clothes are purchased and when hand-me-downs are received.

It would punish bad behavior that was not a crime under the previous law, but was bad.

Adultery, etc.

Furthermore, we can make it so that bad behavior that is overlooked because of the hassle of litigation can be punished because it is automatically punished if the love of contribution to the ultimate goal goes down without having to go to the trouble of litigation.

We could give "compensation for positive externalities" and "costs for negative externalities," thus eliminating externalities.

Because we look at whether or not the person is contributing to the end goal, compensation has only occurred where the transaction is being made, but we can figure out all the bad and good effects of each person's actions from the overall impact and calculate the correlation, and if there is a negative correlation, automatically lower the contribution points, or if there is a positive correlation If there is a positive correlation, compensation is given.

Until now, only the money involved in a transaction could cost or benefit the person, but since we will be a society that evaluates people based on their contribution to the ultimate goal of society as a whole, all good and bad influences that were externalities until now will be included in the cost or compensation.

The way externalities are handled is still tentative.

It can be guided.

If we also set the ultimate goal of "developing children later in life to be smarter and happier," we will be able to avoid things like gifted education, which has not been scientifically proven to be effective, and we will also be able to prevent physical punishment and other poisonous parenting practices that have a negative impact on children because we reward good education even in poor families, and we will be able to provide proper and scientifically correct education. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

There will be less power harassment, sexual harassment, and other forms of harassment.

If one person's happiness level goes down, the contribution points gained by the person who causes it will go down, so there will be less power harassment and sexual harassment.

Since the content of all conversations in the company is open, the system can constantly monitor whether it is taking place, and if it is, it can detect it and automatically report it to the function of the judicial role as a function of the complimentary principle.

It can be evaluated by all kinds of indicators.

Currently, we can only evaluate services and actions based on whether or not they make money and whether or not happiness has increased through money, but with the free principle, we can evaluate them based on all factors.

Increase productivity. Provide for more people. Increase happiness. Treat people ethically. Protect the environment. and so on, and can be evaluated by improving the numerical value of these indicators.

Instead of a system like the SDGs that simply evaluates through money and also through other indicators, it will be able to be directly linked to compensation.

There will be less exploitation.

The subcontractor's profit will not come from the client's remuneration, but from the contribution points of the free principle platform, so the client will not be asked to pay a lower price.

Furthermore, if a subcontractor unreasonably requests a shorter delivery date, the information will become public, the client will be denounced, and the remuneration will be reduced because it will be judged that the subcontractor has not contributed to the ultimate goal.

Subcontractors are put in a weak position, but since there is no need to share profits in a free-for-all system, both sides get good points, and there is no need for subcontractors to fight with each other and share everything.

DX is going forward.

In order to get contribution points, data on what has been done, how much has been shared, etc. is needed for contribution calculation, so it becomes necessary to do DX to acquire data for contribution calculation.

Performing DX can contribute to increasing productivity, which is the ultimate goal of the contribution complimentary principle platform.

Even with cloud services that claim to improve productivity, if productivity is not actually increased, the cloud service provider will not receive compensation.

DX is not progressing because some people do not directly appreciate the increase in productivity. We can create incentives for everyone to contribute to the end goal because we will see how much each employee contributes to the end goal.

No more scams and network businesses.

Contribution points can't be offered like money, so scam victims can't give contribution points.

The concern is that if the system is designed to allow people to rent out their contribution slots to others, the slots might be abused.

Ponzi schemes, network businesses, and scams would not get contribution points at all, because they would not get contribution points if they do not contribute to the ultimate goal of the free principle.

Furthermore, spamming the spammer would be seen as not contributing by reducing the happiness of the recipient, and the contribution points the spammer has would only be gradually reduced as a fine, so there would be no benefit whatsoever and the scam could be eliminated.

There is a problem with medical scams that improve happiness by making people feel like they are doing a placebo/doing a placebo, so reward them based on whether it is working properly or not?

Instead, it could be a contribution rule that doesn't advance science and technology in a contribution rule that aims for happiness, but that's okay.

It would eliminate things like certain mutual funds that don't make money but only those who take fees and manage them.

There will be no more credit card fraud or phishing scams.

Other jobs that make money but are not good businesses will be eliminated.

A society in which there will be no more bull-shit jobs.

In a truly contribution rule or complimentary principle platform, we would analyze the data and reward people based on how much impact each one has on the outcome, so all the useless brusit jobs that have no impact at all would not be given contribution points and were considered brusit jobs, but The brusit jobs will be eliminated because the work that contributes properly will again be properly evaluated.

We can create a society where data analysis is used to find effective means of earning the final goals and contributions that have been set.

A society that places more emphasis on decision-making based on data analysis.

Conflicts will be eliminated.

The need to distribute profits will be eliminated, and the people running the project (currently, shareholders and managers) will no longer be in conflict with the workers because compensation will be based on whether or not each contributes to the final goal.

Furthermore, there will be less conflict because there will be no incentive to make people work for lower wages and because the company cannot set the wages.

There is no need to distribute.

Capitalism requires the distribution of limited money, which creates a structure of conflict as people try to get more money for themselves.

Free money solves this problem. Since free money does not divide the limited amount of points, but only provides each person with as much as he/she has gone without dividing it at all, there is no need to distribute it at all, and no confrontational structure is created.

No conflict structure regarding profit (points) is created, but there is a limit to the amount of work that can be done to earn those profits (points), so that's where the conflict structure may come in next.

There will be no more jobs where people are paid for work they did not do.

There will be no more jobs that are being paid to hack the system, even though they are not even doing the work of the public corporations and vested interests that are descending from heaven.

There will be no more advertising.

Because services without advertising are more likely to be chosen by customers and contribute more to the end goal when there is no advertising.

Other than advertisements that increase the satisfaction of the content, which will be discussed later, such advertisements will remain because they will contribute if they give information that is really beneficial to the person, and there may be cases where advertisements are used because the contribution points are positive because the advertisement does not contribute but the product or service being advertised contributes more than it does. .

But I don't know if the blackformer would approve of that interspersing of ads.

I seem to remember seeing a research paper that showed that inserting ads in between content conversely increases satisfaction with the content, so if the ultimate goal is to improve happiness, and inserting ads in between changes satisfaction, then the ads might stay in.

If the advertisers could lease slots from the advertisers by viewing the ads, it could be made into a less beneficiary-pays mechanism.

Advantages of having compensation determined by the "free principle winning rate"

Even if the demand side is unable to pay for the product or service, a system can be established in which the supply side is rewarded for providing the product or service.

Since increasing the free-market winning rate also contributes to the achievement of the final goal, increasing the free-market winning rate is inherent in the final goal.

In other words, in a liberal system in complimentary principle, the reward is determined solely by the degree of contribution to the final goal.

The market principle can pay the price.

It can reward work that until now has been underprivileged because the market principle did not work or because there is a real demand for it but we cannot pay for it.

For example, researchers, doctors, non-profit organization employees, volunteers, etc.

The problem of researchers, caregivers, and childcare workers, who are paid by taxpayers, being underpaid due to salaries set by the government, can be remunerated more commensurately for their work than they are now.

The government will no longer set salaries.

The government will no longer be forced to decide salaries and the market principle will no longer be used to determine salaries.

The government will be able to determine salaries for nurses, doctors, childcare workers, teachers, researchers, and other professions based on the importance of their work and the supply of such work.

In a society when the above structure is realized, contribution points can be earned just by the following actions.

Be friends with friends.

Eat a healthy diet calculated from the person's physical data, exercise, and sleep on time.

Send supportive messages on social networking sites through replies, etc.

Tweeting useful information on Twitter and other free but good actions will be properly compensated.

It is possible with Web3 Twitter, but there are problems with high hurdles and lack of freedom in designing incentives.

Work as an OSS engineer.

It is possible to create a society where developers who are not able to earn money, such as open source engineers, can also be compensated for their work.

While open sourcing, they can be compensated.

In capitalism, there are profitable mechanisms for open source, but you have to knead it in a limited way to get it, or utilize Web3 such as RetroPGF to make it profitable.

Municipal town cleaning.

If there's no one to take care of it, they'll automatically get more contribution points from supply and demand, so they'll definitely start showing up.

Child births, taking on adopted children, etc.

Housework and childcare

Volunteer work

Instead, if you analyze it scientifically, which is just sympathy and collecting donations for work, ineffective volunteers will be out of a job.

It has to be a properly needed charity to get paid for it.

Good intentions alone are not sustainable, but if you give half-hearted rewards, fewer people will work for you because they will think the amount is too small if they have to pay you to work for them. The number of volunteers will be more than the number of people participating, and it will be sustainable. There may be fewer people who do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but that's okay.

You don't have to do fundraising to get paid.

Professions that used to be determined by the government and not rewarded at all, or essential workers and needed but not rewarded, will be properly valued.

Doctoral students, supervisors, and reviewers will all receive fair compensation.

A neutral press.

In a free press, there would be no sponsors for the media, so it would be a neutral news organization, and it would be able to tell inconvenient truths.

Until now, neutral news organizations have only been able to generate revenue through fundraising and other means, so they have only been able to do so on a small scale, but the free system allows them to be neutral because they are compensated according to the degree of contribution they make.

But if a company were to rent out its slot to a media company as a sponsor, it would be the same as the current sponsorship structure.

When improving the level of happiness, there are cases where not telling inconvenient truths would be better for improving happiness, so the final goal of conveying correct information is set according to the rules of contribution in this area.

Since we are divided by ideology, the only way to benefit from a neutral news organization would be a contribution rule that values diversity and accepts people with various values?

I think it would be more beneficial to eliminate the need to write radical and extreme articles to gain views rather than a neutral news organization.

I think it would be possible to achieve neutrality because with contribution rules that are divided by ideology and only allow one ideology, all reporting would be pandering to the end goal and not neutral, but with contribution rules that allow diversity, it would be like neutrality is the end goal.

Psychological differences depending on whether or not people are compensated for caregiving services

When a human being provides a product or service to another person without compensation, the service provider is stressed (although, of course, it is often stressful even if he or she is paid for the service).

However, when they receive compensation in the form of money or contribution points, they feel obligated to do so because they have been properly compensated, or they feel that they only have to do what they are paid to do properly, which makes them feel better.

For example, in the case of caregiving, taking care of parents is hard, but the caregiving done at work mentally eases the stress a little because they are being paid for it.

That happens for everything.

The free principle allows people to be compensated for good behavior that they could not get paid for before, so that they can work without stress, take responsibility for their free but good behavior, and think about increasing their productivity, as in the case of the caregivers.

When a market exchange economy is introduced, both the service provider and the co-helpers can feel more comfortable, externalize their relationships somewhat, and free themselves from the curse of intra-community.

It is easier to feel comfortable with the work by viewing it as a job.

Taxes will be eliminated

Summary.

The elimination of the tax structure reduces costs.

Learn more

The tax system becomes unnecessary.

No need to think about tax cuts?

But the weighting of contribution points for roles such as government intervention set for each contribution rule could be the role of tax cuts.

There are two roles of taxes: "the role of restricting" and "the role of gaining tax revenue."

The "tax revenue-generating role" mechanism would be unnecessary under a pro bono system, since it would only be necessary to issue new contribution points without giving them away from someone else.

The "role of restricting" would be in the name of "contribution rule weighting.

The problem with the current tax revenue mechanism is that it imposes taxes to obtain tax revenue when it really should promote, not restrict.

Low Cost

The lack of a tax structure allows for a more limited product at a lower cost.

By being able to use the money that would have been taken in taxes to reduce costs, all costs can be lowered and supply can be increased.

No more tariffs, corporate taxes, sales taxes, or other taxes.

But you might have to hire people like bitcoin miners to monitor whether they are doing their job properly and declaring what they are referring to, but you could just give them additional contribution points and they would be hired on a free principle platform, so they would be hired by each company. There is no need to waste corporate slots by not doing so.

I mean, we also need a quota for hiring humans, but if we don't formally hire them and provide advice and oversight from the outside, we don't occupy a quota, but still allow them to advise and perform their duties?

In the case of hiring, with a contribution rule that requires a quota, do we gradually increase the percentage of quota occupied by those who work 00 hours per week?

No more taxpayer intervention and economic loss.

In a free system, there would be no need to tax, no need to redistribute, and no intervention by taxpayers, so the economy could run more efficiently than it does now without any loss of economic efficiency.

Tax havens can solve the problems caused by the lack of redistribution that is legal but which consumers originally received through tax havens.

The free market principle would prevent economic losses because tax havens would be eliminated.

It does not undermine the efficiency of the economy through redistribution.

Other Benefits

Borders are flexibly changed and determined by the laws of the complimentary principle platform, not by diplomacy.

Using a mechanism to make contribution points compatible, the borders are flexibly changed by using quotas to acquire land.

In the law of a certain egalitarian platform per contribution rule, the median contribution point earned for one hour of work by a person belonging to that contribution rule is calculated for each contribution rule, making the amount of contribution points for each contribution rule a compatible unit of measure?

If the rule of contribution A has 100A points and the rule of contribution B has 50B points, think of 1B points as the same amount as 2A points, and make the system so that the points can be used interchangeably to own land in the other rules of contribution using a frame.

On other complimentarism platforms, the person asking to be able to be compatible should be made compatible by determining how much he or she contributes to the end goal of the contribution rule of the person being asked to be compatible with the evaluation criteria of how much he or she contributes to the end goal of the contribution rule of the person being asked to be compatible.

Is the above also a good way to make the above methods compatible among the free principle platforms?

A mechanism to make them compatible and secure land would make it easier to secure land when a new country is set up.

It would also create a mechanism to challenge without anyone's permission.

We can set up a new country and specialize in a particular community without asking permission from vested interests.

We can also create rules of contribution specific to those who do research.

No distribution required.

No need to redistribute money to provide social security, so people who once earned their own money and had it taken away by the government will no longer feel disgusted when they see the recipients of the redistributed money consuming what they feel is wasted money.

We can reset the current economy.

Since everything will be free, all debts, Japan's massive national debt, can be forgiven.

We could avoid the hell of a weak yen.

We could abolish restrictions on layoffs.

With the free principle, most contribution rules would allow for free layoffs at the touch of a button, and since they would only be gathered on a project-by-project basis, there would be no more rigid labor markets.

Ideally, termination restrictions should be enough to prevent the problem of people being fired and becoming unemployed, thereby exiting the labor market and reducing the labor force?

Increased labor market mobility.

It would eliminate the problems caused by low human mobility.

Projects would be free to come and go as they please or be performance-based.

Bosses will no longer have the upper hand.

Because the system will determine the evaluation of subordinates rather than the bosses in a complimentary system, there will no longer be promotions or raises if they do not pander to the bosses, and the bosses and HR will not intervene in the evaluation process by making their contribution to the ultimate goal a priority.

Currently, the superior's dominance can cause subordinates to shrink and not be productive, but this can be solved.

Bosses will have absolutely no dominance over their subordinates in all situations, and will be on an equal footing with their subordinates, making it a profession for those who are skilled in management.

Maybe we can solve the market failure.

Market Failures

"monopoly," "information asymmetry," "externalities," "public goods."

The solution to "monopoly" is to increase interoperability, so that even if each offers something, if you look at the whole, it's as if one has a monopoly, so the situation looks monopolistic, but the disadvantages of monopoly in market failure can be eliminated.

Since everything will be open source, the disadvantage of monopoly can be eliminated to some extent by itself.

It can quickly migrate to every other contribution rule, and the interoperability of services makes the problem of monopoly completely nonexistent.

If a company wants to get the assets it owns, it can simply offer more than the quota it uses.

The solution to "information asymmetry" would be to make all information open source, so that information asymmetry would be eliminated by software recommending appropriate options for humans.

This would also make it easier for anyone to see all the information that real estate bait and switch and all the information that real estate encloses.

The solution for "public goods" would be a system that rewards those who provide public goods without using quotas, if they are goods that everyone with non-excludability can obtain on their own.

A good that has both or one of non-excludability and non-competitiveness.

If a particular person is allowed to benefit from a good, those who do not pay for it will be able to take advantage of it as well, so they will only benefit from it. The problem of free riders (free rider) occurs, resulting in an oversupply and a phenomenon that makes it difficult for beneficial public goods to be created.

National defense, police, and dams are examples of pure public goods.

Free-riders can be reduced to zero through the free principle.

The solution to the "externality" is described in the Summary of the Free Rider Principle.

Not giving humans the right to set prices.

Currently, the price of a commodity is not determined by supply and demand alone, but by irrational and wrong decisions, which is fine if the price is set rationally, taking other factors into account.

For example, selling a product at a lower price because you have a good relationship with your supplier, taking extra money to stabilize the product for a long time, or some other human intervention.

With the free principle, then, the price becomes determined by the winning rate (the percentage of people who win among those who bid).

Everyone would bid, offering to use their quota to get a limited edition item, but if they won, the lowest price would be applied to all who won.

So, you could set an upper limit and have the system bid for you until you get it.

That upper limit could be set to bid until the state that achieves the most per unit of the individual's final goal is reached.

The winning rate and price are negatively correlated.

Conversely, does this create a problem of diversification of monetization?

The problem is that since the supply side cannot determine the price, it is impossible to devise a strategy to devise a monetization method to sell the product.

Dumping and bottling will disappear.

Until now, the economy has been destabilized by wrong decision-making by humans, such as cheating with false content to forcefully add value, or conversely, dumping by one part of the population for good intentions or monopoly strategies to lower the price of the entire market to a level where profits are not profitable.

With the free principle, the economy will be more rational than it is now because price decisions will not be made by humans, but automatically by the platform, with the person providing the service unable to make any decisions, and there will be no more stupid human price decisions that add value through human deception or unfair dumping to lower the price of the entire market. The economy will be more rational than it is now.

Supply and demand can be quickly reflected in prices.

Even with current capitalism, the prices of salaries and goods and services are determined by supply and demand, but the problem is that they are still not completely determined by supply and demand because humans set the prices, and it takes time to reflect current supply and demand in prices.

The function of the free principle will allow the price (the quantity that occupies the frame) to be reflected on a second-by-second basis, for example, by reflecting it in the quantity that occupies the frame with demand and supply, all by the system.

The current method of determining prices has no basis other than supply and demand, and the price is set at the same price as others around it without any basis, or the price is set at the same price this time because it was set at that price last time. They set the price the same way as others around them without any basis.

The system determines the price so that human bias and baseless price setting is physically impossible.

Rather than a system, price determination becomes a demand-side-only auction with no minimum price, etc., demanded by the supply side.

By making the auction a system where the value of the item is completely determined by the auction, where real estate is currently priced the same as those around it at a similar price even though there is no real demand, the price will be determined by the free principle winning rate only for the part that is truly in demand, and humans cannot make any price decisions at all. Make the price decision optimized by making it so that the price is determined by the free principle winning percentage.

Eliminate conflicts

Currently, there is a conflict between supply and demand: the supplier wants to offer the product at the highest possible price, and the consumer wants the product at the lowest possible price.

The market is best optimized when these ideas are in equilibrium, but the demands of both sides are in conflict.

Therefore, the supply side also creates an incentive to offer as low a price as possible with the free principle, and a mechanism is created in which both sides have the advantage of offering as low a price as possible.

Specifically, the supplier should make it so that no matter how high the price is offered by the supplier, there will be no benefit to the supplier at all, and this can be achieved by increasing the winning rate so that the more one contributes to the ultimate goal, the more one is compensated for one's services.

That way, no matter how much a company monopolizes the market, the supply side will have an incentive to provide as cheaply as possible, thereby reducing the disadvantages of being a monopoly.

However, one of the disadvantages of a monopoly is that the quality of products and services may not improve due to lack of competition.

We can create a mechanism to force them to dismantle.

For example, give every company (project) a quota as well, so that if another project offers a higher royalty than the quota, it can fork over one part of its production facilities that it has.

Currently, sellers are trying to compete with each other as individual companies because it is more beneficial to monopolize and differentiate between sellers and offer more, but instead of that, make it so that those who offer cooperate with each other so that they don't get contribution points unless the overall supply increases, so that interoperability is Create incentives to cooperate and provide, such as increasing the supply.

Create incentives to increase interoperability for all to cooperate in supply because the supply will increase if everyone cooperates.

It will allow us to do things that we cannot do with regulations.

You can do things you can't do by regulation because you can develop your business by the rules of contribution without certain regulations.

It allows you to do business that you cannot do due to regulations because you can simply move the rules of contribution to the rules of your choice.

When designing rules for contribution rules, you can also create incentives to design the best rules that contribute to the ultimate goal, because if you don't always make rational decisions, you won't get contribution points because you won't be able to contribute to the ultimate goal of the free-form platform.

Facilitate research.

Try drugs developed under less restrictive contribution rules and share the results of further trials with everyone, regardless of which contribution rule they belong to.

Allow people to see the results of experiments that cannot be tried under their own contribution rules but have been tried under the rules of other contribution rules, so that the research will no longer be regulated.

When we conduct experiments that we could not try before, we will be a society that tries them under the rules of unregulated contribution.

The reason why it is taking so long to provide a special corona cure is more a procedural and political aspect than a technical one.

What's taking time are the various experiments, clinical trials and procedures.

It's the politicians who make it shorter.

Try with that unregulated contribution rule and make it so that when you want other contribution rules to distribute drugs, etc., you have to evaluate the unregulated contribution rule.

If they don't evaluate it, it will not be distributed and they will have to do their own research from scratch, so instead of emotionally denying it, create an incentive to reason and evaluate the other contribution rules as well.

Even when recruiting people to do clinical trials, currently the rewards for clinical trials are low, but recruit them for projects and automatically the fewer bidders, the more contribution points you get, and the more contribution points you get, the more you get paid in large amounts, because you are only providing contribution points, so the funding issue is completely eliminated.

It would allow everything to move forward more quickly than it does now.

Research funding would be easier to secure, and the amount of funding would increase.

Under certain contribution rules, research institutions would be given special slots so that they could be rewarded just for doing research, thereby accelerating research even more by eliminating the need for taxpayer or corporate sponsorship or corporate subcontracting of research.

Furthermore, if others earn contribution points based on the results of their research, the researcher will also be able to earn points for their contribution, so that no-hows and ideas developed through more research will be properly compensated where it was difficult to get compensation.

We want to eliminate the differences in research funding between each country and each university.

It is a bug of capitalism that making a way to get people to click on ads is more rewarding than researching theoretical physics and contributing to humanity.

So, we want to make sure that people who study theoretical physics also get contribution points earned for their research and for using that theoretical physics to create the product or service for which they were paid, where currently only the person who provided that product or service was paid for the product or service. While making it so that the people who developed the product or service also get rewarded by getting the same level of contribution points as those who received compensation, but currently there is no money for research, etc., so no reward is paid, but there is no cap on the reward, so it is all determined by the free principle winning rate, and if there are not enough researchers, it is automatic. We will make it so that any number of reward points will be higher, and the above problems will not occur.

Streamline the national procedures.

If we do not thoroughly streamline the role of the contribution rules as a country, we will not be able to contribute to the ultimate goal of increasing the productivity of the free principle platform, and many people will move to other contribution rules, so there will be competition among the contribution rules to increase the UX of administrative work, and administrative work will become more efficient Incentives will work and there will be less of the current slow digitalization of Japan.

Even now, there is competition among local governments, but we would like to make it more intense to the corporate level.

The system should be able to automatically select and shift to the most appropriate contribution rule for each person, thereby eliminating the hassle and activating competition for contribution rules.

It will reduce the disparity in the wealth of life due to the disparity between the rich and the poor.

In the free principle, there is no incentive or reward to sell to a few people at a higher price, and it is more rewarding to provide as much as possible to as many people as possible without using a quota, so that the rich and those at the bottom of the economic ladder can live the same life by getting more people free than now, even if there is a disparity in contribution points The trend to make the rich and those at the bottom of the economic ladder live the same life will accelerate.

Even now, the rich wear UNIQLO and consume products similar to those at the bottom of the economic ladder, but the free principle will accelerate this trend.

This will make it possible to live satisfactorily with only a safety net, and if more people, even 0.01% of the population, take up some kind of challenge, it will speed up the development of world-changing technologies and save those who want to take up the challenge.

More competition.

Free principle is more easily imitated and good things are chosen than capitalism, so there will always be stronger competition than capitalism to create good things.

But there will be no competition between companies and they will compete to share as good as possible.

Free competition than capitalism, always sharing, imitating and extending each other, points will be distributed to everyone, and a system will be created where people are free to create what they want and provide goods more than they do now.

Because in the current capitalism, free competition is restricted by not being able to create what you want because you need permission from your boss, the government, or someone else, or because you want to improve but need someone else's permission, you can easily fork over if your boss denies you because everything is open source in free capitalism.

Thereby creating more of what you want than capitalism, one after the other, so that it keeps improving.

Even capitalism limits free competition.

I want to create a system where "each individual really gets what they want and each individual really gets made what they want"

Currently, what we really want cannot be bought because money is too expensive or because of government restrictions, and even if we try to make what we really want, we cannot make it because government restrictions and no-hows make it a monopoly.

The free system allows people to buy what they want without government restrictions and higher prices, and the free system allows people to make what they really want without being monopolized.

Always let them compete, always let them share.

We want to solve the problem of countries and companies monopolizing know-how through regulations and patents and not being able to compete.

Productivity will be higher under the free principle than under capitalism.

Reducing Unacceptable Disparities

Capitalism widens disparities through a system in which the more money people have, the more money they make, and the more money they make, the more disparities they have.

Free principle allows for a flexible way of calculating contribution, like leveling up in a game, where the more contribution points you earn, the harder it is to earn additional contribution points, just like the higher the level of a game, the harder it is to level up.

This can be done with a square root framework for contribution points, for example.

The mechanism for determining rewards by the degree of contribution to the ultimate goal of the complimentary principle is to incentivize smart people who can earn contribution points to make laws that benefit the whole, rather than smart people who don't make laws that benefit themselves.

That way, we can create a system in which those who make laws that benefit the whole, rather than those that benefit only themselves, can maximize their own profits, and we can solve the problem of rules being made that benefit only themselves the smarter and richer they are.

Furthermore, the more contribution points other people and those at the bottom of the economic ladder can earn, the easier it is for those who have more contribution points to earn additional contribution points to begin with, thereby creating an incentive to support those around them.

Pension benefit problems would disappear.

The problem of pension benefits would be completely eliminated, and there would be no need to provide pension benefits in the first place.

Health care, social security, and all other tax-funded services can be provided without the need for a quota as long as the winning percentage approaches 100% when demand arises, and the service providers can be compensated, and until the winning percentage approaches 100%, a special quota can be set up to provide the service.

This will allow people to get better if they are treated to the limit, without having to think about the issue of how much they should be treated while considering the social security budget.

The question of how much to treat would cease to be a question of money and become a philosophical or psychological study of how treatment would make the bedridden person happy if he or she is bedridden.

#economics #business #education #artificial intelligence #AI #futurism #robotics #science #technology #midjourney #stable diffusion #freeism #news

2 notes · View notes