On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 8:57 PM, nichdel <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm currently looking into changes to organizations and agencies to
>> > simplify
>> > and bring them in line with the new economy. Could either include a
>> > contract
>> > system with that, or (the 'free market solution') someone could make an
>> > organization that emulates contracts by holding payments.
>>
>> I'm strongly of the opinion that we should have a contract system
>> that's actually binding. If you don't mind, I might try to write this
>> myself. I've gotta take a look through the archives and think about
>> it, so I'm not sure yet.
>
> You can start very simply with Rule 2450. A "pledge" could
> be an entire contract or pseudo-organization.
You know, I had an idea. For some reason I don't think people will
like this, but... I was just looking at the January 2010 contract
system. And it's possible to reenact that. If you want it to work
cleanly, you have to reenact several seemingly unrelated areas of the
rules, but all of them look fun in their own rights. I'm writing up a
proposal now, both copying and tweaking. Here's what we could reenact:
1) The judicial system (Criminal and Equity cases)
2) Assets (and currencies) (You could probably get by without this
bit, but why would you want to?)
3) Contracts
I can write up my own contract system if I have to. Believe me, I'm
not just trying to avoid the work. Making these old systems work
without their entire ruleset is almost as hard as making a minimal new
system. But I'd like to know why these systems were repealed, when it
looks like they opened up so many possibilities? They seem to have
allowed for much more interesting activity then we have now. I would
also like to solicit approval for reenacting some of this in general,
before I write up a proposal and we move on to specific debate.
-Aris
