Just this guy, you know?
These are two distinct arguments, both of which are debatable, but should not be combined.
I disagree with #1 (I don't think it's comparable to forced labor or race-based enslavement - it's temporary and fairly straightforward (though not easy) to make exceptions and opt out) for different reasons than I disagree with #2 (I think there are aspects which are harmful, but that the net result is neutral or better).
I suspect there are some assumptions here to call out. mild levels of dislike aren't generally harmful, and are less harmful than mild levels of like are helpful. It's fine to optimize for a small number of stronger likes, at the expense of a larger number of mild dislikes.
It's really inconvenient and sometimes dangerous to be feared or hated by individuals with power over some aspects of your life. Your neighbors and family, for instance, are worth some effort to keep the relationship positive.
I believe the cost/benefit curve is quite nonlinear, and idiosyncratic to each individual, so there's no way to avoid thinking about it and explicitly trying a couple of different strategies to see what works for you. That doesn't contradict most of your explicit advice, and your first point that it doesn't cause much (if any) harm to be mildly disliked by many people.
I was hoping, from the title, that this was an announcement that there was some reward for high or (mild) penalty for low accumulated karma, to be followed by wiping out all karma and starting everyone even. Where's the reckoning I was promised?
More seriously, I'm glad you're willing to retroactively change the results of votes, and I support continuing to tweak things.
I suspect the future will be more pluralistic in many dimensions, including this one. But I think we're already there in some ways, and probably won't change much in others.
Most people don't store significant amounts of wealth in a currency. Investing is greatly preferred. I don't think that's likely to change.
Most people DO borrow in a local currency. Corporations sometimes borrow in multiple currencies. And almost everyone transacts in their local currency. Importantly, governments demand taxes in their currency, so everyone must participate at least a little in that format. This anchoring is likely to continue to matter for a long time.
The migration of value between investments (stored value) and currency (immediately usable value) takes a bit of time, and that time is likely to reduce in the future. My prediction is that large-government fiat currency continues to be the dominant transaction mechanism, but it becomes so easy to buy and sell other stores of value that it's generally only held for minutes at a time. When you buy a gallon of milk, you'll convert a fraction of your commodities fund to euros, make the purchase, and the store automatically converts their euros to their preferred investment, for 9 hours until they convert it back to pay a vendor (who converts it to their portfolio choice until end of week, when they convert it to pay their employees, who also instant-convert it to something else).
With, of course, some chance that it all falls apart and bullets (as a valuable trading commodity, and as enforcement for transactional integrity) become the key measure of value.
Fair enough, and I was a bit snarky in my response. I still have to wonder, if it's not worth the hassle for a representative individual to move somewhere safer, why we'd expect it's worth a greater hassle (both individually and the coordination cost) to create a new town. Is this the case where rabbits are negative value so stags are the only option (reference: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zp5AEENssb8ZDnoZR/the-schelling-choice-is-rabbit-not-stag)? I'd love to see some cost/benefit estimates to show that it's even close to reasonable, compared to just isolating as much as possible individually.
if the LW community isn't able to cordinate collective action, then it has failed
Oh, we're talking about different things. I don't know much about any "LW community", I just use LW for sharing information, models, and opinions with a bunch of individuals. Even if you call that a "community", as some do, it doesn't coordinate any significant collective action. I guess it's failed?
getting there is a hassle
That was my point. Doesn't the hassle of CREATING a town seem incomparably larger than the hassle of getting to one of these places.
Can you expand a bit on what you mean by "non-state governance structures"? I've long been a proponent of more local and individual control, and less large-scale centralized control, but I tend to think of it as about scope and scale, rather than about specific government forms. A multinational corporation controlling your choice of medical provider is no better than a national or regional government doing so (and in reality, they cooperate with each other to ensure profit without responsibility).
This is a variant (sometimes considered a separate case) of the counterfactual if - the hypothetical if. Or possibly an even more specific variant, the predictive if. We don't yet know what the future territory is - you may or may not drop the ball. It may or may not bounce (perhaps there'll be carpet there when dropped). The map contains a distribution of things that correspond imperfectly to the territory. The conditional statement that, for those imagined territories where I drop the ball, the ball will bounce up, is definitely in the map. Any time you talk about the "imagined" or "possible" or "potential", you're describing a map rather than the territory.
I think it'd be much simpler to find the regions/towns doing this, and move there. Even if there's no easy way to get there or convince them to let you in, it's likely STILL more feasible than setting up your own.
If you do decide to do it yourself, why is a village or town the best unit? It's not going to be self-sufficient regardless of what you do, so why is a town/village better than an apartment building or floor (or shared- or non-shared house)?
In any case, if this was actually a good idea months ago, it probably still is. Like planting a tree, the best time to do it is 20 years ago, and the second-best time is now.