We need these sorts of tools to enable us to inhabit and survive in electronic networks. While constructing and developing the tools is most interesting the emergent properties of the “agent” systems are even more interesting.

We have started to write a book on the subject – see Chapter 1 at http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/a-solution-to-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-chapter-1/ but we keep finding better ways of changing the systems to achieve the same result of fixing the economic “tragedy of the commons”.

The latest can be seen at http://stableproductivemoney.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/changing-the-way-we-increase-the-money-supply/ . What this does is to give a mechanism whereby everyone can communicate through the language of money exchange for our society to achieve common purposes – like build a national broadband network.

That is, one way to understand what we are trying to build are systems where agents communicate in quite simple ways and where the organism that we create exhibit interesting emergent properties. In economic systems the method of communication is money. The syntax is the rules we put on how money is manipulated and used. The meaning arises from the outcomes of the communication.

One area that I would like to explore more – and we now have the tools to build – is the idea of the method of communication we call the vote. I would like to see what would happen if we set up a richer syntax for how votes can be used and observe the outcomes. I think this is important to bring more order and diversity out of the communication system we call politics. So an example might be the same model we have for money which is used to allocate the ownership of resources. We can think of votes as a way to allocate political influence. Instead of one vote for one purpose used once every three years let each person be issued with 1000 votes each year that can be used to decide issues. Let votes depreciate with age but let them be allowed to accumulate. Votes are to be used to help decide a range of issues but let there be a limit on how many each person can use. If you are particularly passionate about an issue then you can use your votes directly or you can direct your votes to be used by your representative. Of your 1000 votes you might decide to use 500 of them on “right to life” matters and 500 on the control of poker machines – or you could use them on issues associated with reducing ghg emissions or education. That is what I am suggesting is that we need to find other ways of communicating “en masse” other than simply replicate the current political system which is designed around physical constraints on communication that no longer exist. I am interested in providing these tools.