Network States

I want to know what the sentiment on this topic is here.

Should cities be driven by the common good or by profit?

Only the followers of /network-states  channel can vote

I want to know what the sentiment on this topic is here.

Should cities be driven by the common good or by profit?

Only the followers of /network-states  channel can vote

https://frame.vote/mYLYXrwd

@vocdoni, prev. Bitcoin Magazine | Purple #203 | Cohost: /diy /anthropology /vote /biohacking /cooperatives

Difficult to cast a vote on this one. What matters is efficiency of funds invested into commons + political alignment. Many people argue that a capitalist approach will be more likely to yield both over today’s model. So… both?

cryptoleft

I completely support the idea of diversity of social arrangements, for me we need even more diversity in the world (or more freedom to experiment).

But it’s difficult to me to see profit-driven cities accountable to their inhabitants and not to profit margins. If the goal of a city shifts from public interest to maximizing shareholders and investors value, I can imagine that in the mid-long term there will be a big disconnection between the city’s leadership and the citizens real needs. Especially in moments of stress/change/crisis.

Universality is key and to me it’s hard to see how it can exist in a city controlled by shareholders rather than its citizens.  When governance is driven by those who have a speculative interest holding shares of the project (and lots of times the peoele with vision gets replced by investment groups) the interests of the broader community are typically in a second term.

Do you have any thoughts on how a for profit city could find this balance?

My main concern is how, specially over time, the interests of the shareholders (usually millionaries, investment groups, big corps,…) would start to be disaligned with the group of citizens without voice (as they don’t hold shares). Specially in moments of stress/crisis in which I can’t see the shareholders wanting to preserve the common good instead of their speculative interests.

Maybe at the begining there is a phase of growth and some founders with a vision, and this could yield some equilibrium and benefits.
But in the long term is difficult to me to see a for profit city not developing as a dystopia, if it doesn’t provide political universality and mechanisms of counterpower.

I extended it a bit here too:

let's build clank.fun. prev: web3 founder, improbable, github, amazon. ntik.me

My main concern is how, specially over time, the interests of the shareholders (usually millionaries, investment groups, big corps,…) would start to be disaligned with the group of citizens without voice (as they don’t hold shares). Specially in moments of stress/crisis in which I can’t see the shareholders wanting to preserve the common good instead of their speculative interests.

Maybe at the begining there is a phase of growth and some founders with a vision, and this could yield some equilibrium and benefits.
But in the long term is difficult to me to see a for profit city not developing as a dystopia, if it doesn’t provide political universality and mechanisms of counterpower.

I extended it a bit here too:
https://warpcast.com/ferran/0xcb526717

realignment in those cases is possible (implied) if the citizen can easily move or “exit” with few ties to land - e.g. like the in case of california which is a essentially single party state