Giftmoots and democracy

I proposed we look to democracy as hte basis of financial infrastructure because we already regularly use democracy to allocate resources to people who have fallen into the gaps that the market creates. Here I want to elaborate a little more on what those features of democracy are that giftmoots could implement in one manner or another. This isn't an exhaustive look, and nor is it a specific prescription of what any particular giftmoot needs to implement, but rather an overview of the types of things that would generally be beneficial.

Democracy as equality

One of the fundamental principles of democracy is equality, though the details can vary from theory to theory: equality of rights, equality under the law, equality of political participation, equality of the vote. For a giftmoot, equality means that members of the giftmoot have equal ability to make requests for their needs, equal say in how resources are obtained and distributed, and equal claims to rights. In fact, there's no reason that requests can't be infinite.

Equal ability to make requests ensures that each person is able to indicate their needs. Compare this to an exchange economy where different people can have accrued different amounts of exchange capacity, allowing some people to have resources allocated to them independent of whether their needs are more immediate or desperate. In a democratic giftmoot, each member is able to signal their needs without being drowned out by another individual.

Democracy as rights-defining

Of course, some needs are more critical and immediate than others, such as survival needs like food and medicine. Democratic frameworks are also useful here, because they propose that some things are more fundamental than others - so fundamental that they must be protected at all costs. These vary depending on the theory of democracy, but often include the rights to speech, fair trials, movement and association. In most traditional cases the rights are “negative rights” - things that the government cannot do to its citizens. However, the right to a fair trial is perhaps a type of “positive right” - things that a government must provide.

There has been an increase in theories that promote positive rights, including in areas of security, healthcare, economic stability, education, and basic quality of life, including access to food and shelter. These rights are less about the protection of the citizen from the government, as negative rights are, but more about an obligation of the government to ensure the welfare of citizens.

Giftmoots can operate under similar conceptions of negative and positive rights, though, as they are not taking the role of the state, the manner and content of the rights should differ. For example, the giftmoot is a type of financial institution and not a institution of legal justice, so the right to a trial need not be part of the suite of rights incorporated into the giftmoot.

As a giftmoot deals with coordinating resource requests and allocations, the rights needed to be exercised in the giftmoot are the right to request, the right to basic allocation, and the right to be included in democratic processes.

The right to request ensures that people can advocate for their needs - without this, we fall back into the issue of the exchange economy where some people cannot signal to have resources directed to them. The right to request must therefore ensure that no member can be denied the ability to have their request heard and taken seriously (and, with the principle of equality, taken as seriously as all other requests). Under this right, there cannot be members whose membership prevents them from making requests, or conditions that are placed on them that prevent them from making a request when others are able to. This is not dissimilar to a bank having to treat with every customer who has an account, rather than selectively turning some customers away (based on age, ethnicity, or so forth).

The right to basic allocation is a positive right to ensure the welfare of each member of the giftmoot, such as food, shelter, warmth, medicine, and the like; things required for a dignified quality of life, participation in society and participation in the giftmoot. While not all requests to the giftmoot will be equal, and not all people will make an equal number of requests, the right to basic allocation will ensure that certain types of requests are prioritised. This differs from the exchange economy, where some needs can be over-signalled and prevent allocation to less signalled but more critical survival needs, such as when people eat lavish meals and waste food while others go hungry. With the implementation of basic allocation rights, the survival critical needs of members should always be prioritised over other needs, regardless of the voter composition of the giftmoot or other priorities that have been articulated. Of course, not every giftmoot will focus on the same types of needs, and the expectation is not that every giftmoot provide everything exhaustively.

Democracy and voting

The vote has been one of the enduring ways that people have made collective decisions. In the case of a giftmoot, votes could be a way to make decisions about the basic rights of members, how resources are used, and how the giftmoot works.

It's likely that most people will agree that there should be some basic rights, but not necessarily that people will all agree on what those basic rights should be. This is especially tricky when trying to define what might be a "need" compared to what might be a "want". For example, some might consider entertainment a right, and others a luxury; certain foods might be considered luxury foods rather than essentials, or different giftmoots might have different reasons to place limits on requests (for example, a smaller giftmoot might close during business hours, while a larger one might take emergency requests after hours).

Without any "true" or objective answer to what rights should look like, the best that can be done is likely to be what people can agree upon when everyone is included in the discussion and has a chance to openly and honestly say their piece and listen. Even if some people disagree with the exact answer, they'll know a few things about the outcome: that everyone got to participate, that most people think something of this sort is the right answer, and that the process was fair. In a democracy, these things tend to motivate people to accept the answer - even if only temporarily - even if they don't agree. But if people are excluded, if there are complicated rules, or if it doesn't seem fair - such as particular members of the admnistration putting their hands on the scales - then the outcome might be viewed with scepticism and suspicion.

Second, the vote can be used to make decisions about what resources to get and how to use them. While it is reasonable for an individual to request food and clothing for themselves and their family, it is less clear how this extends to more social outcomes such as creating a local park, building a bridge, opening a library, start a business, or similar, where one person would be making a decision that affects social spaces or consumes the resources that could otherwise be consumed by multiple people. In these circumstances, the collective should be engaged in consenting to the process overall.

In this manner, the giftmoot acts as a type of bank considering investments. When members ask for resources to start a business, the giftmoot can consider under what conditions they might approve of that business and give out the resources. A giftmoot might not want to allocate resources to a tobacconist, for example, but instead allocate resources to a bakery or pharmacy.

Note that, as a democratic structure, the giftmoot could vote on investment principles rather than on each investment as it arises, creating a framework under which each applicant would be considered equally, or could vote to devolve some investment power to a committee who executes those principles. This would allow for a chance to ensure that the principle of equality is applied to applicants who wish to start businesses or other projects, but also ensure that the giftmoot is not a burden to members by asking too often for their participation.

Third, the vote allows for members to determine the overall organisation and administration of the giftmoot. If a committee is formed with devolved power to consider investments, the structure and members of the committee need to be determined somehow. Similarly, any leadership roles, the scope of their duties, the frequency of the giftmoot meeting, and any principles of the giftmoot as an organisation need to be determined. Democratic participation performs two duties here: it is allows the giftmoot to function as the members desire, and it allows the members to hold the administration accountable.

For example, if a giftmoot is set up for a special purpose - such as to give voice to a minority or focus on a particular industry - it may be valuable to have overall operating principles that guide the purpose of the giftmoot. Similarly, leadership roles should be filled with people that the members of the giftmoot trust to adhere to those principles, and who can remove leaders if they do not.

Democracy and transparency

Transparency is paramount to a working democracy - it allows for corruption to be identified, removed or prevented, and it allows for participants to make informed decisions. As the function of the giftmoot is for economic epistemic capacity, transparency is required. Members should be aware of policy decisions, administrative decisions, request type and volume, and available resources. If members are to decide on reasonable interpretations of allocation rights and investment conditions, information on these matters will need to be regularly reported, available upon request and able to be scrutinised.

Democracy as knowledge-producing

Finally, democracy is a way of learning new things. Because lots of people come together in discussion to share their issues, interests and worldviews, they become collection-points for information, and when that information is pooled together people can learn new things about themselves, others, and their society - including new problems and new solutions. This is the focus of a type of democracy called "deliberative democracy", where the quality of discussion is seen as far more important than the idea of voting. Voting can be good for making decisions, but deliberation can help us learn what decisions we need to make and what sort of answers we can come up with. And sometimes, those answers are going to be things we could have never thought of without people coming together in the democratic process.

For example, a population that collaborates and engages through democratic processes will engage in deliberation - discussions where the perspectives and interests of different groups are shared and considered. Such a process or series of processes can have a transformative effect; some members will understand the circumstances and needs of others when previously they were unaware of them, while others will be convinced by reasoning that they have not previously fully engaged with. When different interests are brought together an understanding can be built regarding what is common between them or why they differ, sometimes pointing to a new conceptualisation or cause of the issue that had not previously been uncovered. Each member is a repository of information about personal circumstances and life experience - when this information is aggregated it can reveal new social needs, new solutions or new opportunities.