In an effort to understand exactly how civilitics is different from exchange economics, it is useful to compare and contrast the two in various ways. While they are similar in the sense that both provide a basis of provisioning our lives, they are very different in how that end is accomplished.

The basic philosophical difference: exchange economics and civilitics both depend upon human self-interest to create what is best for one’s own situation. However, where exchange economics encourages an exclusively selfish motivation, sometimes manifested as greed, civilitics creates an implicit motivation to frame self-interest in terms of a contribution to the public benefit.

• Exchange economics is based upon an abstraction for the value of things so that they can be exchanged between people in a meaningful way. At its core, exchange economics establishes a financial balance-sheet for individuals who then exchange their wares in a market economy to obtain the things they need. Economics can be characterized by the question, “What’s in it for me?”
• Civilitics is based on the abstraction of public benefit so that additional contributions can be apportioned between people equitably. It is not based on any kind of explicit exchange. Civilitics expects people will freely give to society by rewarding those who are seen as providing the most value. In turn, this is a way to demonstrate one’s own contribution to society. Civilitics can be characterized by the question, “How can I create the greatest public benefit?”

Generalizations and inherent assumptions: Exchange economics and civilitics are both guilty of abstracting value in a uni-dimensional, scalar way. That is to say, they both assume that a single number can be used to assign relative value to very complex and varied things.

• Exchange economics assumes that goods and services (materials and work) can be measured in the same units of value; that food and land can be measured in the same units of value; that work to build something up and work to tear something down can be measured in the same units of value. We pay money for all of these things and we are so accustomed to the concept that we do not even question whether it makes sense. Is it reasonable that food and demolition are measured in the same units?
• Civilitics assumes that all human activity has relative merit. It supposes that the activity of one person can be compared with a different activity by another person and can be judged as having more or less value to the world or society. Not unlike exchange economics, civilitics assumes that the act of a person in providing care to another can be compared with the act of a person building a device or with a person performing art; with person pursuing some kind of educational goal; even a person destroying a building. Conceivably, various aspects of contribution could be broken into different dimensions of value (vectors), such as the value of serving others, the value of art, the value of self-improvement, and so on. But in its simplest form, like exchange economics, civilitics makes no effort to distinguish between these disparate things.

The basic challenge: Exchange economics has had many thousands of years to reinvent and optimize itself. Originally only a system for barter, it has become the trans-national electronic bank that drives world commerce. In doing so, it has needed to overcome many challenges. Civilitics has never before been abstracted beyond the family or tribe and it has not been optimized to the same extent as exchange economics. Consequently, it has some significant maturity challenges to overcome.

• Exchange economics has overcome many hurdles. For one thing, exchange economics has needed to address the problem of assigning value to things for which a realistic value can not truly be assigned – like love, human life, freedom, and dignity. What are correct monetary values for these things? With the advent of fiat money, governments have needed to address issues of hyper-inflation, economic depression, trade deficits, and other instabilities in an effort to provide for the general welfare of their people. Of course, money has long had the intrinsic trouble of theft, embezzlement, extortion, and bribery.
• Civilitics, at the outset, requires a wide participation from a diverse group of people who will take care to make reasonable and informed decisions. Unlike exchange economics, where value in the market can be set by experts, civilitics is based upon the ongoing assessment of billions of decisions by millions of people. The greatest early challenge for civilitics is simplifying the system sufficiently that it can be executed easily and effectively.

Overhead cost: Exchange economics and civilitics both require significant overhead when implemented across society to accomplish the objective of provisioning people.

• Exchange economics is based in money, so when governments need to do some activity for the public good, a project can be funded by taxes, assessed upon income, property, luxury spending, sales revenue, licensing fees, or in other ways. In the United States, we have a term called tax freedom day, which is “the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay off its total tax bill for the year.” In 2012, that day was calculated to be April 17. That is to say Americans worked three and a half months of 2012 (almost 30% o f the year) just to pay for government overhead and programs.
• Civilitics does not know money, so government programs in a civilitic system are run just as any other business in the interest of doing the greatest good. Government employees would not receive a paycheck. Instead, they are rewarded for contributing to society, just as everyone else. However, there is still an overhead cost in the civilitic system, which comes in the form of the time spent by people in assessing the contributions of others.

The following allegory shows how Heaven and Hell might be exactly the same – only different. In a similar way, exchange economics and civilitics are very much the same – only different.

Credit: Bert Kaufmann

I once ascended to the firmaments. I first went to see Hell and the sight was horrifying. Row after row of tables were laden with platters of sumptuous food, yet the people seated around the tables were pale and emaciated, moaning in hunger.

As I came closer, I understood their predicament. Every person held a full spoon, but both arms were splinted with wooden slats so he could not bend either elbow to bring the food to his mouth. It broke my heart to hear the tortured groans of these poor people as they held their food so near but could not consume it.

Next I went to visit Heaven. I was surprised to see the same setting I had witnessed in Hell – row after row of long tables laden with food. But in contrast to Hell, the people here in Heaven were sitting contentedly talking with each other, obviously sated from their sumptuous meal.

As I came closer, I was amazed to discover that here, too, each person had his arms splinted on wooden slats that prevented him from bending his elbows. How, then, did they manage to eat?

As I watched, a man picked up his spoon and dug it into the dish before him. Then he stretched across the table and fed the person across from him! The recipient of this kindness thanked him and returned the favor by leaning across the table to feed his benefactor.

I suddenly understood. Heaven and Hell offer the same circumstances and conditions. The critical difference is in the way the people treat each other. I ran back to Hell to share this solution with the poor souls trapped there. I whispered in the ear of one starving man, “You do not have to go hungry. Use your spoon to feed your neighbor, and he will surely return the favor and feed you.”

“You expect me to feed the detestable man sitting across the table?” said the man angrily. “I would rather starve than give him the pleasure of eating!”

– From Allegory of the long spoons