Summary to the point. I had an idea in to run with in this blog but if I put a gps tracker on on it then it would reveal that I was running all over the playing field. Sometimes headed for the goal to the extent that any spectator watching the play on the field would wonder where the goal was as well as the name of game. For clarification I have later added the following in bold as I Monday morning quarterbacked it.
Who is on First? First thing is to name the players and identify their unique attributes associated with their role in the game and relationships. It is (or is it?) a simple matter (or is it?) of defining (or proclaiming) Object Oriented Parent Class and Child of the Parent Class relationships and attributes.
Start Monday morning quarterbacking of what I wrote yesterday and follows the conclusion of this analysis
Money Game Players:
Money is a a Child Class of the Parent Class: Medium of Exchange
People is a Parent Class in an Object Oriented Parent/Child relationship structure.
People Play (with) Money.
Parsing the previous sentence: People is the the Subject noun. Play is the implementing verb. Money is the object noun. Play is the action that relates the Subject to the Object and gives it some relationship meaning. The verb action nature of the play is Transaction. That applies when Money is in the conditional state of Transaction between any instance of the class "People" where any two instances of the class People are in a mutually exclusive conditional state of either Have Money or Want Money.
There are two children of the class People that share all attributes of the parent class People in the Money Game:
Human Being
and
Business
Human Being child of the class People has the attribute state of Living Breathing. When state is dead then Human Being is a child of the sub class of people: Business. Yeah, I know, crude but this is about the Money Game.
ParentClass:People:ChildSubClass:Business is any entity mutually exclusive of;;;;;;
ParentClass:People:ChildSubClass:Human Being that transacts with Money.
Comment: Yes, I know I am changing to a descriptive format not consistent with the way of describing these "things" not used previously. Its a progressively developmental thinking thing that starts to look like it is some kind of crude programming thing.
Any children of the Class:People play exclusively with and among any other children of the class and/or children of their class.
Human Being has no children of its class. By definition they are all distinct, discrete and equal in the money game. Any two or more instances of the Human Being class of People transacting with Money in a contractual relationship are by definition children of the Parent Class:Business.
Business has two children of its class:
People:Business:Public and,
People:Business:Private
Why?
This Parent:Child relationship is structured to deal with traditional entity relationship of Government and Business. I am unplugging entities and reconnecting them in different ways for different reasons. The objective is to answer the riddle: "Who's on First" or as I looked at in a prior blog entry: Untie the Gordian Knot.
Business wants to share attributes of Human Being in the Game of Money. Business wants to share attributes of Government and social governance (social governance being the verb that implements the relationship between Government and Human Being Parent Classes). that relate to the money game. OK, let's look at that Object Oriented relationship in various structurally connected ways.
There is a Public/Private conflict to be resolved here in the Money Game.
"We the People" is a collective Human Being enterprise for relationship governance. Traditionally viewed in conceptual belief (but always divorced form the reality of implementation) as the Parent with collective proclamation of attribute rights that are inherited to children of our enterprise maybe called Freedom.
Free Private Enterprise?
Yes, that too.
Business has always been a collective enterprise for relationship governance.
This is where the thought mangled by my own way of thinking goes:
If Business wants to have the attributes of Human Being then discrete unique instances of the ParentClass:Business must be as uniquely identified at the lowest granular level as finely and equal to the identification of Human Beings. In an equally exact manner of who, on an equally information specific manner, who the entity called a business is, where it is located, what it does and who it interacts with.
In other words, if a business wants to share the attributes of Human Being in the money game, and that is its only game, profit or non-profit, then it is subject to the same discrete indentification surveillance as any Human Being citizen of the USA. All citizens are subject to "secret" surveillance by our own government for our own good because it is a freedom and right to privacy that we have given up to protect us from an small number of "bad actors". There are a number of "bad actor" businesses that justify treating all businesses in the same manner as all Human Being citizens.
Yes, Business, you can have the attributes of Human Being citizens too.
Yes, Business. You too can and must be assigned an official identity equal in nature to a distinct Human Being surveilled in the same manner to collect all and any private information about the business and who it has what relationships with, not as an invasion of privacy but as absolutely necessary for our shared security and protection from those that would do us harm.
Ultimately all Businesses are Human enterprises. They all relate to human beings in some monetary system structure and exchange of ownership of goods and services through a medium of exchange. There is a key to problem solution there. Might it be total information all the time? We are certainly farther down that road for human citizens because other human beings want to do us harm and that is how we want to protect ourselves from them. Some specific business enterprises and structures want to do harm to us individually and collectively. Likewise we must be ably to know, when necessary and with controls, everything related to money about all Business entities and all the human beings they relate to directly as employees/benficiaries as well as what other business enterprises they relate to.
Trade secrets? They are protected? Are they like a person's rights to privacy?
A whole new assignment for the NSA.
End of Monday morning quaterbacking.
Beginning of what was Monday morning quarterbacked......................
What is a more uniquely granular entity object than a human being? Each is a distinct one of a kind. There really are a multitude of uniquely existing unlike any other object things in its collective class of things but to us we are most important. A good thing and a bad thing when we define our relationships to the other things in the world. Over time that definition has been largely in terms of the physical world. Now it is rapidly increasing its expansion into the conceptual world of information and what we do with it.
We, individually as human beings are becoming more uniquely identified in information systems. Information systems like the computers they exist on reduce ambiguity. Which Joe Doe are we talking about. Where Joe lives, his age, eye color driver license serve to uniquely identify him. Biometric information identifies him beyond a shadow of a doubt.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/08/the-fbi-wants-your-face-and-fingerprints/
Where is this going?
We are becoming increasingly more defined as unique individuals. It has been a progression from being defined by things we are associated with, like a name, age, occupation, telephone number, address to things that we are: Our biometrics and there are many of them that uniquely identify us.
Biometric identification is progressive. More markers and detection is accumulating at a greater sensor distance of time and space as well as the here and now real time of a uniquely identified individual. Tracks of where and when we are located in real time and space become the historical record of where we were and increasingly why. The volume of the historical record grows as more real time information grows and is maintained in history.
My concept of a Monetary System involves unique digital identification of every unit of money value and who owns it. Who owns it in real time as well as who owned it in history and who the new owner was in a monetary transaction. A block chain record.
The entities that conduct monetary transactions are individuals or monetary entities that are not unique individual people. People transaction with personal money they own are uniquely identified. They are becoming increasingly identified by biometrics.
Collective entities transacting with money are not as uniquely identified. They range from uniquely identified to unknown and untraceable. A situation probably often a function of design. Collective entities are public or private. Public ones are well defined. Private ones are business either for profit or non profit. Some are well defined others obscure as far as their links to the money they transact with in real time as well as in past history.
In order to have full information control of the monetary system all entities beyond unique individuals that transact with money in their personal account must be as uniquely identified directly to the money to which they claim ownership.
Maybe only the first direct link of a non-human being money transacting entity need be known? In a block chain record of all transactions of all entities each entity receiving money becomes known. A shell company might be the direct link to an account that receives or spends money in my monetary system but knowing where the money trail goes from there tells all.
Money only changes ownership for goods or services or is a charitable donation or gift. Giving something for nothing. The exception of the money world both private individuals or collective monetary entities.
All "Collective Monetary Entities" dealing with money must be identified as conclusively as individual people. They must have the equivalent of biomarkers to identify them and perhaps more evidence of the good or service they are exchanging for money than is required of most individuals. Individuals that are paid a wage or salary for the good or service they provide.
No comments:
Post a Comment