Editing DGF transcendent values (section)

== Practicalities ==
There are metaphysical realities that influence the boundaries between the poles in each of the 3 areas. We give a few examples to illustrate the proper expression of these values.

=== Ownership values example ===
For example, for the pole between equity control of essentials and meritocratic competition for inessentials,  laws of economics suggest that [[wikipedia:Economics_of_networks|networked technologies]] should be given preference for being considered as essentials and their products should be shared equitably. The products of networked technologies are not scarce economic goods. Freedom in the development of networked technologies therefore inevitably leads to monopolies due to the network effect. Scarce economic goods follow laws of economics that lead to positive outcomes from free competition. Therefore the design of DGF includes individual rewards for the scarce resource of personal conscious labor (see [[Work Smart Contract]] design and [[DGF workflow]]).

The decentralization of power is a value, because we believe it will make humanity more effective, more efficient, and more egalitarian. Giving people more power does not necessarily mean that improves their nature, nor their material circumstances, as many political developments throughout history have displayed.

=== Knowledge values example ===
Our values concerning the control of information in a DAO breaks along the lines of individual privacy and group (bureaucratic) transparency. As a practical instantiation of these values, consider the case of a [[Judicial governance|judicial action]].

When a dispute arises and judicial action occurs, the group is in charge of the outcome, ultimately. Therefore since we value group transparency and individual privacy, the design of the protocols for judicial actions should reflect those values. 

Typically, the behavior and statements of the groups should be transparently reported, while the privacy of individuals should be protected. For instance, the information of the proceedings of an [[Arbitration DAO|arbitration case]] should be in the custody of the individual unless they are found guilty—and even when they are found guilty, the group should generally err on the side of protecting the individual’s information. (Unless, e.g., the case is between two individuals.) Therefore, the individual should be able to determine whether or not the information from the proceedings is published if they are found innocent. In that case, the individual may publish information about the behavior of the court during the case, but the group should not be allowed to publish the personal knowledge they gained about the innocent individual.

=== Organization values example ===
DGF's stated values on organization are for individual power and freedom and group harmony. Here we illustrate a practical instantiation of those values.

The group is always in tension with the individual. In order to exist, a group needs its members to sacrifice their incompatible personal goals to serve the higher goal of the group. At the same time, individuals need the group to give them the power to express their personal goals through the nurturing power of collaboration. A group needs individuals, and individuals need groups. The group has the power to stifle or nurture individuals. Individuals have the power to contribute to or disrupt the group. A healthy group-individual combination has individuals who choose to contribute instead of disrupt, and a group which nurtures its members instead of stifling them.

As one basic example of healthy group/individual behavior, consider the issue of transparency vs. privacy. The ideal individual contributor would use their IRL identity in all their online interactions; on the contrary, the ideal group would protect their members' privacy by providing secure encryption technology to allow people to contribute using pseudonyms without fear of retribution.

When a group governs itself, it is important to continually focus on limiting its natural power to stifle the individual. For individuals to govern themselves, it is important they continually focus on limiting their power to disrupt the group. Occasionally, individuals must disrupt the group; and occasionally, the group must stifle the individual. Those actions are the essence of governance. But they are signals that something is wrong and changes are needed. However, such disruptions and impositions cannot be the norm, or the group will eventually die.

Ideally, laws for personal behavior should be personally chosen, personally enforced, and private. Ideally, laws for group behavior should be group ratified, group enforced, and transparent. Personal laws for personal behavior should be complex and idiosyncratic to each individual. Personal laws for when the individual should disrupt the group should be simple and transparent.

Group laws for group behavior should be short and simple. Group laws limiting the group’s power over the individual should be broad and elaborate.