Companies, Citizens & Government Officials

Players & Referees

Citizen-Referee Model

Simplified Model of Market Regulation and “Consumer Protection”

Abstract

The recent scrutiny of Apple’s alleged anti-competitive practices serves as a signal for a broader discussion about market regulation. This article introduces and explores the Citizen-Referee-Citizen (CRC) model as a simplified framework for understanding and addressing the complex interplay between market participants and regulatory bodies. By abstracting the roles of consumers, competitors, and the government to ‘citizens’ and ‘referee’, this model offers a baseline lens to examine regulatory dynamics.

1. Introduction

The trigger for this exploration is the debate surrounding technology giants, particularly Apple’s 27% web purchases tax. These discussions highlight the public lack of roles expected between consumers, businesses and regulators. I think the referee model provides a simple model for understanding market regulation, “consumer protection”. It isn’t that we need “balance” between innovation and competition.

Primarily “we” the consumers need to take more responsibility for our purchases. On EVERY front. Every time we offload our burdens to another person, we are doing a disservice to ourselves and our community. Of course we should consult, discuss and explore with each other and “experts” while ensuring we have enough of a grounded understanding to stand behind our decisions.

The ability to self educate and quickly establish first principles groundwork for any field which you come into contact with in your life is paramount to both your well-being and the well-being of everyone else around you.

Of course, there are instances when the power of a company(any group of people) exceeds that of the individual prompting us to need the help of a group we belong to to aid us in defending our principles and sanity.

This complexity is exactly why I have broken it down into an analogy with which we can use as a baseline for evaluating the field of business.

2. The “CRC” Model: An Overview

The “CRC” model conceptualizes market dynamics as a game involving two players (Citizens) and a referee (Government). This metaphorical representation simplifies the complex interactions into a manageable framework, facilitating analysis and policy development.

Even though more complex scenarios emerge, this baseline provides a frame which everyone is familiar and can agree upon before entering the case by case debate.

3. Scenarios within the CRC Model

Four primary scenarios emerge:

• Fair Play: Both players compete without foul play, with no referee intervention. This should be >99.9999% of transactions(1 in/1 million)

• Unfair Play with Referee Intervention: The referee steps in to address broken rules(laws) citizens mutually agreed upon, resetting the previous state as close to prior the foul play, restoring balance.

• Unfair Play with No Intervention: One player engages in unfair practices(breaks rules) without referee intervention, harming one player at the expense of the other, contorting market integrity. This is an element of corruption(“I didn’t see anything”) and is plaguing the United States today. Where enforcers are “selectively” enforcing laws.

• False Claim with Intervention: The referee intervenes based on inaccurate accusations, leading to an unjust outcome. This is also a problem, in the United States today, where big business colludes with big government. There is a misconception that big business can be fixed by big government, but the two are always colluding formally or informally to some degree. Think: Military Contractor Lobbyists…

4. Ideal and Worst-Case Scenarios

An ideal scenario promotes fair competition, innovation, and “consumer protection”, with the referee intervening rarely and under strict guidelines. Excessive intervention stifling innovation and inadequate intervention allowing unfair practices to flourish.

Even though there are more complex scenarios, starting with this simple model and expanding the framework helps us maintain a solid foundation when architecting solutions to more complex problems like ocean waste, overfishing, or air pollution.

“I think”: what we lack is a public square of meritorious debate and rule refinement everyone is obligated to understand and agree upon. Alongside measurable gauges for what constitutes fair play, fair penalties, unfair play, and unfair penalties. Public Scrutiny is the most critical element for optimizing a referee’s(government) conduct.

If we didn’t know what the rules were, who the referee was, or what calls they made and didn’t have the ability to remove them democratically or representatively, that’s more akin to our current federal state.

Have you read the law and understood it?

Do you know all the regulations you are legally bound by penalty of fine or inprisonment to abide by?

5. Current Regulatory Landscape

Today’s regulatory environment often reacts to market failures rather than preempting them. Remember 2008? Laws are fragmented across regions, leading to inconsistencies and enforcement impossibilities.

Even a highly intelligent and driven person can hardly read let alone understand and abide by the whole corpus. See the stacks of laws on this stage?

6. Moving Towards the Ideal Model

Transitioning towards a more ideal model requires:

• Mandatory Sunset dates for Non Constitutional Laws

• Automatic Removal of Old Reactionary Regulations

• Continuous Public dialogue between citizens and legislature

• Public Oversight of ALL Judicial implementation of laws

• Replacing “consumer protection” with personal responsibility

7. The Rule-Making Process: Optimizing the Feedback Loop

The rule-making process should be built as a self optimizing feedback loop, continually adjusting to new information, market trends, and technological advancements within well defined unbreakable limitations of those implementing the law. The philosophy of this approach ensures that regulations remain relevant, effective, and fair over the longest possible period of time.

There will also have to be an attitude of personal and public responsibility taken on by citizens, that WE as Citizens are responsible to upholding the law, and for bringing corruption and foul play to the public attention for adjudication. Without this attitude no civil society can stand for very long.

8. Conclusion

The “CRC” model provides a simplified framework for understanding and improving market regulation. By simplifying complex dynamics into manageable scenarios, it offers a reasonable frame and baseline for anyone to understand and analyze current market and company practices. The ideal model cannot be perfect but must be aimed at and moved towards one small step at a time. The citizen/consumer takes increasing responsibility for their own actions, and protection. Such an approach is intended to be publicly scrutinized to continually improve the rule-making and enforcement structures of society.

9. Future Work

Further research and testing is needed optimize the “CRC” model. As a baseline all citizens can begin thinking through disputes with this framework throughout all their unique industries. Next up we would want to setup scientific studies and experiments to examine how specific laws and rules impact the balance before being permanently codified into the constitution.

Additionally, exploring how emerging technologies, like Social Media, AI and blockchain, fit into this model, how they can help improve present and future regulatory frameworks.

This article aimed to present a simple structured approach to conceptualize and address challenges in market regulation by starting with a simplified model. Citizen Referee Citizen. This is a first attempt at a perspective tool for citizens, policymakers, businesses, and consumers alike to understand and address and solve the problems that arise.

“Who Watches the Watchers” Encapsulates why we all need to take some personal responsibility for our choices and actions in order to ensure common ground and agreement of which laws make sense.

I think a good baseline is Physical Violence. Everyone should mutually agree that physical violence is the core tenant of “The Social Contract”. If physical violence is perpetrated the contract is broken, null, void, invalid.

There are many additional caveats but in the interest of simplicity, physical violence would seem to be an obvious baseline. No civil society can function when someone of some group claims the right to your flesh…

Again my aim was to come up with simple, easy to understand model which can be used to build upon while enabling everyone to understand and come to mutual agreement. Consensus being the ideal for a representative approval vote.