The guide · the whole system, step by step, in about 20 minutes
The more you know, the more your vote counts.
Infocracy is a proposed political system in which decisions are made by people who understand the issue — and anyone can gain that understanding. Your influence does not come from wealth, fame or party membership. It reflects what you know about the issue, multiplied by your ethical standing.
The shortest possible answer
Today, in a decision about your town’s treatment plant, an engineer who has built such plants for twenty years has the same vote as someone who first heard about the issue yesterday. The better campaign can win instead of the better solution. Infocracy changes one thing: your vote on each issue carries weight according to how much you actually know about it. Not how much you claim to know, but what you demonstrate in an open assessment. Ethical conduct matters too. Professional politicians cease to be needed: people decide for themselves, each where they have knowledge. This does not exist anywhere yet. It is a proposal, not a description of the world.
This is the 30-second summary, suitable for reading aloud. The three-minute version takes you through six connected scenes with examples you can adjust. The rest of this page is the twenty-minute version.
First, an honest introduction
Five things to know before we continue
You have probably never heard the word ‘Infocracy’. That is normal. Here is what you need to know about what you are reading, without metaphors or persuasion.
A proposal for a new political and economic system. A complete alternative to democracy and capitalism together, rather than an adjustment to either.
No. Nowhere. Not in a single town or country. It is a written proposal intended to be built with present-day technology. Nothing here is a report of an existing system.
One person: Lucjan Izworski, over fourteen years. Not an institute, university or political party. There is no organisation behind it that you can join tomorrow.
Elections every four years, professional politicians, administrative offices, judges, current patents, today’s media model, and the way people gain access to machines and tools for work.
Your vote on an issue carries weight according to what you really know about it, multiplied by your ethical standing. Everything else follows from this sentence: how knowledge is measured, how cases are judged, how goods are produced and how money circulates.
The rest is a tour of the whole proposal, taking about twenty minutes. You can explore individual parts in more detail by choosing ‘Explore further’. You do not have to read in order. Words with a dotted underline are terms used in the proposal: hover or tap to see a definition. All of them are collected in the Glossary.
Before we go inside
One house, nine rooms
Infocracy is more than one reform. It is a whole house, with each room resting on the one below. Select a room to jump to it. The order matters: nothing higher up works without the foundation.
01 · Philosophical foundation
A match or a flame?
We have built the world around matches: scarce things that you lose when you give them away. Yet humanity’s most valuable resource behaves like a flame. Try it: select the people.
A match physical goods
Gold, oil, a slice of bread. If I give you mine, I no longer have it.
A flame information
A recipe, a design, knowledge. When I teach you to bake bread, I still know how to bake it.
See the difference? A match lights one candle and goes out. A flame spreads through the town while yours keeps burning. Information is not used up: it multiplies. And tanks cannot steal it. An army can seize territory or loot gold, but it cannot occupy someone’s mind.
If information is our most valuable resource, why have we built a world that treats it as secondary?
Three broken pipes
The house looks beautiful from outside. But three pipes in the walls are broken, slowly flooding the foundations. Turn over each card.
Three pipes. Three leaks. One common cause: we lacked a way to measure who really knows and can do something. Until now.
02 · The system’s foundation
A Tree whose fruits could be worth billions
Knowledge is not a list; it is a network. A headache tablet required chemistry, biology, medicine and engineering to come together. The Tree of Knowledge is a living map of what humanity knows. Its fruits are patents. Select a fruit to see how money flows down its roots.
This is the same Tree used throughout the portal. The ⤢ button opens it full-screen in a separate window.
A map, not a judge
The Tree does not judge anyone. Like a road map, it says ‘you are here’, not ‘you are in the wrong place’. It can tell you: ‘To understand quantum computing, you need linear algebra. Your score in it is 23%.’
Beyond the worship of credentials
Where you studied is not what matters. A self-taught programmer who understands algorithms better than a Stanford PhD scores higher. A farmer who has read the soil like a book for thirty years can outperform a graduate who knows only slides.
A living Tree
Remember when Pluto ceased to be classified as a planet? A printed encyclopaedia becomes outdated. The Tree can update its astronomy branch and notify everyone with related knowledge. People who understand the field decide on the basis of evidence.
Without the Tree, there is no common way to measure knowledge and weight votes. Nor is there a way to assess patents and support the new economy. It connects the system’s parts like a circulatory system.
Explore further The Tree that supports everything elseThe portal’s Tree module combines the same map with your assessment results, booking a UWI conversation and patent cards.
Open the module →03 · Your profile
An identity profile that says more than who you are. It says what you know.
A life-saving surgeon and a fraudster who robbed hundreds carry the same plastic identity card. In Infocracy, the profile has three compartments: what you know, what you can do, how you behave. Set yours up. You will use it in the following sections.
Your knowledge mapped onto the Tree in precise percentages. Not ‘I know a little’, but 83% in architecture and 12% in chemistry. Adjust the sliders to reflect your own knowledge.
Knowing how an engine works and being able to repair it are different things. A conversation is not enough here: you must demonstrate the skill. A master practitioner is assessed by another master.
The most important compartment. Everyone starts with 100%, or 1.00: a clean record and full trust. Cheating, harming others or stealing reduces it. It multiplies everything else: at 0.5, all your knowledge carries half the weight, across every issue.
A brilliant chemist without a conscience, willing to sell poison to anyone who pays: should their influence over legal substances match their knowledge alone? Knowledge without conscience is like a knife. It can cut bread or cause injury.
You are in control. Want more influence over your children’s schools? Learn about education and verify your understanding: your vote on that issue gains weight. Seventy years old and eager to learn something new? Go ahead. IPI is not a verdict fixed for life. It is a living record that grows with you.
04 · The transition
The bridge to a new system is called the Great Court
Where do the numbers in your IPI come from? Who records them? This is not a court with a defendant’s dock. It is a bridge with three crossings, taking society from the familiar world to one still being built. Voluntarily and openly. Walk across it.
A master practitioner assesses a master practitioner
You go to UWI, the Information Verification Office. This is not a gloomy office counter. A welder picks up a torch and welds; the weld is tested for strength. A carpenter makes furniture in front of people who know the craft. If people with verified ability confirm that you can do it, the skill becomes part of your IPI.
Notice who assesses you: someone who has done the work for years, rather than an official with paperwork.
Choose what to demonstrate to the assessors:
Not a tick-box test. A conversation.
Specialised artificial intelligence is available at UWI. Not one general-purpose model, but a family: one specialising in chemistry, another in law, another in astronomy. It asks, listens and follows up. It assesses whether you understand why something works, rather than whether you memorised facts.
You receive a score describing your understanding of the chosen subject. The AI selects and formulates questions itself. It checks answers against the Tree of Knowledge, while the community sets its operating rules through infocratic votes. The dialogue takes place in a recorded, supervised room at UWI, without access to unauthorised aids.
People judge people
First, we jointly agree a schedule of offences, from littering in a park to the most serious crimes, with a range of penalties for each. Everyone starts at 100%, or 1.00. The system reviews the record and proposes a starting penalty: the midpoint of the range. But that is only the beginning.
Each case is considered by thousands of people. They are anonymous to protect them from pressure. Everyone must explain their decision to prevent arbitrary judgement. Their votes are weighted by their own ethical standing.
Jan’s case
Range: 2–10 points. Initial proposal: 6.
Circumstances: stole food for hungry children during a crisis, repaid its value and apologised.
Range: 8–25 points. Initial proposal: 16.
Circumstances: planned, no remorse, a substantial sum.
Why this is designed to resist manipulation
Knowledge, skills and ethics records are not held on one server. Copies are distributed across independent locations around the world and checked against one another daily. There is no single vault to break into and no single off switch.
A bridge nobody is forced to cross
Nobody banned traditional post. People saw that email was faster and switched themselves. The Great Court follows the same idea: you cross when you see that life is better on the other side. First a few people, then neighbours, then a whole town.
05 · Decisions
Your vote reflects your knowledge. Here is the formula.
Tuesday, seven in the morning. Anna, an urban planner from Kraków, pours coffee and opens the Voting Portal instead of Facebook. Thousands of votes are taking place, from a park bench to energy policy. Anna does not vote on all of them. She votes where she has knowledge.
Hover over a letter to explore it. In plain language: your vote = your ethics score × your knowledge squared, weighted for each field relevant to the issue.
Why knowledge is squared
Move the slider. The area of the square represents voting weight. The difference between knowing a little and understanding deeply is not small; it is substantial.
Anna’s vote is 9× stronger. But Marek’s weight is still 900, not zero. Nobody is excluded from participating.
Why the ethics score multiplies everything
Two experts with identical knowledge scores of 90%. One behaves honestly; the other has cheated. See what E changes.
You can be the most knowledgeable person in the country, but dishonest conduct reduces your influence. Infocracy makes ethical conduct worthwhile through the way voting weight is calculated.
Cast a vote in Lublin
The wastewater treatment plant needs modernising. Before voting, you see the full financial picture. The intention is to make the choice informed rather than blind.
Choose an option to see what remains for other projects.
AI has identified the relevant fields and their weights; the community can revise these in a subsidiary vote:
Your IPI profile · You
Voting lasts three months. The minimum requirement is 1,000 people with at least 70% knowledge in relevant fields. It can end early if one option leads by 30%.
You do not have to vote on everything. When Anna’s town votes on reforming heart disease treatment, she can leave it to others. She is not a doctor. Let people vote who understand and care about the subject. A pensioner who never studied trams still has a vote about trams, though it carries less weight than Anna’s. The aim is to give participation meaning, not to remove it.
For local issues, the formula takes a step back
The examples above concern shared technical issues: treatment plants, medicines and energy. Many decisions, however, are small and local: a bench on Szeroka Street, a community room, a crossing. Here the formula alone is insufficient because it starts answering the wrong question.
Anna in Kraków may know more about urban planning than all the residents of Szeroka Street combined. She can calculate how long a bench will last and where rainwater collects. But she does not know that someone behind this window sleeps after night shifts, that the wind blows from that direction, or that nobody uses the bench a hundred metres away. ‘What is the case?’ and ‘What do we want?’ are different questions. Anyone with relevant knowledge can answer the first, even from across the country. Nobody can answer the second on someone else’s behalf.
For local decisions, therefore, the people whose money is involved vote. Not an individually determined group of ‘those affected’, which would require someone to decide who qualifies each time. A street has its share of community funds and decides how to spend it. The same applies to a municipality, region, country and perhaps, eventually, a continent.
Anna is not shut out. She can suggest an option, offer a warning, explain something residents may not know, and cast a visible advisory vote that does not decide the outcome. These non-binding votes are shown as shares rather than headcounts: ‘three million people disagree’ creates crowd pressure rather than advice. They are displayed separately for neighbours, people with relevant expertise and everyone else. A neighbouring street’s view may be relevant in a way that a distant stranger’s view about someone else’s bench is not.
There is a concern in the word ‘neighbours’, and rightly so. People living side by side sometimes fall out, and nobody should need a hostile neighbour’s personal permission to build a home. The local group has no such power: a case is described through conditions rather than a name, the applicant uses an identifier as in the Judicial Portal, and the decision applies to everyone in the same situation, including those who voted against it. The local group decides only what people want in their own area. Whether a fire engine can reach a building or a roof can support snow are factual questions for those who understand them.
There is another limit to the formula. In a group of two hundred people, weighting by knowledge can produce the opposite of the intended result: one person with a high score and two hundred without scores become one decision-maker and two hundred spectators, rather than a meaningful weighted vote. Such cases may therefore use one person, one point. The group one level above sets this rule in advance for an entire category of cases, never for a particular application after its options are known.
This follows from Infocracy’s purpose. The formula is meant to give decisions to people who know the subject. When the question is what people want outside their own windows, the residents themselves know. Applying knowledge weights where the issue is preference would disguise an ordinary choice as expertise and weaken the formula where it is useful.
Options identify their authors and whether they are local. Switch between equal and knowledge-weighted votes. See observers’ views in three groups, an objection from a higher level with a public record of reversals, and a cost slider that moves the issue between levels.
Open the module → Explore further How voting works, from start to finishSeventeen steps from submitting an issue to payment for a useful contribution. Why voting has several stages, what happens when there is no clear outcome, who checks estimates, and whether you can change your mind. Includes a simulator to work through a case yourself.
Open the explanation →06 · Justice
We had one judge because we could not ask a thousand people at once
Justice wears a blindfold to represent impartiality. Yet wealth can buy better legal representation, and an individual judge can be tired or distracted. We can now ask a thousand people. Try becoming one of them.
Case #4471 · Burglary · Participant: ID-7f3a9 (you, anonymously)
- Police evidenceCCTV footage, fingerprints and a confession.
- LossElectronics worth $1,600 were stolen; $1,275 was recovered.
- Offender’s circumstances27 years old, no previous cases, in debt after losing a job.
- Other circumstancesCooperated with police and identified the receiver of stolen goods.
You must understand the case before voting. You cannot vote without knowing the case.
What was the remaining loss after recovery?
The community agreed the penalty ranges beforehand. Choose within them.
Anonymous
Citizen participants use unique IDs to protect them from pressure. The accused person’s identity is also protected in most cases.
With reasons
Every decision requires a publicly visible explanation. This distinguishes a court from a crowd demanding punishment.
Weighted by conscience
In court, voting weight combines knowledge of the case and your own ethics score. Someone with stronger ethical standing has more influence on the outcome than someone whose conduct has damaged that standing.
07 · Information about the world
Three taps instead of one mixed cup
Remember the cup mixing facts with emotion? Infocracy separates the media into three streams. Turn on each tap.
Only verified facts: ‘Law X was passed. It concerns Y. It takes effect on Z.’ Full stop. Boring? Perhaps. But when checking the weather, you want to know whether it will rain, not how the forecaster feels about rain.
Everything intended to move you: film, music, books and culture. No pretence of factual reporting. Emotions are welcome when they do not masquerade as facts.
A place for debate, with freedom of expression. Anyone can speak, and their knowledge of the subject is visible. Knowledge-weighted voting is intended to give factual arguments more strength than populist rhetoric.
PPWPI: the accuracy indicator
News outlets display an accuracy percentage. Like a restaurant rating, but measuring how much of what was reported proved true rather than how good the food tasted. Mark false reports in this example and watch the audience change.
PPWPI = (all reports − false reports) / all reports × 100%
Lie, and your score falls. You lose viewers, then revenue. Falsehood stops paying—not because it is banned, but because it makes no business sense.
08 · The economy
A workshop around the corner, as accessible as a library
Informatium does one simple thing: it separates the matches from the flames. Material things remain private. Your home is yours. Full stop. Knowledge becomes shared, but every use automatically pays its creator. This is not a compromise between capitalism and communism. It draws the ownership boundary somewhere else.
- Your home
- Your car
- Your savings
- Your sandwich
Their supply is finite. They need an owner.
- A drug formula
- A furniture design
- An algorithm
- A welding technique
They can be copied without loss. We open the dam. Water flows. Fields flourish. And the person who built the dam is paid for every drop.
Build a table
A carpenter with no capital walks into a Production Hall. They do not buy a milling machine for fifty thousand dollars or rent a workshop. They do not even have money for timber. They have one thing: a verified IPI. Follow the process and see where the money goes.
- 1IPI sign-in: “can operate a milling machine safely”
- 2Machine booking: available from 10:00
- 3Oak from the store: paid for when the table sells
- 4Infocratic Patent: a table design from the other end of the country
- 5Sale through the Order Management Platform
No one issues an invoice or calls a lawyer. Money flows back through the roots automatically. These proportions are illustrative; in the proposed system they reflect the actual value of each contribution, measured on the Information Exchange.
Production Hall
A neighbourhood workshop with milling machines, welders, a laser cutter and a 3D printer. Carpenters, dressmakers and mechanics work side by side, learning from one another’s solutions.
Laboratory Hall
A spectrometer that costs as much as a house, an electron microscope, a clean room. Today, these are largely reserved for corporations and wealthy universities. Here, anyone with the required knowledge recorded in their IPI can enter.
Specialist Hall
Large-scale production without an owner taking the profits. A steelworks, power station or even a police station: the community votes on the budget, recruits people by their IPI and can inspect every dollar spent.
Anatomy of an Infocratic Patent
Today, a patent grants a monopoly: “my idea, off limits for twenty years”. An Infocratic Patent reverses this: it is a complete, open recipe that any qualified craftsperson can use to make the product. It is also a living document: others can improve it, and the system records everyone’s contribution. Explore its components.
The deepest difference. Under capitalism, keeping more to yourself can make you richer. The system rewards withholding. Informatium proposes the reverse: the more you share, the more you earn, because more people use your knowledge. The wealthiest would not be those who hide ideas best, but those whose knowledge is most widely used. Individual interests and humanity’s interests would point in the same direction.
The life of Jan Kowalski, a carpenter
In the old system, Jan earns only while making furniture. When he stops, his earnings stop. In Infocracy, each constructive contribution creates a small income stream that can run for years—even after he leaves the milling machine. Move through his life and see what remains.
At age 25 Jan receives $1,360 per month
These figures were invented for this illustration and have not been validated. The mechanism rests on a concrete premise: if every use of knowledge can be traced to a leaf, it can be paid for without an invoice, licence or lawyer. Retirement income would no longer depend only on contributions set aside, but on how many people someone has helped. It fills the role currently played by Poland’s social insurance institution, ZUS, through a different mechanism.
09 · Money
An exchange that reveals the value of knowledge, rather than speculating on prices.
If every fruit is rooted in knowledge, and every micropayment can be traced to a specific leaf, we can see something the world has never had: how much each piece of knowledge actually earns. Frequently used knowledge gains value. Less useful knowledge loses it. Transparently, in real time.
What should money be based on?
- shells
- gold
- oil
- trust in government
- the sum of what humanity genuinely knows and can do
A region’s value would no longer depend on raw materials or military strength, but on its contribution to knowledge. Other communities’ progress would become an opportunity rather than a threat: more knowledge in the system means more possibilities for everyone.
Order Management Platform
You order a table. The system invites qualified producers to bid. The lowest combined cost wins: production + local materials + transport. Anyone without the required verified IPI skills cannot bid. The product must always meet the patent’s specifications. Place an order in the Polish demo →
Work Bank
A project bigger than a single table? A funding round in which no single investor may provide more than 30% of the capital. Profits are distributed automatically in proportion to contributions. Adjust the limit below to see what it does.
The 30% limit: what goes wrong without it, and when it is too strict
A neighbourhood wants a woodworking Hall costing $200,000. Potential funding exceeds the target, but contributors have very different means. Adjust the cap and watch the three figures on the right: how many people participate, the largest share and whether the project is funded at all.
$0 raised
The Hall earned $50,000 this year. Where did it go?
Notice what this cap does not do. A larger financial stake does not give someone more say over what the Hall produces. Money is distributed in proportion to contributions, but decisions are made in the Voting Portal, weighted by knowledge of woodworking and the neighbourhood. Someone who invests seventy-five thousand dollars but knows nothing about woodworking earns a financial return, not voting power. That distinction between ownership and authority runs through every investment in this proposed system.
10 · Nature got there first
Bees solved this millions of years ago
When a swarm looks for a new home, its members do not all cast equal votes. Experienced foragers scout potential sites. Found a great place? Dance longer and more vigorously. Others go and check. If the site is worse than your dance suggests, they do not join in. A decision is reached when one site attracts a quorum. Release the swarm.
Quorum: 15 bees dancing for one site. Site quality is hidden; the swarm must discover it.
Nature illustrates an idea we often hesitate to say aloud: not every opinion carries the same value when specific knowledge is required. The Voting Portal follows a similar principle: influence grows with knowledge, independent verification checks false claims, and a decision is reached once an expert threshold is met.
11 · The world
You are a guest in someone else’s home. Act like one.
The basic territorial unit is not a state defined by politics or military power, but a Cultural Region: an area where people share a language, culture and traditions. Its boundaries follow the actual reach of languages and customs, rather than a treaty signed after a war.
You may travel, settle, work and live in any region of the world. This is a fundamental right.
You arrive not to remake this home in the image of where you came from, but to become part of it on its own terms.
Official language, cultural education, holidays and customs: the region decides for itself—even if its language has few speakers worldwide.
Over time, if you are welcomed as a member of the household, you may gently contribute something of your own. Always with the hosts’ consent and respect.
Moving regions: what comes with you, and what is already there
“Act like a guest” sounds good but means little until its practical consequences are clear. Jan Kowalski packs up his workshop and moves. Choose a destination and advance the years to see what he receives immediately, what takes time and what he will never acquire.
He brings these with him. No permission required
He finds these there. The hosts have decided
What Jan can vote on in this region on arrival
Look at the final row. It is the only place in Infocracy where knowledge is not enough. Elsewhere, knowing more gives your voice more weight. Not here: even someone with the region’s highest IPI and fifty years of residence cannot override the hosts on their official language. Culture is not a technical problem with a correct answer that an examination can verify. A system that measures knowledge must recognise what it cannot measure.
12 · How it could happen
Not a revolution. An alternative.
Who would introduce it? A party? An army? Neither. Infocracy does not begin with barricades. It begins with something more powerful than a revolution.
No one banned the post. People saw a faster option.
No one shut down encyclopaedias. People switched because the alternative served them better.
No one mandated mobile phones. They offered more.
One small community builds it alongside the old system and shows it working. Neighbours ask: “Can we join?”
One enclave and forty-seven neighbours
The four examples above tell a story, and stories end well when their authors want them to. So instead of a story, here is a map of forty-eight municipalities. One—the flame—builds Infocracy locally. The rest watch. You have just two controls, and neither is called “legislation”.
old system sent residents to take examinations Infocracy
Each municipality has its own hidden resistance: how much evidence it needs before acting. Being next to the enclave lowers that resistance, because residents can visit and see for themselves.
Set the improvement low and advance time: the map stays grey. That is not a simulation bug, but an honest answer to “what if it does not work?”. Infocracy has no mechanism for imposing itself against people’s wishes: it has no army, party or parliament through which to take power. It has exactly two levers: whether life there is genuinely better, and whether neighbours can verify that without asking anyone’s permission. If both are weak, the system stays on paper—as it should. Click “stops delivering” to see the reverse: municipalities leave just as voluntarily as they joined.
The Infornation Portal: the cockpit that brings it all together
One display shows altitude, another airspeed, a third fuel. Alone, each is just a number. Together, they let you fly. One phone app instead of an army of administrators. This website includes a guided demo of the portal: enter the cockpit and explore each module.
thousands of votes; fully transparent finances from street to country
Citizen ProfileIPI: knowledge, skills and ethics
Tree of Knowledgeall verified knowledge and patents
Order Management Platformshopping, producer auctions and public projects
Information Exchangethe actual value of each leaf of knowledge
Infocratic Mediathree streams and PPWPI
Judicial Portaljustice in the community’s hands
Where we could start today
Voluntary patent pools
Groups of creators sharing patents on infocratic terms, with revenue distributed by use. Open-source projects with micropayments for individual components.
Local production centres
Shared equipment, open designs and automatic payments to designers. The seeds of future Halls.
Mapping knowledge
Initiatives building the first branches of the Tree and the first UWI centres. Enclaves testing the system on a small scale alongside conventional businesses.
13 · Questions and doubts
“Sounds interesting, but…”
The author’s current explanations: dialogue at a UWI centre, Dynamic Truth and community oversight of AI.
Doesn’t this favour people with university degrees?
No. Infocracy distinguishes actual knowledge from formal education. You may be self-taught with exceptional insight, and verification should recognise that. A degree from a prestigious university does not guarantee a high IPI without the knowledge to match.
Who manages the system? Who decides knowledge levels?
The community determines the Tree of Knowledge’s contents: scientists and amateurs, all willing, verified infocrats worldwide. Votes on truth are not restricted by region, and voting weight reflects relevant knowledge. Anyone can propose a new claim or a better approximation of an existing one. AI assesses individual knowledge at UWI centres; master practitioners verify practical skills.
Will AI govern?
No. AI is essential but always assists rather than decides. It conducts verification conversations with millions of people simultaneously so no one waits for years. It identifies voting topics and sorts them into channels. AI randomly selects and formulates questions within a field chosen by the candidate, then assesses answers against the Tree of Knowledge. Through infocratic votes on submitted proposals, the community defines how AI operates, its permissions and its limits. Approved changes are incorporated into its configuration.
What about decisions that cannot wait?
The system provides different voting modes. Emergencies trigger an immediate-action procedure that is itself subject to a vote. Communities can approve contingency procedures in advance, to activate automatically under specified conditions.
Will I have to vote on hundreds of issues?
Absolutely not. You vote only on matters that interest you. Constant participation is not required. You decide when and where to take part.
Isn’t this a social credit system?
The ethics level is not calculated automatically by an algorithm and does not monitor everyday life. Only a collective community assessment in an open judicial process can change it, within limits agreed beforehand. Regaining points is harder than losing them, but possible through volunteering, community work and meaningful contributions. It is intended as a mirror in which society sees itself, not a camera tracking you.
What happens to existing patents and companies?
A gradual transition: patent holders could move their patents into the new system with temporary incentives. Conventional companies would not have to change their business model; they could operate alongside it, using Infocratic Patents or making production capacity available.
How is quality maintained without monopolies?
Producers must meet certification standards recorded in their IPI before manufacturing anything under a patent, especially medical or safety equipment. Medicines and chemicals are produced only in Laboratory Halls.
Three views from above
Everything above, seen together
The thirteen chapters above introduce the subsystems one at a time. That helps explain individual mechanisms, but not how they fit together. The three pages below add no new components: they place the same ideas side by side.
One person, one day, fourteen moments from the alarm clock to lights out. You make decisions at each step, and a morning choice changes your voting weight in the evening. Each moment has a switch showing its equivalent today.
Live through the day → View 02 · about 12 minutes Whole-system sandboxTen subsystems on one screen. Introduce an event—an epidemic, invention, false theory, drought or disaster—and follow its effects. Switch off any tile to see exactly what stops working without it.
Introduce an event → View 03 · about 15 minutes Three systems, the same questionsCapitalism, communism and Infocracy answer the same twelve questions, with sections on who decides, who earns and what happens when things fail. A separate section asks where Infocracy performs worse than both alternatives.
Ask the first question →These three pages are optional. If you have read the guide and understand the mechanisms, they offer no new facts—only a view of how those facts connect. The shortest is the sandbox, the most personal is ordinary day, and the most challenging for Infocracy itself is the three-system comparison.
14 · Where it came from
This website is the current source. Everything else records the journey.
Infocracy has no sacred book, deliberately so. A system built around improving itself cannot have a final version locked between hard covers. The current version is here, on this website, and it will change. Below are the materials it grew from.
Just CityLucjan Izworski
The New Just City an earlier stage
Nineteen chapters, from The Twilight of Democracy to A New Earth. The prologue opens with two voices: a surgeon with thirty years’ experience and someone who has not worked for eleven years. Tomorrow, both will vote in a healthcare reform referendum. Each vote will count as one.
How this book was made, plainly stated. Its text was generated by the most capable AI models available, using material I had collected over years: articles and earlier books I never published because I could not finish them or arrange them into a coherent journey through the system. The systems, concepts and solutions are mine. The models did what I could not: assembled the scattered material into a readable whole. I disclose this because a system that puts information provenance at its centre cannot begin by concealing where its own book came from.
A snapshot, not the definitive version. The core principles match this website, but the author has since replaced some specific solutions with better ones. Where the book and website differ, the website is current. That is the price of a system allowed to change its mind.
Contents of that version:
- The twilight of democracy
- The economic trap
- Blind justice
- What nature always knew
- The Tree of Knowledge
- Your digital profile
- Three trials
- The Voting Portal
- The Judicial Portal
- Three branches of media
- One world, many cultures
- Informatium
- The Infocratic Patent
- Production Halls
- Automatic remuneration
- The Information Exchange
- The Infornation Portal
- How to begin
- A new dawn
Article series source material
Six Polish articles, from the flame to the neighbourhood workshop, plus English articles on individual subsystems. They grew into the book, then this website.
- 01It all begins with one thing. And it is not money.
- 02A tree bearing fruit worth billions
- 03Your new ID tells people not just who you are, but what you know.
- 04The bridge to a new world is called the Great Court
- 05Your vote weighs exactly as much as you know. Here is the formula.
- 06A workshop around the corner, as accessible as a library
- ENThe Twilight of Democracy · Informatium · The Infocratic Patent · Intelligent Anarchy · Dynamic Truth · Cultural Regions…
Links to the full texts will appear here when the publications are connected.
Why I am open about this. It would be easier to put the book centre stage and say “it is all in there”. But a system that asks everyone to revise their rules would then have one untouchable version of its own. So: the book records a stage, the articles are source material, and what you are reading now is the only current version. Found somewhere an outdated idea survives because I have not corrected it here? Write to me—that is precisely the work still needed.
15 · Contact
This project needs three things now
Criticswho can find the gaps. Builderswho can create the first prototype. And readerswho can identify the sentence where they got lost. There is no form or sign-up. Just one email address and five doors. Choose yours and a draft will take shape.
A standard email link opens your mail app with a subject and draft. Nothing is sent without your action, and we store nothing on our side.