Hayek argued that central planning cannot allocate resources rationally, and always leads to totalitarian control of all aspects of society. He advocated instead the spontaneous order of the market, where each individual’s goals could be resolved through voluntary exchange. McAfee referred to Hayek around 37:30 as an introduction to prediction markets.

To make the incompatibility of collaborative business methods and government more clear, one needs to distinguish between the voluntary transactions of willing buyers and sellers, who only trade goods or services when each sees a benefit to the transaction, and coercive transactions, where one party uses violence to take from the other against his or her will. Government may use coercive tactics directly by imposing taxes upon citizens. Businesses may use coercive tactics indirectly by subcontracting government to transfer tax money to them as subsidies, to regulate their competitors, or to create legislation forcing ‘customers’ to buy their product. There is no point in collaborating with someone if you can simply take from them against their will. Coercive tactics are anti-collaborative.

You could have a restricted collaboration, say between politicians of different parties, or between a lobbyist and a politician, or between king makers and public office holders. But as you point out, these will be restricted and secretive. They will not be transparent to those parties who are the targets of coercion.

I believe, like you, that collaboration of individuals will transform society, particularly those areas now controlled by government. But I believe it will do so by gradually convincing us, one by one, that coercion is not a legitimate way for us to achieve our goals, and that our social dealings must respect the life, liberty and property of others.

(By the way, thanks for the great site! I arrived here after a google search for “MindTouch reviews” and have found your blog a useful gateway to Enterprise 2.0.)

Any collaboration by government would be explained as only window-dressing to support the appearance of legitimacy of what is, in the end, a non-negotiable demand by rulers upon their subjects. Or, perhaps more charitably, as a misdirected effort by a bureaucrat who does not understand the true nature of the organization he serves. So while we may get some tinkering around the edges with new software, ultimately any collaboration between rulers and subjects will be the same sort of collaboration that wolves have with sheep.