Before I discuss the power of a technology like Rynda, I’d first like to spend a paragraph or three in (poorly-researched) defense of the personal responsibility model of citizenship, whose cardinal sin in my view is historically poor implementation rather than any inherent flaw.
The goal of the personal responsibility model of citizenship is to instill in the citizenry the idea that the benefits afforded by membership in society also carry an ethical obligation to be good custodians of that society. Typically, this custodial duty is defined in terms of specific community actions: volunteerism, charity, respect for the law, etc. There are clear weaknesses to this approach, especially in its ability to affect a healthy level of government skepticism. But it is important to note that this traditional definition of responsibility is not the only possible definition.
I would like to advance a different model of personal responsibility citizenship, which in addition to volunteerism and charity, places great emphasis on a personal responsibility to affect social change. After all, the reason that the society of today is (almost certainly) a better place to live in than the society of 1930 is because of the actions of generations of social reformers. As the heirs of that society, we too have a duty to reform and improve. This carries a multitude of derivative duties: to be as informed as necessary and to advocate through voting, for example.
This updated responsibility model solves most of the problems with the old model, and when one considers the fact that it is applicable to both conservative and progressive ideologies, it may be the most widely acceptable model yet. If we can agree that this model of citizenship is worth promoting, the relevant question becomes “How to we enable this type of behavior?” Here a technology like Rynda shows great promise.
One of the greatest challenges with personally responsible citizenship is connecting individual resources with needs. My father, who is a perennial volunteer at local homeless shelters, experienced this living in Japan: he had a desire to help, and there were certainly people in need of help, but because he could not speak Japanese, he was unable to find good venues for volunteerism. While language is a particularly extreme barrier, shades of this problem exist in almost every community. Atomistic citizens who may not have a predictable or consistent ability to volunteer often lack a good way to quickly become involved when they do have time.
Rynda works by connecting requests for aid with offers of help from other users. The goal is to create an “Atlas of Help” that will promote mutual aid between citizens. The value that I see in a model like this is in the ability of individual users to rise to the occasion is response to a particular event or crisis, or just generally on their own terms. This presents certain advantages over traditional service organizations whose schedules may not permit many prospective volunteers to engage in group activities. Rynda would instead offer a more Uber-esque system whereby user can volunteer when and only when they want to. By making responsible citizenship easier and more accessible, Rynda could enable more responsibility-inspired mutual aid.