You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Rule of Majority
You've written a hypothetical story, and filled in all the parameters, closing all exits, and have by doing so come to a conclusion as if it's going to happen like you painted. And than you ask; "What are your thoughts these type of things from happening?" Can you see why these type of questions are unanswerable? No one can predict how things are going to happen.
What if the 5% in the community provide their own healthcare and the 95% say but you still must pay for our community hospital as well, and if you don't we are going drag you out of your house and throw you in a cage. What are your thoughts on the 95% using violence to force the 5%?
I don't think that is possible. The exact reason why I choose a 90-95% treshold is because people can't reach that level of consensus.
Just look at Segregated Witness in bitcoin. It's just 6000 nodes, they can't even reach a 95% consensus, then how the hell can 10,000,000 Bitcoin users do it?
It is exactly this why you need high tresholds, to
notreach consensus, so that laws willnotbe issued.The only consensus that humans will reach will be on basic morality (don't kill, don't rape, etc..). Everything else will be left to individual choice.
This is my strategy.
My reply was a reply to edje.
Is your reply a reply to me or to edje? I'm not quite sure
Me neither, I was just replying to that argument, whoever said that. Just adding my view in the conversation.
Ok thanks :)
I'm very much ok to break open my suggestion for a real possible outcome of a free society. It was not my intention to close everything of. I took this approach, since as many times when getting in conversation on free society, no centralised institutions, I do not hear workable ideas around issues that will have to be faced. With blockchain technology voting can be implemented, and using @profitgenerator idea for 90/95% of the votes must by 'yes' for an idea to pass. I'm struggling with the fact for some really important things that needs to be arranged for any community where people live together, some percent is not in agreement. How does this work wrt the physical location of those? In the cryptoworld when eg 5% of the BTC nodes are not ok with a plan, they can break off and continue with their own rules on their own blockchain; It doesn't matter where someone is located physically. However when applying such model to humans, we have the physical aspect we have to deal with. I personally think it cannot be the idea for those who are not in agreement with some rule, that person has to move location to some other place. When moving is not required, even when lets say 1% is not in agreement with hiring security guards, how does this work? (see also other comment to profitgenerator comment and the link I provided in that comment). The security guards will keep for instance the physical location secure, therefor also keep that house where that individual is living that was not ok with hiring a security guard and subsequently does not pay for it.
Triggered by the video in the post, I feel generally when talking about the topic of free societies, de-centralised and all, there is only a message send out stating that anything central is wrong, but no solutions are presented other then, everybody shall have 100% freedom. The video ends with; Allow your neighbour his/her 100% freedom. What if somebody in the community does not allow his/her neighbour 100% freedom? That is something we shall recognise as something what will certainly happen, since we cannot expect every individual to be like that. Such realities shall be discussed and through discussion we must find workable solutions. When starting a new free community, it can only be started when some ideas are in place how to start the community. I'm pretty sure that when absolutely no rule is in place, the community will fail.
I adres a few things and I jump a little, I can't convince you of anything or even have too.
I'm very much ok to break open my suggestion for a real possible outcome of a free society. It was not my intention to close everything of
I didn't mean that YOU close everything of, but that your story is build in such a way that every possibility for the 5% or even .01% to have their own health care which they pay for, instead of the centralized, is closed off. That's only guessing that something like that would happen. I can not say anything sensible about your hypothetical story, I can't look in the future. You can give many stories like: "And how is this going to be done" I can not answer them. Sorry.
Those questions/story sound to my ears like someone, in the time when slavery was still normal, asking; But without slavery who's gonna pick the cotton. Could anybody guess that machines would do that in the future. And even if someone proposed it, would it be enough for the person asking the question to be certain enough to see the abolishment of slavery as an option. Also the machines probably would not have been invented if slavery wasn't abolished because there was no need for them because there are slaves. (slavery wasn't abolished b.t.w., it just morphed into some other form of slavery)
I jump a little to another part.
Why do you hang on centralized institution. What do you mean by that, do you see a supermarket as a centralized institution, or a private protection agency that work in an arbitrarily chosen territory, or do you want a NWO centralized kind of thing. Do you see a small self sustaining natural community as centralized enough, or do they have to obey all the rules made by some people hundreds miles away, or the nearest community which could be a technological community (their opposite) or what ever.
When starting a new free community, it can only be started when some ideas are in place how to start the community. I'm pretty sure that when absolutely no rule is in place, the community will fail.
Maybe they will fail. Maybe they will not.
The people that start that community will find that out themselves, or maybe a community start with someone lives somewhere with some ideas/rules, and people with the same ideas/rules move there.
What is it to me how, for instance, the Amish decide to live. Or some communistic community in Spain that live there voluntary with each other without cops or anything. Or some art community in Italy for instance. All those communities exist already why would you, me, or anybody demand from them, that they must have centralized protection a central hospital or even a blockchain vote system. I can't see myself saying to them: "You must do this or that cause else I'm pretty sure it won't work."
Well to close off I don't know how the future is gonna be.
And people go on living the way they live or they are going to do something different. I live my life somewhat different, that's how things are. I don't have to convince anyone that; "My way of living" is "The way of living", because it ain't, their life belongs to them. I can tell them about what I think, but that's it.
That's Cool! :)
Centralised protection came from an earlier discussion with profitgenerator and he mentioned that. Voting comes also from him and others who love the blockchain and see the possibility to use that for voting.
Fair enough and that happens all over the world, like ADM in Amsterdam. The discussions I had with profitgenerator is IMHO more about the moment we would decide to trashbin central government. Then it is not about 1 community here and there, but about 8B people in the world, or 350M in the USA, or 17M in the Netherlands and I just cannot imagine that we would live in lets say 17.000 communities of 1.000 people in the Netherlands, and when we would indeed end up in something like that, I cannot imagine all those 17.000 communities will live together in peace, like the small tribes of 2.000+ year ago could not live in peace with each other. So to transform from centralised to de-centralised requires a bit more than starting small communities without an idea how to solve some of the basics required IMHO.
Oh oh. I think in hind side I should have not stuck my nose in this conversation between you two .lol. It (I) makes things really complicated. I should have read the comment of you to him. ;) I check out before I make things much more complicated. Thank you for the replies anyway.
no worries :) Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Amongst the reasons I'm here at Steemit is to meet people (although virtual), to challenges my own believes and thoughts, to learn.