Change the World using Minds not Swords
When it comes to changing the world, everyone thinks of violence, or a violent revolution. But that has never worked, nor it ever will. The last violent revolution (Communism) had caused the death of 100 million people worldwide, and has achieved little (Industrialization), which would have happened either way.
Every 100 years or so, recently the frequency has increased, a new paradigm shift happens. In ancient times, the invention of agriculture was a big deal, it transformed society from a family/tribal society, to a feudalistic monarchic society. Then a lot of time went by with no major breakthrough. Then the printing press came by, and suddenly people became more educated and opinionated, paving the way for democracy. Then the industrial revolution came, and eliminated aristocracy, but gave rise to a global oligarchy who has realized untold wealths, which gave rise to modern banking, and this corrupt financial system.
We are still under this industrialist system, but we are already 1 leg out of it. Because the invention of the internet, then Bitcoin, and then the whole decentralization paradigm shift, will be the new thing.
The new paradigm shift, will probably eliminate representative democracy, and institute direct democracy. Why not? What is the point of having politicians and big government , when technology already made them obsolete. It will also make the world more connected, and provide alternative income solutions, to those who will find their jobs replaced by robots in the next 10-15 years.
So this decentralization movement, is what humanity was meant to realize, over they whole existence. This is the real goal, not to look for Gods in the sky, and hope for a Heaven, but to actually create Heaven on Earth: peace and prosperity. This is the ultimate goal.
And the main highlight points are:
- Providing people with a stable income, online, through various job opportunities that will open up by the cryptocurrencies
- Achieve a global direct democracy (and hopefully transition to individualism, a voluntary society without government)
I may look like a mad dreamer now, but trust me, these ideas are very feasible. They won't be achieved by sword, but by intellect and peaceful cooperation between humans.
The current global power structure might look invincible, but we don't need to fight it. We just create another one, and if they join us and cooperate, then it's fine, and if they don't, then they become obsolete, because they fiat money is worth nothing. Either way we will achieve our objectives.
So let's make this happen! Steemit and other decentralized projects will be at the front of it.
The problem with direct democracy is that it is tyranny of the majority (mob rule). This is what the founders feared most. It works fine in some situations, but not generally as a rule. If there was equality of intelligence, perhaps it would work better. However I don't want to be a minority of one in a democracy with an average IQ of 60! I certainly don't want them making decisions that impact me directly. Direct democracy and individualism are mutually exclusive. The only political paradigm that supports individualism is anarchy.
I have heard that argument, and used to believe it to be true, but I have realized that it's not.
While it is true that mob rule is dangerous if you live in a community full of crazy people of say 30 people. So yes if 30 crazy people vote and you are the only sane guy amongst them, then it's bad.
But as you scale it up with more and more people, it is much clearer, and the crazy people will become the minority. Because if you think about it, it's actually the politicians who are the crazy people with their wars and other evil stuff. So outvoting them would actually make humanity better.
In today's society the biggest problem is political corruption, nothing even comes as close to it. So if the political class doesn't exist, then either way it will be a net benefit to society.
Also the IQ scare is a fallacious argument. And small IQ doesn't necessarly mean they are evil people. Cleaners have usually low IQ, but they are sometimes one of the most kind people, who would not do violence to anyone.
So the voting pool will be very diverse, and IQ is not the only factor that matters.
Maybe a transition to individualism won't even be needed, if peace and prosperity will already be achieved. And if the consensus happens voluntarly, maybe that is individualism already. Because here on Steemit, I am an individual, and I can vote and express my thoughts here, yet the decision making is actually a direct democracy, combined with voting power. That is very close, and yet I don't feel like my individual rights are opressed here.
Let me rephrase then...What about a community whose educational system was purposefully broken and used to indoctrinate the masses?
Thankfully that is going away, as most people get their information from the internet, and as mainstream media collapses, the news sources will probably be social media.
Now social media is still a coercive and censorship prone platform, unless it's decenralized.
So we should work 110% now to ensure that people will go to Steemit, Synereo or other decentralized platforms, instead of Facebook or Twitter.
If you're talking about a global direct democracy what it really means is China deciding everything.
Well hardly. 1.7 billion out of 7 billion is still a minority.
Besides, don't you think that western birthrates would be better if socialism would fall? It's all the taxes and unemployment that is the sole cause of this problem.
A direct democracy is not socialism, or it doesnt have to be, think of it like the bitcoin nodes. They are impartial politically, because they all have their common goal, but it actually works.
If society could be built that way, that would be wonderful.
It may be a minority, but it's not like everyone in America would vote the same as everyone in Africa. Hell, it's the reason the US has an electoral college. The rural areas don't agree with the urban areas on much of anything, but since the urban areas are more densely populated they'd run the show if it was direct democracy.
So you'd have 1.7 billion people voting for things that aligned with Chinese culture, and 7 billion people voting for things divided up among another 100 cultures or so.
No, I don't think that at all. In fact there's no basis on any front for that. Even if you were right that a purely free market would increase our wealth, which I don't buy at all, it would actually reduce the birth rate. Wealthy people have fewer children, that's been shown again and again throughout history. Poor people have more children.
Oh wait, unless you expect the eradication of "socialism" to drive the US into poverty? Well then maybe...
But it would still be generations before we caught up.
I don't even know what you're trying to say with this...
Of course not, Africa is not a developed continent. It's the Maslow pyramid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
You cant engage them in debates about philosophy until there are people starving on the streets. Those things have to be solved first. But eventually they will evolve.
That is meaningless. We have internet and cryptographically provable identity. Anyone could basically vote online. You dont need ballot stations.
Yes that is called decentralization. But also putting all Chinese people under the same category is a little bit racist. I am sure there are marxists, capitalists, christians, buddhists, and various other sub-groups there. I doubt they would have a 90% consensus on anything. Don't mistake the government for the people.
Not in that sense. Middle class and poor people would have more children, instead of 1 they could have 3. Now there are still people who have 3-5 kids, but they do it on welfare. And those that want 3 kids but only have 1 because they have to pay the taxes for the other guys, that is bad. So the lazy are incentivized to have more kids , but the hard working must stick to 1.
Besides having 1 kid if you are rich, although you could afford more, is simply quality vs quantity. And the only reason the government incentivizes people to have kids, is to maintain the pension system,that requires more new investors (social security payers) to join in, like a ponzi scheme.
In bitcoin you can have direct democracy amongst nodes, without them implementing any silly socialist policies like hardforking money out of rich addresses into poor ones. The distributed consensus mechanism, in this sense is not socialism. Socialism is always centralized, direct democracy is not.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the first half of Jan 21. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $3.27 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 21 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
I like your irrepressible faith in humanity. I had a wise friend once tell me 'If you want to make someone trustable.. trust them.' Your view of humanity reminds me of that. Of course I could razor your position apart, just as I could his, but there would still be a truth in it that remains.
It's not like I have a choice. It's not like I can just go to live on Mars if humans fuck up things.
We have to have faith in eachother, and work things out, there is no alternative if humans screw up the planet and eachother.
The stupid, the ignorant, and the easily manipulated will never become a minority. Direct democracy will not work without the immutable protections of the recognition of natural rights, the negative rights. If all people can be brought to a minimum level of comprehension and understanding of the fundamental concepts of the function of reality, then we could have direct democracy, and not before.
Before that we should do this.
I agree that people need higher quality education. Learning a bunch of useless stuff in school doesnt not qualify. People should learn morality above all.