RE: I've been thinking about the Oracles - Collective Wisdom / Collective Consensus
Hmmm… As always, Meno, you bring valid points to the fore. In my view, if there was a way to “code” the “Golden Rule” and a subset of complementary laws of like-minded truth and justice onto a given blockchain – perhaps in the form of some generally accepted “constitution” as it were – well then by golly, those subscribing to such truths and credos would be bound by the UN-DEMOCRATIC guidelines upon which such foundational terms of participation were clearly defined.
Democracy works sporadically and tangentially. Thereafter, it is largely a failure if not an outright curse on the existence of humankind. Pure unfettered democracy does not serve the interest nor protect the inherent property rights or beliefs of the individual.
At the end of the day, yes, individual character and the collective culture derived from such matters greatly if not exclusively.
What might bind such noble actions? To my mind, there is only one metric capable of achieving, imposing, and enforcing such a state of collective noble behavior. Quite simply, that metric is a social contract based solely upon an incorruptible rule of law based largely upon the Golden Rule and other natural laws.
Tribe-defined Oracles are not a solution in my view. A plain set of governance rules based upon a set of natural vs. man-made laws would be required to rid any such system of the ability to become corrupted.
As such, Rule by Law – not by man nor Oracle would be a fine place to start.
That makes sense, but attempting to sell that idea here is like yelling at walls.
Most people who participate of steem are all about voluntarism. Use the word law, watch them retaliate.
Ha-ha… I suppose you’re right, Meno. I guess if a small seed could be planted that might be a start. After all, in order to protect property rights, even in a voluntary society or one of total anarchy for that matter, a basic “rule of law” is required to ensure that contracts, both social contracts and otherwise are upheld.
I define voluntarism in part as conforming to “the Non-Aggression” principle, and in general keeping with a clear disdain and rejection of coercion on any level. I suppose that all too often, a great many of us are not precisely sure of what is truly in our best interest over the long run or more succinctly, how to define it, act upon it, and live it.
To each his own as they say…