If We Decentralized Everything, Do We Get Communism?
I was listening to the Joe Rogan Podcast the other day, when all of a sudden I heard a sentence that literally made my eyebrows rise:
“Should God be decentralized?”
That is the moment when one must stop and ponder:
What if we’re taking this decentralization thing way out of proportion? What if we should consider it in moderation like most things in life?
And more importantly, how would a project ever take off if everybody is busy arguing with everybody?
Because let’s face it, for many people it’s never about a cold assessment of a situation, but rather just want to be right.
Let’s imagine for the sake of argument that Tesla decides tomorrow to decentralize everything. That all the decision making should be up to everyone instead of following the vision of its creator.
So how could Elon get anything done while he’s listening to all the noise and trying to satisfy everyone?
Some people will probably demand the cars to be made exclusively at a national level and not outsource anything to foreign countries.
Others would argue about the cost, some folks would take issue with the design… Hell, some may even demand that the cars are made Gender-neutral.
You’ll never run out opinions, that’s for sure.
The point is, people will always try to project what’s important to them.
And inevitably, the founder’s vision will be lost in the ether trying to achieve something that is known as one of the few undisputed impossibles there is: Satisfying everyone.
So I leave you with a little dilemma:
Shouldn’t we trust the founder who have spent countless hours working on his project given his unparalleled detailed knowledge?
And not to mention, isn’t it his dream to begin with, and his vision?
Or should we start decentralize people’s visions’ as well?
On the other hand, do you think that we should put it all to popular vote?
Even while knowing full well that the absolute majority are probably lacking all the specialized knowledge and experience required to run those complex projects.
What’s your take on the subject? Let me know in the comments below.
No, not really. Maybe. Kinda-sorta.
The communism of the dreamers who want utopia is actually gotten to through extreme capitalism. (Whereas the communism of central-govern-cement is we're in charge of everything)
Any organization that is too large will fail the majority of people.
I mean, look at the DMV, they can't even do their stated job. And what they do do is slow and twenty years out of date.
So, to answer your question, decentralization is not the correct term.
The more apropos term would be power to the people.
As in, we should be building small community sized green/renewable electric plants everywhere.
Individual electric plants are too complex for the non-mechanically minded to take care of. So, really you need a specialist to keep it running. Thus the minimum size is actually about 100 people.
The global electric grid with one power producer called something like ENwRONg doesn't do anything correct for the users. It has no incentive to, and can't move fast enough for any change.
So, to answer your question, there is a level of decentralization necessary, but there is also a level of cohesion necessary.
And Elon Musk isn't the genius his marketing has labelled him as.
I think I failed at expressing myself on this post, it happens.
About Musk for example, I wasn't arguing about his intellect or lackthereof, it was just an example. The first that came to mind because of that weed thingy that was blown out of proportion.
Everybody keeps saying that since his company is public, his actions and behavior do not belong to him but to us as a society and thus he shouldn't have smoked that joint.
I just don't understand how much we should inject that "We" into other people's business and companies, that's all.
I'm obviously not for the central planners haha, I've always been pro-decentralization, and the case I was making is not about "Is decentralization good or bad?" but rather what happens if we decentralize every single thing, and if there aren't some lines that shouldn't be crossed.
Obviously, I have a failed to make that point. Or phrased differently, this post probably sucked :P
Thanks for reading either way and thanks again for your comment. I think in the same lines by the way, some level of cohesion is necessary, and as you said, not all minds are the same.
"should we" as if there's such a choice, ever. It all depends on what the founder wants, if his vision is to decentralize, well no shit Sherlock, he'll do it, but it's no one else's choice to make and implying otherwise is ridiculous.
Posted using Partiko Android
The point I was making is against the expectation everything to be decentralized.
Sometimes sentences get singled out, and taken out of context. That's just a figure of speech. Like when people are wasting time with some dumb shit, you say "Should we really be spending our time on that?" even when you're not involved, it's just a figure of speech.
Obviously, everyone is free to do whatever they please. Nobody's discovering the moon by saying that.
No. Well, not quite. Decentralization means voluntary associations and voluntary hierarchies instead of coercive central command. Some people may choose a communal form of association instead, others a market form. The market and its information network of prices is arguably far more decentralized than a communist central planning committee. Where there is a business hierarchy, employers must offer an exchange the employees value enough to make it mutually beneficial.
We keep saying decentralized world is on the cards but is it really i can't find it anywhere