Response to @positive - debate - if you see no blood, is that proof of no wound - non-voluntary system is force

To follow debate chain: me, him, this post - it began with his post

The initial post did not specifically mention Technocratic Democracy, but that was the position @positive championed once we began debating.

I have been championing Anarchism.   (others may pick up the torch or join in)

What you need is another layer of representatives that serve as auditors, and get payed when they find flaws.

That sounds familiar.   It seems we do that often, and it doesn't work out too well.   In fact how is that different from what we have now, and what has happened to that over time?

I do realize that is without the Technology applied to it as a possible solution. (or is it?)

Companies have to be set up with coordination from other companies (blockchain registrars and insurance companies, private notaries whatever), or I have to make arrangements on a peer to peer basis.

The main point is that we're paying for convenience, - i.e. paying for added time which we can spend on things which we regard as far more rewarding!

It seems like you are advocating for how things are CURRENTLY and what we have today, yet I know that was not your intent.    I'd say we have historical demonstration (many of them) where this can and likely would lead.   Yet, the same cannot be said for Anarchism.   The dangers and woes of anarchism as far as I know are speculation, and have not been attempted.    The dangers from systems such as you propose have historical precedent to show what can, and often does happen.

I myself have not discounted Technocratic Democracy outright.  I've actually stated it has some potential.   

Since speculation and what might happen is a popular thing to attack Anarchism with then I guess that is the direction to take with Technocratic Democracy in this particular debate as well.

• Who makes the rules in the technocratic society?  (someone has to program the initial machines and decide what is fair)
• Who controls those that hack the rules in technocratic society?
• Who is the new Diebold?

Who are the masters, and who are the slaves?

I think you make a good point, but you're 20 years late. Formal education is redundant in educating and serves as a daycare centre.

I propose here and now we do not use TIME FRAME / TOO LATE arguments in this hypothetical discussion.  It could be applied to either side on virtually any issue and is very subjective.   

With that stated, at no point did I state formal education.   Education occurs whether it is formal, informal, or both.   Furthermore, I don't believe ANY ideology has a chance of success without addressing the problems in education.   For any education to succeed I believe people need to be taught reason, logic, critical thinking, etc so that they are better able to handle information, rather than letting emotion lead them.   Emotion is a good thing and useful, but it should not rule our decisions.    Addressing this issue is important for EITHER of our positions to work.   

If it is too late then it is too late for either idea and WE might as well stick our head in the ground. :)

There is so much more I'd like to say... but I'm going to stop here.