RE: The Goverment Is A Reputation System On Steroids
Dan hit it on the head. Competition.
When there's no competition and there's no choice to move from one particular governmental structure to another (and I don't buy any argument that says you have to physically change locations to participate in a different structure) then there's a monopoly on the de facto supreme group that is able to band together to form their own rules and regulations within a particular geographical location.
There is nothing wrong with people who want to choose to band together and WITHIN THAT GROUP coerce and take by force, etc. but those principles shouldn't be applied outside of that group or to people who don't want to belong to any group, if there are competing groups trying to vie for the some amount of tribute that they can extort from a smaller segment of the population.
But there is choice to move from one govermental structure to another. For example the Goverment of Argentina is entirely different from the one of Switzerland. In the same way the blockchain of Steemit is different from Ethereum's. I don't understand where you don't see competition in the current market. It is everywhere.
Geographical location is rather irrelevant to most goverments today. You can still be in one country and pay taxes for another. It happens in Europe for example and with every other legisaltion then globalisation becames more apparent.
What "should" or "not should be done" is rather irrelevant. Check the decentralised world. Should the DAO attacker exploit the network because he could? Groups set their own morals. They don't care how they reflect outside their group. This is why goverments fight each other and this is why many proponents of one blockchain might fight with another. We saw a lot of showdowns with Bitcoin vs Ethereum for example.
Again. I don't see how competition is not implemented today. Goverments will still compete with each other even when they implement blockchain protocols. Same applies to social media sites. The blockchain technology or the reputation system doesn't change anything. It merely appears novel for those who haven't examined it from a historical perpective.
It's not a choice if you have to move geographical locations to opt in to a different ruling structure. That choice is an illusion; I simply do not buy that argument.
So there is a difference moving georaphically vs moving digitally? Are we really going to stick on semantics that are as simple as "changing network" or "jumping on a plane?"
I would even argue that the cost/benefit analysis would be greater in a digital network since your reputation is not that transfarable.
If geography is the argument then it is not an argument. it is a preference.