BY REQUEST I am summarizing my long post HERE.   If you want a longer read with more detail, please check it out.   I can get long winded.    This an ongoing debate between @positive and myself, with indicators others may be joining in.    The comment section just does not work for this type of discussion.

Tags: #debate #politics #anarchism #democracy

TL;DR - super fast summary Technocratic Democracy Maybe, Anarchy Maybe - Let's give it a try and see.

QUOTED Sections are from @politics post HERE.

    Although, I have no problem with representative government, more specifically a system of delegated technocracy. Where the educated and informed make decisions based on modelling that would fit their background such that their personal interests can be assumed to be aligned with that of the people they're representing.

    Though I support a representative technocratic democracy.

Technocratic Democracy.    I actually am with you there.   If we could come up with some inviolable rules to prevent corruption then such a thing might work.

I've written similar ideas in past years but not very often.  I believe unique encrypted keys, or perhaps a block chain technology could facilitate such a thing.   Yet there are other considerations which I discuss in more detail in the non-summary post.

    I disagree. Systems should be and can be designed with built in insulation from malicious actors.

    A system of representative technocracy with delegates being rigorously profiled to match their voters, seems pretty solid to me.

    Human nature wouldn't affect the modelling.

This is a bit idealistic since we are familiar with the term Hacker.   We like to tinker with things and look for weaknesses and exploits.    I've yet to see anything WE humans have invented that isn't exploit free.    In this respect I am not referring to just technological hackers, but those that can identify loopholes and weaknesses within a system.

That does not mean we should not try.   We should.

    Natural law forces me to impose draconian disincentives to protect my position.

    I'd rather pool commission from my capital in a fund which goes to my delegate, so that imposing these disincentives can be done at a cost cheaper to me.

How does natural law force you to do anything?   That seems contradictory with what I know of natural law.

It also does not STOP you from pooling your resources.    You can do as much of that as you like as long as it is voluntary between yourself and the other participants.   As far as making people stick to the agreement on how that pool should be use, you accomplish that with a contract which all of the participants are signatories.

A BIG CONCERN:

Currently our education is very indoctrination like.   It often omits information and selectively steers people towards compliance and conformity.    This was actually what the inventors of the Prussian Education System(where the word SCHOOL came from) which we based our system on in the U.S. saw as an advantage.      This is dangerous in a democratic environment as HOW a person was educated is going to steer how they vote with the exception of a few fringe minority individuals or groups.

There is some evidence (may need a tinfoil hat) that the education system has been deliberately dumbed down to some degree.   That makes the propaganda systems far more effective.    It also very much undermines the effectiveness of democratic voting.

Into that mix add  poorly educated, conformist encouraged (vote with the crowd to be popular - not because they really thought it through), and often operating off of censored information, and blast them with heavy doses of propaganda.    

This makes Democracy even a Technocratic Democracy unworkable.   IF we addressed those things then yes, I believe it could work.   Yet this same problem is why virtually no form of government is GOOD at this point in time.

I do not believe the government should be able to tell me or anyone else what they can, and cannot do with their own body.   This includes substances, potentially self dangerous acts, entering into contracts with others for sexual exchanges, etc.    Anything that person wants to do voluntarily with their own body should be permitted.

No Victim, No Crime.

I know there are murky areas.   There always are.   It'd be the burden of proof to show there was a victim.   If there was then there would need to be a way to deal with that.

The problem with ANY rules is they get to be decided upon by FELLOW human beings.   So it doesn't matter what good intentions we may have had.   We have to deal with the idea that you are permitting humans to decide rules that they believe should be FORCED (if you have no choice then it IS force) upon other human beings.

I can end this by saying Technocratic Democracy does have distinct possibilities, as even Anarchy has it's issues when it comes to how human nature influences things.

You essentially need to come up with some Technocratic Democracy type rules that are similar to Asimov's Three Laws for Robotics.    What is as simple as possible, resistant to corruption, supports voluntary choice of the populace in every way except cases where no solution could be found, etc. 

Sadly this is the shortened version.   Now you see why I don't use Twitter. :)