The Goverment Is A Reputation System On Steroids

If you are discussing anarchy or voluntaryism at some point you will come across concepts like N.A.P(Non-Aggression Principle), decentralisation and free-association all reflected in a form of a reputation system. The polar opposite of these libertarian ideas is usually the “bad” government that somehow forces you to do stuff in a centralised and aggressive way. Is the goverment though so different than the idealised reputation system?
 

image credit

A government is nothing more than a group of people that got together and decided how their lives will be played out. In order to do that, they agreed upon a form of capital that is divisible in financial, social and intellectual rewards. Every citizen has a reputation system that is measured through their bank account, job, accomplishments and community involvement. It doesn’t have a specific reputation number like Steemit but it has budges like “jail sentence”, “fired from x job”, or “graduated from x school”.

Every system that has been proposed up to this day is no different than a central government. For the sake of example let’s take Steemit. Instead of corporations we have whales. Instead of congressmen we have witnesses. Instead of punishment by social isolation or jail we have flagging that also results in social isolation. The powerful guys up top will most likely always remain powerful since they got early in the game much like the Rothschilds, Lloyds and other famous families. The whales' children will be upvoted and also remain high up the ladder even if they join Steemit in the year 2030 while a nobody strives from this time to make pennies. Much like the outside world the vast majorioty, the smaller guys, will strive to climb up the ladder with little to no success. The architecture, the backbone of the reputation system and early adaptation ensures this.

Have you ever wondered why lately so many governments want to incorporate the blockchain into their system? USA, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan, Estonia—to mention a few, all move towards decentralised operations. One would think that a decentralised system would scare goverments away but they seem to embrace it much like a crack whore embraces meth. The blockchain is rather an extension of a government's philosophy. The “decentralised” part doesn’t really apply to the guys who control it. Rather it only reflects the fashion minions are being controlled. There are people who control offices in the government and there are people who control the blockchain. Much like governments change the rules to suit some players, same thing happens with the blockchain. In the blockchain we call them hard forks and in the goverment “necessary legislation so the system can hold up”. Who decides? But of course those who hold the power and money. In both cases, if you don’t like it, you can leave. In both cases the masses don’t want to get bothered and just obey the rules of those in the top.

Governments today wage wars or demand taxes if you want to be part of their community. Who is to say that in the future this won’t be a problem of blockchain communities like Steemit? Some communities can just clone Steemit, make it their own version, and start functioning with tax algorithms or even start attacking other networks, burning servers rooms and killing developers in order to protect their own version of the blockchain/ethics. Today much of war is cyberterrorism and really is coercive no matter how one wants to repackage it. Imagine if there are Muslim versions of Steemit going against Christian ones. Really, not much difference with the “states” today. How really does one define "coercion"?
 

image credit

There is nothing inherently violent in a government much like there is nothing inherently violent in a blockchain. When we see anarchists retaliating against alternative propositions to the government (like Steemit), it is because they see the obvious flaws. They can see the same pattern occurring again and the only difference is that the benefactors are not congressmen but nerds like them trying to profit much like the ones currently in power. A look at most alt-coins reveals this. Early adopters shill anything to the death waiting for the bait to cling.

Consider how low reputation folk will be treated in the future where a social media system like Steemit becomes larger than Facebook. Consider how one can be thrown to the side of society by being downvoted completely just because he doesn’t kiss higher ass—or because he goes contra to the current system. Isn’t this the same thing that happens today with anarchists opposing the government? Weren’t the founders of the United Sates of America anarchists, outcasts that ended up creating their own system in an attempt to escape Britain’s rule?

Are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again?

I am all in support for new solutions that support a system that sets people free. So far though everything that has been proposed is nothing more than what we have, repackaged in order to fit the technological shift rather than bring something new to the table.

What we perceive as “freedom” and “coercion” is massively subjective. In ancient Egypt punishment came in the form of slavery. Later on, slaves acquired rights and “belonged” to a master that ought to treat them well since they were his property. The slaves had food, water and shelter and they were considered lucky in respect to some others who were getting killed. In a more civilised matter today we have jails. Jails are not necessarily violent but in essence one gets isolated into a place with other like minded individuals who express deviant behaviour. A reputation system can isolate outcasts much the same, especially when it becomes large enough to power all economic and social activity. What then? We will get an outcast fork of "Steemit Classic"?

A reputation system is nothing more than a form of governance where the users/citizens police each other by bowing to the whales/rulers. Since rewards and punishments come from the ethics of the top guys, everyone is tied up into the scheme. Those who do not abide to the system get excluded in a “non-violent” way. Thing is, isolation and loneliness kill. I won’t post the hundreds of research done of the subject. They are a google away.

There are many ways to be coercive and violent without even lifting a finger. Are we really going to get stuck with a word spelled "goverment" because we decided to interpet it in a way that suits our philosophy? Believing that social exclusion by reputation is a non-violent form of punishment is similar to believing that the operators of drones in the Middle East are not really killers because they are not directly coercing someone. Heck it could be argued that is preferable to die in an instance without pain rather than suffering the slow death of isolation that can come in means of physical and mental deprivation.

Really... In how many ways can a reputation system kill?

[When the roof of your house is leaking, no kind of philosophy can make the water appear as a non-issue. It might require tearing half of the roof down but that doesn't mean you don't like your house. This post was written as a form of constructive criticism so that we can improve Steemit and the way we perceive some anarchic concepts as "solutions". As of today all of my rewards are 100% power up]