Rule of Majority
I don't know how much % of the people are evil, it's hard to tell, and it's also pretty subjective. But it's obvious that most people are not evil, and that all evils of the world always come from a small % of the population, while the others are either used as tools or are threatened to be accomplices.
It is absolutely necessary for the majority to take over the minority in order to have a peaceful prosperous society. It's also the only way to have a healthy society.
The only reason you are healthy now, is because the minority of cancerous cells in your body are suppressed by your immune system. Every human has on average a couple thousand cancerous cells in him at any given moment, the only reason they haven't spread yet is because you have a healthy immune system that suppresses it. Or in other words the majority is suppressing the cancerous minority.
In society, you have the exact opposite. You have a cancerous ruling class, that is destroying the healthy servant class. Basically you have a tiny tiny 0.1% political elite that is bossing people around, while the other billions of people are the servants.
This is exactly the opposite how things should be run. Nature has told us that in order to survive cancer, the healthy cells have to take over the ill cells. This means that in order for humanity to survive, the ruling class has to be abolished.
Quite literally speaking the survival of humanity depends on it. Since it's these centralized minorities that have put us in the situation of near nuclear apocalypse. It's not your average grocery store that advocated for nuclear weapons, it's the warmonger elite.
It was also not your average people on the street that planned out the Holocaust, it was a tiny elite of evil people, while using their bootlicker servants to carry it out.
So you have the evil rulers planning out the evil things, and having their black knights execute them, while the millions of other slaves (who are ridiculously outnumbering the tyrants) obey them due to fear.
It's brilliant, brilliantly demonic. It's totally ridiculous to have a tiny tiny elite completely enslaving humanity, while million of people just sit back and do nothing about it.
This is just how it is, for now. But if humans really want to be free and healthy as a society, then the majority has to take over the ruling class.
Here is a video from @larkenrose illustrating this exact phenomena:
nice analogy!!!
Small government with informed people <-
Everyone has the capacity for evil inside of them. So anyone in a position of power can turn evil, especially when they are certain of that they are right.
Yes, that is why nobody should have power.
We cannot simply impose conditions like that, you may be right, but it's irrelavant to those who are willing to give power to those people, and these people outnumber you and me by a factor of 100
I don't think people "give" power to them. They can't "give" power if they don't have power.
I think the ruling class just auto-declares himself the authority, and then it starts hunting down people who opposes them. It's not the other way around.
If people are giving power to them, then they can also take it away. Which they actually can't in the real world.
So the rulers stole that power, and use it to crush dissent.
Agree. I might've been a bit unclear there.
By "give" power what I meant is that when the average person either just stands by and watches, or is completely deceived when someone declares themselves "authority", that is as good as "giving" power, because it is something which would never have happened if those people were pro-active and had a reasonable amount of knowledge.
.
Power structures only form because it's "natural" in the sense that an individual, for his safety or security, agrees to be part of a commune where he provides services in exchange for the security he gets. Even within anarchy, there's no guarantee people wouldn't voluntarily form communes and rulers which may eventually grow into states. It is mostly psychological
Yes, thanks for clarifying, this is what I meant as well.
And this is an important distinguishment, I mean every person has power over their own lives, unless they live in a concentration camp, which is already the ultimate evil.
The question is how much of their lives they are sharing with the government. Well it looks like pretty much half of it, just based on taxes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day
So you are working half of the year just to pay taxes, which is half of your life sacrificed for the government.
Now suppose in the future people will have more free time, taxes might not go down, but people will find easier professions, instead of being a sweatshop slave for 18 hours/day, they can just be Steemit bloggers for 3-4 hours/day.
By having more time to think is a great opportunity to spread ideas about freedom. If people are not shackled, then they are obviously doing things for their freeom.
Once people taste freedom, they don't want to lose it. Just look at the hedonistic lifestyle of the youth. This is an example of repressed freedom in society, and people want to break out of it.
It starts by not being a work slave, and it really ends in anarchy, where the government will just have to go away because people will not put up with endless restrictions, they have a tendency to break free.
"If people are giving power to them, then they can also take it away. Which they actually can't in the real world."
Actually they can, only if the average person is well informed and reasonably knowledgable, which is the difficult part because those in power actively try to brainwash youth
Yes the brainwashing, propaganda, and keeping people passive is a great part of this, I was just going to write an article about this.
that's MAD.
imho - all of us have both
but - we get to choose which one shall prevail :)
Where abolishment of the rulingclass has been tried through revolution, the outcome has always been the same: a new rulingclass, often worse than the former, as was seen in and after the collapse of the Russian Empire and all other countries where it's been tried.
It's not the ruling class that needs to be abolished, it's the servitude to them.
The ruling class will not be abolished with guns, but with disobedience.
One of the sage men from my country has a saying: "There is no evil, there is only good that has not been evolutionized". I like your post.
I wonder what the critical mass of people would be...
If 10% of the population stopped participating in the monetary ponzi scheme would that be enough?
If 5% of the population decided not to show up to their slave day job?
What about if people just stopped paying their taxes in April? What percent of people would it take to break the system?
Just some thoughts. I know it is impossible to quantify and even if it was the numbers would probably have to come from the gooberment directly and wouldn't be accurate lol.
I think most people do need to participate, but I don't know the exact threshold.
For example in the Holocaust there were about 10-15 Nazis forcing 500-1000 people on the trains to Auschwitz.
So a gun and a 15% force is enough of a psychological deterrent to keep people enslaved.
However when people were totally cornered, they fought to the death heroicly, even when they were outnumbered 10:1
So it's not so much the % of force the enforcers use, but more about the psychological condition of the masses and their willpower to resist tyranny.
Great comment. Opposite side of the spectrum. I didn't consider what percentage of oppressors it takes to stomp out the voluntary portion.
I have been following the Venezuelan socialist collapse and it has been a year since i thought there would be a forceful removal of the ruling class there. I hope for their sake the population gets mobilized soon and takes back their country. I think that that ratio is 20% army / government and 80% impoverished population. Doesn't help that they handed in their guns either though...
Wouldn't it be funny if the government declared it was martial law and they showed up to enforce expected rioting in the streets but found everyone happily having a giant picnic in the park not even acknowledging their presence lol.
It needs to be organized though. You can't just expect millions of people voluntarily just "storming the palace". That is not how human psychology works.
There has to be an organization, it doesn't have to be hierarchic, otherwise it can easily turn into a military dictatorship.
But if some kind of decentralized political organization would do this, then it could achieve anarchism.
Millions of people would never voluntarily gather to storm the palace. I agree. I think that the situation there might to dire for them to be able to organize peacefully also. As soon as any government controlled warehouse of food was stormed it think chaos would break out from people trying to grab as much as possible. Really tough spot.
I don't know what a decentralized organization would look like. Do you have any models / concepts that you think could work? I put up a post about private property in a stateless society and nobody really could answer the questions fully.
I really want to see all governments / states gone but I think some serious questions need to be worked out.
The brilliance is that if you can get millions of people to organize voluntarily and create decentralized communities, they don't even need to "storm the castle" afterwards. They can just ignore it.
If people can just disobey the king, then he is not a king anymore, just a clown in a fancy costume.
I agree 100%. Just ignore the full blown authority construct that exists and just down right de-legitimize it. That would be the best!!
The other day we were in discussions what the solution could be without a central government. Since I think you are thinking hard to find the solutions to issues that a de-centralised mechanism has and therefore I like to ask you your view on how a de-centralised community would work without the need for some 'punishment'. You did not oppose centralised bodies for certain tasks, such as providing security or doctor. What if within this local community the majority as required for passing a new community rule is ok and lets say this is 90%. Lets assume now the community voted for a hospital with personal to support the community in all healthcare problems. 95% vote yes and the pay there share. 5% opposes and do not pay there share. Since such community hospital is in place, no business case can be made for private doctors and other healthcare persons. When now somebody is in need of healthcare services, will 95% of the community then do nothing? When some in the community start doing something, and this happens more than 1 time, maybe multiple times a week; What do you then think will happen in an emotional sense? I think this will go wrong, the people that help all the time, will look in a not so positive way to the people who never help. This will result in a break of the community and in worst case into a local war. What are your thoughts these type of things from happening?
Where did you get that, I didn't said such thing...
The truth is the we can't even imagine how a free society would look like because we haven't had one ,certainly not in our lifetimes. But we have to remember that the government is only 6000 years old, there wasn't really a government before that, so there is no reason to think that it's a permanent establishment. It may have a role now, but as technology progresses, and many state services get replaced by voluntary ones, their role can quickly diminish, and they could go away just as they came to be.
I may have understood you wrongly, the comments I base my comment on is this one:
https://steemit.com/revolution/@profitgenerator/re-edje-re-profitgenerator-re-edje-de-centralised-governments-will-it-really-work-20170520t002521200z
I think we have some anarchistic communities; They may be small, but they are real. For instance Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania
In Netherlands we have ADM (just outside Amsterdam): https://adm.amsterdam/
We have another community close to Amsterdam called Ruigoord; This community is maybe lesser of a community in the sense of a living community, since it is for instance not allowed to live at Ruigoord. It is more like a cultural free haven: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruigoord (their website is in Dutch only http://ruigoord.nl/)
I know both ADM and Ruigoord and visit these places regularly, They are free havens in sense police and all are not entering the premisses. They have to obey some rules, such as no big sound after midnight (Ruigoord has many cultural and music events), but in essence what happens on the premisses is considered private and not under law enforcement control. With ADM what I see that most people living their are not Dutch people, but people from other countries. Interesting is that ADM already exist for so many years (20 years already I think) that the community have members who did not live anywhere else in their lives and now are allowed to vote, ie being a grown up.
I think you misunderstood me, I have said there that anarchy is my view is a decentralized community. I described the exact same thing in this article. It's the same thing:
I am curious about Christiania, I have heard about that. I am curious how taxes work there.
For instance if you earn money there inside that zone, do you have to declare that income?
What is the level of "anarchy" exactly in that zone?
That are really good questions to which I do not have answers to be honest. With some further internet research, the answer may be revealed :) They apparently bought the place some years ago from the local government.
Regarding taxes, I even don't know how it is at ADM here just outside Amsterdam. I go there a couple of times a year when they have their music and art festivals. Super nice! Next time I'll ask the people who live there.
In the mid 90s I was at a similar place in Maribor (Slovenia), Pekarna, also a free haven, quite small, but again a place where people lived forming their own community, and where the police would never step a foot insight, so anything goes, whatever you felt like. http://www.pekarna.net/node/17
You know of the existence of the mini states? Micronations they are called. These are self proclaimed countries with their own flag, currency and all. They do all the things that are required to be a country. The only thing they generally don't have, is the recognition being a country by all the other countries in the world. There are micronations on oil rigs, on small islands, and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations
You've written a hypothetical story, and filled in all the parameters, closing all exits, and have by doing so come to a conclusion as if it's going to happen like you painted. And than you ask; "What are your thoughts these type of things from happening?" Can you see why these type of questions are unanswerable? No one can predict how things are going to happen.
What if the 5% in the community provide their own healthcare and the 95% say but you still must pay for our community hospital as well, and if you don't we are going drag you out of your house and throw you in a cage. What are your thoughts on the 95% using violence to force the 5%?
I don't think that is possible. The exact reason why I choose a 90-95% treshold is because people can't reach that level of consensus.
Just look at Segregated Witness in bitcoin. It's just 6000 nodes, they can't even reach a 95% consensus, then how the hell can 10,000,000 Bitcoin users do it?
It is exactly this why you need high tresholds, to
notreach consensus, so that laws willnotbe issued.The only consensus that humans will reach will be on basic morality (don't kill, don't rape, etc..). Everything else will be left to individual choice.
This is my strategy.
My reply was a reply to edje.
Is your reply a reply to me or to edje? I'm not quite sure
Me neither, I was just replying to that argument, whoever said that. Just adding my view in the conversation.
Ok thanks :)
I'm very much ok to break open my suggestion for a real possible outcome of a free society. It was not my intention to close everything of. I took this approach, since as many times when getting in conversation on free society, no centralised institutions, I do not hear workable ideas around issues that will have to be faced. With blockchain technology voting can be implemented, and using @profitgenerator idea for 90/95% of the votes must by 'yes' for an idea to pass. I'm struggling with the fact for some really important things that needs to be arranged for any community where people live together, some percent is not in agreement. How does this work wrt the physical location of those? In the cryptoworld when eg 5% of the BTC nodes are not ok with a plan, they can break off and continue with their own rules on their own blockchain; It doesn't matter where someone is located physically. However when applying such model to humans, we have the physical aspect we have to deal with. I personally think it cannot be the idea for those who are not in agreement with some rule, that person has to move location to some other place. When moving is not required, even when lets say 1% is not in agreement with hiring security guards, how does this work? (see also other comment to profitgenerator comment and the link I provided in that comment). The security guards will keep for instance the physical location secure, therefor also keep that house where that individual is living that was not ok with hiring a security guard and subsequently does not pay for it.
Triggered by the video in the post, I feel generally when talking about the topic of free societies, de-centralised and all, there is only a message send out stating that anything central is wrong, but no solutions are presented other then, everybody shall have 100% freedom. The video ends with; Allow your neighbour his/her 100% freedom. What if somebody in the community does not allow his/her neighbour 100% freedom? That is something we shall recognise as something what will certainly happen, since we cannot expect every individual to be like that. Such realities shall be discussed and through discussion we must find workable solutions. When starting a new free community, it can only be started when some ideas are in place how to start the community. I'm pretty sure that when absolutely no rule is in place, the community will fail.
I adres a few things and I jump a little, I can't convince you of anything or even have too.
I'm very much ok to break open my suggestion for a real possible outcome of a free society. It was not my intention to close everything of
I didn't mean that YOU close everything of, but that your story is build in such a way that every possibility for the 5% or even .01% to have their own health care which they pay for, instead of the centralized, is closed off. That's only guessing that something like that would happen. I can not say anything sensible about your hypothetical story, I can't look in the future. You can give many stories like: "And how is this going to be done" I can not answer them. Sorry.
Those questions/story sound to my ears like someone, in the time when slavery was still normal, asking; But without slavery who's gonna pick the cotton. Could anybody guess that machines would do that in the future. And even if someone proposed it, would it be enough for the person asking the question to be certain enough to see the abolishment of slavery as an option. Also the machines probably would not have been invented if slavery wasn't abolished because there was no need for them because there are slaves. (slavery wasn't abolished b.t.w., it just morphed into some other form of slavery)
I jump a little to another part.
Why do you hang on centralized institution. What do you mean by that, do you see a supermarket as a centralized institution, or a private protection agency that work in an arbitrarily chosen territory, or do you want a NWO centralized kind of thing. Do you see a small self sustaining natural community as centralized enough, or do they have to obey all the rules made by some people hundreds miles away, or the nearest community which could be a technological community (their opposite) or what ever.
When starting a new free community, it can only be started when some ideas are in place how to start the community. I'm pretty sure that when absolutely no rule is in place, the community will fail.
Maybe they will fail. Maybe they will not.
The people that start that community will find that out themselves, or maybe a community start with someone lives somewhere with some ideas/rules, and people with the same ideas/rules move there.
What is it to me how, for instance, the Amish decide to live. Or some communistic community in Spain that live there voluntary with each other without cops or anything. Or some art community in Italy for instance. All those communities exist already why would you, me, or anybody demand from them, that they must have centralized protection a central hospital or even a blockchain vote system. I can't see myself saying to them: "You must do this or that cause else I'm pretty sure it won't work."
Well to close off I don't know how the future is gonna be.
And people go on living the way they live or they are going to do something different. I live my life somewhat different, that's how things are. I don't have to convince anyone that; "My way of living" is "The way of living", because it ain't, their life belongs to them. I can tell them about what I think, but that's it.
That's Cool! :)
Centralised protection came from an earlier discussion with profitgenerator and he mentioned that. Voting comes also from him and others who love the blockchain and see the possibility to use that for voting.
Fair enough and that happens all over the world, like ADM in Amsterdam. The discussions I had with profitgenerator is IMHO more about the moment we would decide to trashbin central government. Then it is not about 1 community here and there, but about 8B people in the world, or 350M in the USA, or 17M in the Netherlands and I just cannot imagine that we would live in lets say 17.000 communities of 1.000 people in the Netherlands, and when we would indeed end up in something like that, I cannot imagine all those 17.000 communities will live together in peace, like the small tribes of 2.000+ year ago could not live in peace with each other. So to transform from centralised to de-centralised requires a bit more than starting small communities without an idea how to solve some of the basics required IMHO.
Oh oh. I think in hind side I should have not stuck my nose in this conversation between you two .lol. It (I) makes things really complicated. I should have read the comment of you to him. ;) I check out before I make things much more complicated. Thank you for the replies anyway.
no worries :) Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Amongst the reasons I'm here at Steemit is to meet people (although virtual), to challenges my own believes and thoughts, to learn.
With one simple addition, the dictatorship of the video can be converted to a voluntary society. A citizen has the right to refuse any punishment by choosing to be expelled.
The minimum force required to expel a citizen is agreed upon by anyone entering the society. The issue of property retention on exit can vary per society as long as they are fixed as a condition of entering the society.
I'm not sure why this is a revelation for me. It does look like it transforms any society into a voluntary one.
Perhaps it is really the missing basic human right that i have 'discovered' lol.