You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Decentralization is Imperative
At this point, direct democracy will simply let the Television decide the elections. I think you are right, but a lot of education has to happen between now and then.
At this point, direct democracy will simply let the Television decide the elections. I think you are right, but a lot of education has to happen between now and then.
That is why I said DD + Free speech, as in with free social media like Steemit.
The television industry is dying, I didn't watched TV for 2 years, most younger people only use the internet as information source.
But of course the big social media networks have to die too, because their censorship is untolerable.
Steemit and others like it will be the future of media.
Yes, by Television I meant the Entertainment industry. I include current education which is little more than warehousing children, keeping them entertained, and instilling the first level of indoctrination. The entertainment industry does the rest.
Now that they are trying to censor "Fake news" (which means anything they disagree with), a decentralized internet is even more important. Mesh net is just a decision away, the hardware and software already exist, but will we get to it in time?
I agree, it's not just the TV but the whole set of media, as in newspapers, movies, tv shows, radio, podcasts, singers, Youtubers, etc... They are all in it.
The politicians start to infiltrate the new media, they get to youtube starts, and bloggers to push their narrative.
The mesh net is interesting, and it might become a reality in 5-10 years. I think the trend is in the right direction, if we avoid a nuclear war, then anarchy will be inevitable at some point.
In the past people lived miserable lives, so they went along with all kinds of sick ideologies. But as the human living standard rises, people value themselves more ,and collectivism will fall. The individual has to re-discover his/her own values, and project that to the world so that others can learn.
Individualism is the endgame, as after the living standard skyrockets, people will never want to be slaves again.
I think this is a good point, it matters how informed people are, and I don't if you could say we generally are now. I think the idea of delegating power to a select few has the strongest justification in the fact that they have more time to put into finding out and understanding the state of things, and with this information hopefully make better decisions than we could individually.
Perhaps better than a direct democracy one-person-one-vote system (like we have in referenda, just like the one that delivered Brexit) is a system of councils, like the have in Switzerland. There are even a lot of anarchist ideas in this area that aren't so individualistic.
I usually suggest a cellular form of affinity groups to be represented by their electronic proxies. So if any three or more people feel they share common concerns (such as plumbers who work in town and have large families), and agree on any particular issue (like how they want to fund the local school system), can establish a proxy. Others who have similar concerns in other groups can either join or oppose that proxy (which may develop into a small electronic assistant) and when their agreement is reached, that vote goes forward to another level.
Because we have computers now. We can decide these things ourselves. Public servants can become public servants, not rulers. We tell them to do a job and they go out and do it.