Decentralization is Imperative
![triangulation-1899948_1920.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://s24.postimg.org/i2p2jvtd1/triangulation_1899948_1920.jpg)
Throughout human history different types of Governments have existed, and there has been a trend of centralization and growth of power, but there has been an inflection point roughly starting with the Renaissance and coming out at the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century.
Humans before the invention of agriculture lived in small tribes, whom were mostly composed of a few families, where everyone knew eachother well, and it was a simple free society that lived a harmonious lifestyle. But after agriculture was invented, government was born, because you needed to protect your crops from thieves and since food was plenty, people could choose different professions (other than hunter-gatherer) and the specialization of labor created a hierarchy with a landlord at the top, who needed to collect taxes in order to maintain this system.
Then more landlords came together and monarchy was born. And you know the story from here. After government got unleashed, humans simply didn't matter anymore. They were either cannon fodders or tax cattle. Collectivism was rising and power got more and more centralized. But after the Age of Enlightenment something changed, human rights started to became a priority, and democracy was born.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
![political-1704547_640.png](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://s30.postimg.org/6pgjzvz5d/political_1704547_640.png)
Now of course democracy is not perfect, but it's 1 step in the right direction, but we could already see the lust for power of the tyrants in the 20th century. They could not tolerate democracy, they wanted all the power, but since the humans were not as dumb anymore as in the middle ages to just accept serfdom as granted, they had to trick people into giving them power, because humans were a bit smarter now than before.
So the lust for power of the Communists and Nazis, became evident, and since they just could not grab the power so easily anymore as with a monarchy, they had to trick people into giving them power by basing their narrative on hatred of the rich or anti-semitism. And people got duped into this. But since most people were smart enough to feel that something is really wrong, they had to have "totalitarian" control, in order to silence dissent.
So a monarchy could last hundreds of years without any major dissent, but after people tasted some freedoms under democracy, the genie was out of the bottle. So Hitler and Stalin had to exert massive oppression in order to keep their powers, because they wanted to rule like kings, but the population was much harder to manage at this point, so they ruled through terror by putting dissenters in concentration camps.
As people taste more and more freedom, they don't want to be slaves anymore. But as more and more freedom spreads in society, the authoritarian control freaks get more and more nervous to grab more and more power.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
![community-1769575_640.png](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://s28.postimg.org/4pslaeai5/community_1769575_640.png)
The next step is direct democracy. There is no way we avoid this. This must happen. And yes a democracy is still rule through coercion, but it's the 2nd step that is needed towards a libertarian society. So first you transition from monarchy -> representative democracy. Which would be the equivalent of an oligarchy, and now it's time for direct democracy.
Let's not forget that in Nazi Germany only about 10% of the population were hardcore Nazis, and they won the election democratically. So how did they fooled 50%+1 of the population?
Most people are not bad people, they are either naive or are threatened. The Nazis got into power by relying on the economic disasters and poverty to push their hateful ideology, and since people had little to lose, they went along with it. They also threatened and blackmailed newspapers with their paramilitary forces (this is why anonymity is important in journalism btw). And last but not least they did the Reichstag fires false flag and blamed it on terrorists, sounds familiar?
And still they got only 44% of the vote, not even the 50%+1 that would be considered normal. And most people didn't even go to vote.
This is the danger of representative democracy, because you already have a violent state, that can be captured by Nazis with just 44% of the vote, which may only represent 10% of the population and a few more gullible people.
This is why direct democracy is imperative, because if direct democracy is implemented, Nazis will never have power again, because if the vote is online, probably secured by some blockchain, most people will vote, and they will be outvoted 9 to 1.
In fact a decentralized/anonymous journalism and social media that can't be blackmailed, will actually fight the Nazis before they get even 0.01% of the population. So a censorship/blackmail free journalism, and freedom of speech is very very important to keep the population informed and to keep the oppressors out.
Freedom of speech can stop tyranny, long before they even get 1% of the population, and this goes for all kind of oppressors.
I would also say that a direct democracy would need a higher approval threshold, instead of 50%+1, it should be minimum 75%, just to make sure that individual rights are violated less times.
ANARCHY
![anarchist-40386_640.png](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://s28.postimg.org/oa8n3k5x9/anarchist_40386_640.png)
The last step to achieve a real voluntary society is to transition from direct democracy to individualism, and rediscover that the individual is the core unit of society, and that the individual is sacred. A direct democracy can help keep the authoritarians out, but people still need to push for more freedom in order to make the transition.
It could be done by gradually increasing the approval threshold from 75%, to 100%. Or by just abandoning the whole idea, since after we will have a fully functioning free market, nobody will want a government anymore.
Freedom is wonderful, as said above, after people just get a taste of it, they will never want to be slaves again. So together with a free market and a freedom of speech protected communication system, people will quickly realize that even the mob-rule is not good, and then we will have a true free society.
So the transition is the following:
INDIVIDUAL -> FAMILY -> TRIBE -> MONARCHY -> REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY -> DIRECT DEMOCRACY -> ANARCHY = INDIVIDUAL
It takes tens of thousands of years for humanity to transition, but after it's completed it will bring humanity to the next level, and then we can say to ourselves that we are a worthy species that deserve to live on this planet.
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.
I think the transition is to distributed, private commerce which has democracy within little pockets but consensus between.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the first half of Dec 18. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $4.16 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Dec 18 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Hey profitgenerator, Nice post. Thought I'd mention my new free service (a anonymous, secure, uncensorable, decentralised and eternal post board) now available. HTTP://LOCKEDPOST.COM
We also believe decentralisation is imperative!