...still have a long way to go and need to be carefully worked out

My post "Fighting Governments" attracted a comment that stated my post sounded a little on the hippy and socialist side. A fair comment, and based on what I posted, not unexpected.

I think I need to take things a little further, not just to reply to that comment, but to explain on how I envision a Blockchain-based Electronic Direct Democracy (let's just call it a "BEDD" from now on) might work. I have only just begun to work out the details, so while I don't have the solution, I know some of the characteristics which it requires and considerations that must go into implementing it.

By ChriDup [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], from Wikimedia Commons

The details of a Blockchain-based Electronic Direct Democracy

It's true, anarchy runs the risk of sounding dangerously close to the liberal rhetoric. A fine line must indeed be walked. Personally I can't stand liberals. I see them as short-sighted and foolishly Utopian (I have yet to encounter an exception). The liberals would be right in an altruist world, but this world does not fit that description. Similarly, I hate governments. I see them as greedy, self-serving, money-wasting, power-hungry vultures. It is the latter that drives me towards the anarchy of a BEDD.

Bring on the Commies!

Why not socialism? Socialism isn't bad. I truly believe that. Is probably hard to accept that when you have been raised in the West, because since 1945:

"Damn Commies"
=
The Enemy

That's been drilled into the Western mindset for over half a century, it's propaganda accepted as dogma. If you're reading this and you were born and raised in the Western Hemisphere, then I would be very surprised if you didn't think this way. Let it never be said that mass brainwashing isn't effective (just ask the multi-billion dollar "church" of Scientology).

The problem with socialism is not the concept, but rather humanity itself. As a species, Homo Sapiens is simply not advanced enough to be socialist. We are incapable of working together at that level. Corruption and abuse of the system will set in almost instantaneously and the deterioration of the society into a dictatorship will be inexorable.

For a BEDD to work, it will take a very cleverly thought out blockchain and set of smart contracts, or it too will become unsustainable. Against liberal logic, it will have to contain some sort of weighting system in voting: a sociopathic, serial killer or the guy with the IQ of a potato can't have the same voting power as a benevolent savant. That's not to create inequality, it's to foster potential and development of the society. The system should reward intelligent community driven behaviour and punish the opposite. Those who are capable of contribute more should be allowed to do so. Such contributions must be positive in nature and for the benefit of all. I foresee voting weigh increasing sharply towards the top of the IQ scale (which is rather thinly populated at genius level and above).

Perhaps this sounds imperfect when you first hear it. What about the corrupt officials keeping more voting power for themselves? What about the not so benevolent geniuses who only vote in ways that will benefit themselves? What about corruption in general? What about those of regular intelligence who don't have so much voting weight - wouldn't they oppose the system?

Well there won't be any government officials who can grab power. The selfish geniuses will be outnumbered by the good ones or outweighed by the even smarter ones. Sufficiently intelligent people won't vote against the interests of the community and they won't forget about the interests of minorities. Why? Because they're clever enough to figure out what will happen if they do. They will be aware that previous and current systems have failed/are failing for that very reason. On a more personal level; they won't want to become the next King Louis XVI or Marie Antoinette. As for Joe Average, it should not take much convincing for him to realise that someone 50 points higher up the IQ tree can make better decisions than what he can himself. He still gets a vote and sufficiently large numbers of Joe's could override the votes of the higher voting weight group if they ever did vote against the interests of the people. Hopefully Average Joes would realise that they would be out of their depth if burdened with the responsibility of making the tough calls without the assistance of the higher voting weight intelligent few.

And tough decisions will need to be made. Remember how I said I can't stand liberals? Well this is where they would really fall short. The smart contracts will need consensus mechanisms that ensure that sufficient action takes places where necessary. Difficult issues will arise.

Take a serial killer for instance: can they be executed? Will it be seen as mob justice if they are? What if the serial killer is from a minority group and the majority all vote against him for that reason (yet another reason to have such high voting weight in the hands of the really enlightened few).

Speaking of minority groups: is it better to ignore them, integrate them or respect them as an individual entity? The system can't allow for e.g. the genocide of the Jews in Germany, just because they are outnumbered and outvoted. This is also where state lines and the concept of nations come into play.

I mentioned yesterday that such a system may mean the end of countries. I actually hope that it does (not that I'll still be alive to see it). This may be difficult for those from more homogeneous nations to understand, but borders in many places on Earth are rather arbitrarily defined. This is especially true for countries that were once colonised. Population groups were split by imaginary lines and forced into a state with rival groups. It's not a pretty picture and continues to have severe ramifications to this day.

The smart contracts would have to account for this. For instance: they would have to ensure that nations are still capable of defending themselves. Once again, the Western world has been at peace for an unnaturally long time. The decadent capitalist attitude that typifies Western nations is in complete denial (and is totally uninformed) when it comes to matters such as war and national strategy. Liberals still seem to consider war to be an evil that could be avoided if everyone just got together, gave a few hugs, and smoked a little weed together. Nothing could be further from the truth.

An opportunistic stronger nation will not hesitate to obliterate and loot a weaker but richer nation if it can get away with it. I don't need to prove this point. History does it for me. The history of mankind IS the history of warfare. If you don't know that, then you need to skip a few Kardashians episodes and read a little non-fiction instead. A smart contract and its associated voting system must maintain some sort of military capable of defending against likely external threats.

If we can one day get to the point of nations working in harmony, then and only then, can we look at abolishing borders, downscaling the militaries and passing the weed filled hookah around while singing "Kum ba ya". It is only then that I would support the current views of liberals and socialists.

Will this happen?

Probably not. At least not without our lifetimes. The future is hard to predict and very difficult to put timelines to. From a technology perspective this could be done tomorrow. But from a social perspective this may never happen.

What I envision is that the most enlightened countries may start progressing towards such systems shortly. It would start with things like blockchain-based elections. Just the voting, nothing else would change. Eventually it would progress to things like referendums. Usage would increase as the system proves itself successful. Government workload would gradually diminish. Slowly people would be replaced by smart contracts, to the point where one or two countries would eventually resemble the BEDD I describe above.

Once the concept has been proven, it would catch on in similar countries that are still running on a traditional system of governance. Less advanced countries may take a leap forward and do the same when the situation presents itself. e.g. during a revolution. There will no doubt be hold-outs, e.g. dictatorships that are unwilling to adopt such systems for obvious reasons. In the long run it is hard to say just how far it will go. I don't see why it can't become universal, but it certainly won't happen all at once. And that's without even considering the merging of nations in phase two.

Well that concludes your look into the future with Bit Brain (for now). Not the normal kind of blockchain talk that I do, but no less important than the standard crypto stuff. Remember: crypto is where it is starting. First currencies, then logistics, then medicine, finance etc. So support crypto, watch the future, and buy things that makes sense to hold in the long run. Imagine buying into a really cheap ICO today that everyone ends up using for casting their votes 30 years from now. Keep your eyes open, your ears to the ground and stop worrying so much about what the next bloody Elliott Wave is going to do (spoiler alert everyone just guesses the waves anyway).

Yours in crypto,
Bit Brain

DISCLAIMER:
I am neither a financial advisor nor a professional trader/investor. This is not financial advice, investment advice or trading advice. Unless otherwise stated, all my posts are my opinion and nothing more. Crypto is highly volatile and you can easily lose everything in crypto. You invest at your own risk! Information I post may be erroneous or construed as being misleading. I will not be held responsible for anything which is incorrect, missing, out-of-date or fabricated. Any information you use is done so at your own risk. Always Do Your Own Research (DYOR) and realise that you and you alone are responsible for your crypto portfolio and whatever happens to it.