You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Could Crypto ideas go mainstream? (Part 2 – Politics)
Democracy isn't self governance. It's mob rule.
Not having rulers at all is self governance, and crypto is how we get there :)
Democracy isn't self governance. It's mob rule.
Not having rulers at all is self governance, and crypto is how we get there :)
I realise you're coming from an Anarcho-Capitalist viewpoint, but can you explain it?
On the one hand you seem anti-democracy, but the other pro-crypto even though crypto uses democracy in its (consensus driven) governance models. How does self-governance work without some form of democracy? Can you give an example of a crypto that uses (or could use) a model that doesn't rely on some form of democracy? I'm not having a go at you, just trying to understand the AnCap view.
All good, mate. Those who understand it are already ancaps ;)
I don't have a problem with democracy as a decision making mechanism.
If the local Baptist church decides, democratically, to hold their services at 11, or to ordain a female minister, or to up the tithe to 11% and make it mandatory and audited, I wish them the best.
It's when they decide that every household in a 10km radius is in 'their parish', and expands both voting, and the mandatory tithe collection to include Hindus, Sikhs, atheists and non practicing Baptists, that's something I have a problem with.
Maybe 75% of the catchment area is Baptist, so votes for the Baptist church to be the religious organisation ministering to that parish, over the Shinto Temple or the mosque.
None of this makes the Hindu families Baptist, or indicates that they consent to attend or tithe to the Baptist church.
Church membership should be voluntary, and not an accident of geographical happenstance.
Same with government :)
Democracy is only ever going to be as good as those who are involved in it. If the majority want to vote for petty, ignorant and/or self-serving means then it is going to happen (even in crypto-land). In our societies people rely on the constitution to protect them from abuses of the majority....as much good as that seems to be doing!
For instance, if the Masternodes of DASH decided that they were going to increase the block reward for themselves then it could happen to the detriment of the DASH Users and Miners who aren't Masternodes. The only recourse for the Users and Miners would be to sell and exit the system. I guess in your Baptist church example you would move to a new locale to avoid the tithe, but I don't see a lot of difference between these two examples from a conceptual or ideological perspective.
If Dash was the only currency permitted to South Australians; litecoin the only one for NT and doge had the monopoly in WA, then I'd have as much an issue with crypto's as I do with states.
You should be able to end relationships you don't want, without having to leave somebody else's imaginary parish.