I believe most of the tyranny and atrocities in the world are committed due to a lack of consensus between individuals, thus they arrogantly try to push their own views onto others.

This is why political hierarchy is present, you elect 100-500 politicians, they "represent" you and against your will they create new laws with 51% approval, and then you wonder why things are so messed up. Or the judiciary, where you have 1 tyrant judge that literally has the power over life or death like Osiris, in fact most of these institutions are so primitive that they literally date back to ancient practices. A jury system is a little bit better, but not that much, a jury can still be bribed/threatened or just corrupted by their own views.

Why would humans put their fates in centralized structures like these? Therefore I have proposed a voluntary consensus mechanism that would eliminate most coercion from the world and it can be applied easily. I have already talked about this here:

• https://steemit.com/politics/@profitgenerator/direct-democracy-is-not-socialism
• https://steemit.com/philosophy/@profitgenerator/majority-is-always-right

---

The concept

The concept is very simple, these rules should be understood by all humans, and then we will achieve voluntary anarchy:

• Minimum 90% consensus between all humans, or the people affected by the decision, in order to make a decision
• If consensus is not reached, break off from the group, and create your own group where you can achieve voluntary consensus

If all humans would agree by these 2 rules, we could have a free society by tomorrow. This is the only way to achieve a voluntary society, by either reaching consensus voluntarily, or by breaking off from the group if consensus is not possible

It's so easy, that you are probably already doing it in your life, it's just that it has to be extended to the entire humanity.

The individual

• If you are alone, like on a deserted island, then you already have 100% consensus, so you do what you want.

The family

• The smallest unit of society is the individual. The smallest group is the family and/or relationship. Therefore if you are in a relationship, you already need a 90% consensus in order make decisions, 1 partner might have doubts that is why 90%, but with voluntary persuasion its possible to reach consensus. If consensus can't be reached, you just break up the relationship, it's that simple. Otherwise it's like slavery or domestic abuse, and we are all against that.

So this system already works and it's already used in romantic relationship structures. Let's see if it's scales up.

Family with Kids

• In a family where kids are involved it's also good if consensus can be reached. You certainly don't want to spank or beat your kids if they disobey, that is just family tyranny. Also if the 2 parents decide something and leave the kid out of the decision process, that is tyranny as well. Even though its 66.66% consensus, it still tyranny. So it's best if the threshold is 90% and not lower to avoid coercion.

So as you can see the 50%+1 vote current democracy system is very flawed, even the 66.66% case in a household amounts to tyranny, then what do you think a 50% vote is? It's even worse if the 1-2% political lobbyists make the actual decisions. So can this system scale up to the political arena? Sure.

City

If we have a city and want to introduce this voluntary governance system into it, not a tyranncial structure with 1 mayor and his bureaucrat friends running the show, then it could work.

There are many issues in the governance of a city, and until 90% consensus can't be reached, there is no point in forcing a policy onto the rest of the citizens.

• If 90% consensus is reached, then it's good, most people agree by an overwhelming majority, so it's not a tyranny.
• If consensus can't be reached then the governance should just break up into boroughs or down to streets until consensus is reached.

Country

Same thing:

• If all citizens of a country agree by 90% majority on something, then that something is already a law by definition
• If not then they need to split up into several smaller countries based on cultural or other concepts until consensus between that group can be reached

Globe

• I think all humans, or certainly 90% agree that theft,murder,rape is wrong, so it's not hard to imagine these laws being applied indiscriminately around the entire globe
• But not all humans might agree on economic policy or cultural things, so we don't need to live in a "1 world government", but in your own group where you can achieve 90% consensus with

Advantages

This is a very flexible system in my opinion, and if people were to apply this system from their family lives up to a country and certain things can easily be agreed on by all humans (theft,rape,murder is wrong).

It is totally scalable, and it would eliminate all tyrannical institutions, from the bottom up, because as we've seen, top down control never leads to freedom.

This is not communism, although I believe Marx had envisioned a similar world, but he was wrong on many practical issues. I think this is what the communists would refer to as a "stateless society". However the communists were wrong on the application of it like the elimination of private property and the creation of a bureaucratic dictatorship which was an unforgivable flaw in Marxist thought.

In my theory, there would be private property, because remember this is not a 50% democracy like the communists have envisioned, this is a 90% democracy, meaning that you can't vote away private property, and everyone is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which includes their property.

Every human would become politically equal, but not necessarily economically equal. This is where I would think the balance between the left and right can be achieved. You can have social equality, but you can't have economic equality.

So for instance if you have a city where most people are small businessmen, they are not that dumb to vote to collectivize their business, but they are also not that dumb either to set up a government that would tax or give privileges to big corporations to take over their businesses.

So this is how you can have balance in capitalism and to stop monopolization, that includes government, but not limited to it, since in some cases big corporations or NGO's are also bad for small businesspeople.

This is the natural way to achieve freedom. The biological cells already work this way, they work as a "swarm" in cooperation, and whenever a cell gets too big and incompatible with itself, it splits in two.

So nature does this, humans already do this on small scale, so there is no reason we can't do this on big scale to remove the oppression from today's society and achieve global freedom.

---

Sources:
The Ludwig von Mises Institute GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0, from Wikimedia Commons

---