De-Centralised Governments: Will This Work?
I’ve been reading many posts here on Steemit about the possibilities of applying de-centralised governments/ communities powered by public blockchain technology to replace the current centralised governments we find everywhere in the world.
The Idea
The idea brought forward in these posts is to replace any part of the currently centralised governments with de-centralised implementations, without any centralised control and enforcement and allowing 100% freedom of choice to the individual.
Government rules will become community rules and implemented on (data) and around (rules) the blockchain. We would not require presidents, prime ministers, ministers, parliament members, senators etc anymore since the community will decide on rules through direct voting, ie analogous to referenda. Enforcement forces are not required anymore, since the rules decided by the community will be implemented on (data) and around (rules) the blockchain, and with that, the technology becomes the effective enforcement force.
Voting Concept
In democratic systems sometimes we say: Voting is not a right, it is a duty. Reason for such statement is clear: We came a long way to create freedom and give power to the individual, therefore it is our duty to vote when we are given the chance. However, history shows that in many countries with democratic systems the minority of the society decides. The reason is simply: not everybody in a society will take the effort to vote when requested to do so.
In a de-centralised community system in which voting will be done electronically through the blockchain, it becomes super easy to vote which leads quickly to the idea to transform the duty for voting into the demand for voting when a new proposal for change is put on the ’table’. Whenever a community member does not want to vote, the rule is that either such member conforms him/herself to the results of the vote, or dismember him/herself from the community.
To make sure that a large part of the community buys into the changes proposed and influenced votes will not dominate the outcome, it is suggested the voting floor shall not be 50+%, but something like 80% to 90%.
Furthermore it is suggested when eg a group within the community of eg 10% is not happy with the community rulings, they can decide to break off from the community by a hard fork of the blockchain and continue on a new blockchain in their own community deciding on their own rules (analogous to the BitcoinDark and BitcoinPlus break from the Bitcoin network earlier this year).
-- This sounds super duper cool; Right?!
Passive Enforcement
The idea suggested is that enforcement is passive instead of active. Whatever rules can be implemented by technology, can be done, but the individual is free to accept or not to accept the rules. In case the individual cannot live with the agreement in the blockchain powered community, it can step away as a member. Such individual can choose to become member of another blockchain powered community, or stay away from any blockchain powered community.
Will Passive Enforcement Work?
While passive enforcement will probably work for a large part of the community members, some individuals will want to do whatever he or she wants, regardless the consequences to others and him/herself. How will each community defend themselves? Shall we give rights to each individual to take matters in their own hands? And what about communities that have decided on rules that are conflicting with rules decided by other communities while members of both communities live side by side?
Although with most of what is suggested I can see it may indeed work, I have a serious issue with only passive and the lack of independent (maybe even centralised) enforcement.
Use case / Example
You and your neighbour living side by side are currently part of the same blockchain powered community. Both you and your neighbour, have their own house with a garden in front and back of your house without a fence. The community you both belong to, is kind of a hippie community and it was decided that anybody is allowed to come into your garden, without asking for permission.
Your neighbour decides he/she doesn’t like this rule and with a substantial number of fellow community members your neighbour decides to start their own community. In the new community your neighbour with his/her community members decide that nobody is allowed to come into their gardens without prior permission. On top of that they decide that whenever someone does come into their gardens, the owner of the garden is allowed to kill the trespasser.
It now so happens that the day after the community your neighbour belongs to decided on these two rulings and declared them effective, you step into your neighbours garden to drink you coffee while sitting on a little bench your neighbour has already for as long as you know in his garden, and you’ve been doing almost every day since you are living there. Powered by the new rules of his community, your neighbour decides to shoot you to death. Game Over!
What Are Your Thoughts?
Do you think we can live in peace, harmony and safety in 100% de-centralised communities without any centralised and/or independent enforcement?
I welcome any feedback, ideas and discussions regarding the suggested implementations of de-centralised governments, your views what will need to be done, your views what will work and what may not work, your views on what could be possible solution to problems that may arise as well as to the specific problem addressed in this post.
---
---
follow me @edje
No... de-centralized goverment is hard to be implemented... nice posting ! :)
Thanks for your read & comment
or maybe just anarchy that has been proven to work.
You mean no community rules, and each individual can do whatever he/she pleases to do?
No rules that are set in stone. Social rules do exist and if you do anything to anger people that often has negative effects
Speaking as someone who works in customer service, I can tell you, people ignore social rules often and enthusiastically. Common decency, politeness, understanding, all things that people readily abandon if they think they can get away with it.
I work in customer service as well. The reason they brake the social rules is because they see you as a worker, not a person. That was how the upper classes acted in the past and it slowly trickled down, even though no money ever did.
don't think of what they do, think of why they do something.
Good answer !!
How are the social rules determined? Who decides on the negative effects, who executes when something needs to be executed? Where has this been proven with safety to the individual and living together in peace and harmony?
How social rules are always determined. The negative effects are usually decided by the collective town/group you are in.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
I usually use this as a reference to places it has worked peacefully. There are many example from throughout history.
I'll certainly will read the link you provide. Essentially you oppose the technology implementation of a de-centralised government, but go back to local communities who decide together how they will live together, correct?
The communities don't have to be local, often they can span what would have before been considered a country.
Understood indeed, but at least geographically members will be located in group(s) without other groups with other social rules and norms mixing in.
It's a good start, I have been advocating similar things:
https://steemit.com/freedom/@profitgenerator/voluntary-state-blueprint-for-a-free-society
But the endgame has to be individualism. It's only the individual that exists fundamentally, everything else is a social construct. So complete freedom is only achieved when the individuals recognize their own power.
From your linked article I read you propose some central organisation for enforcement of private contracts. I suppose this is kind of a justice system + kind of a police force, correct?
How do you see when we get to individualism how individuals who need support, who need care, who may not be able to logical think are supported in such society? Note: the individualistic state we have more or less already as a culture in western world, ie first think of ourselves, and when we have time left, maybe think of someone else...but foremost think of ourself, fill our own pockets regardless of others; whenever groups of people are demonised, we say "well, we have to help them" but in the end we turn our backs under the umbrella of "if it does not effect me, who cares" we only think that, we are not necessarily vocal about this.
I do not have the answer, other than that it may need to be centralised bodies again who provide that care.
I also not sure about 100% free market. It all seems so good and all, but the reality in for instance medical care and foremost in commercial businesses creating the new medicine is that the commercial comapnies are making a lot of profits that end up in the pockets of the top of the hierarchy. In fact governments are paying for the new medicines through sponsored research and the commercial companies claim the patents and then sell the medicine for way too much money to hospitals and the insurance have to pay for them, and who cannot afford an insurance, well, they left on their own and possible die because of lack of funds. In The Netherlands everybody is insured since this is directed by the government. The system is not good, since we have commercial companies executing the insurance's, but everybody is insured. No insurance is allowed to refuse someone for the basic part of the insurance. Also on this topic I do not have real answers, what is best or not, but I tend to think that some of the basic needs for a society shall not be in te hands of commercial companies, since where money is made, mister greed is there to take as much as possible and put into their own pockets. Do you have a view how to avoid this egoisme that is in my view quite directly coupled with individualism, ie a result from it.
Nope, you haven't understood it. I proposed a direct democracy with property rights. A 50-50% compromize to satisfy both business people and leftist.
If institutions, like the police are 100% owned by the community, then they won't enforce the law, they will be just protectors.
So this would be like John's father Jim being hired by the community to patrol it at nights. Jim had military training so he is the best suited for this job. Jim will serve the community, because he is of the community and paid by the community. If Jim does something bad, he will be held accountable by the community, and fired. Jim will not throw flashbang on 2 year old kids.
This is how I envision anarchy, a decentralized network of free individuals making decisions for the community, while also being free to engage in commercial activity to grow the economy.
Ok, will have to think this through before I can comment further. The police guy I understand how that works. The 100% owning part of institutions I still wonder how that really works. I understood you idea around military from your own post, no generals, but lower ranks officers decide based on consensus, not a single person but maybe 100 persons or even more. If that would work for everything, that is what I need to think through, and other things like how people who cannot work, or need help are supported and how funds are made available. Anyway, I'll come back to this thread :)
Well I don't know either how it will work specifically, I think nobody does. I just gived a general overview how I think it will happen, broadly defining it.
Whether I am right or wrong, we can't know, it needs to be tested out in the real world.
One thing that is exciting is the DAO structure, where people can vote directly. A direct democracy, institutionalized.
I think this is the path towards it.
Maybe! I would not rule it out to be honest :)
I'm not a fan of voting though...Have read other post from you I think where you stated 90% of the votes needs to be done before a vote is valid. But I actually think that maybe even more than 50% are for some reason voting not based on their own analyses and knowledge. Also, I don't think most individuals know how to analyses the topics in detail enough to be able to understand what is good for them and their community in the end. In Switzerland they have lot of experience with voting, and they know it is all about how the question is asked what the result will be, ie manipulative already from the start.
Yes but this is voting without government though. So anyone can ask a question and people vote on it.
In fact I even said that the size of the organization should also be decided by people.
So if you have a medical establishment, then only the doctors will vote there. There is no reason why you should include the car mechanic in that decision.
So the size and the constitution of the organization should be also subject to vote.
That makes much sense indeed!
On voting, an interesting observation I had personally: In recent years I had intelligent friends giving me a call when they needed to cast their vote for national government, or local government, asking me what to vote. That was the moment I realised and questioned myself: Who does really think about what they vote. Luckily with me as the advisor, my friends have someone who think in general interest, and tries to be as objective as possible. But not all advisors are like that :( and :)
At the @gardenofeden we are living in community based on love, sustainability, responsibility and freedom. We have a vision and inspiration to create a whole new paradigm, and we invite only those who seriously wish to engage in the things that align with our values. I can say that it does work, as an example we are living it everyday.
It can be a very tricky thing however, as we humans have a lot of baggage to unload, and lots of introspection to do. People are not accustomed to living true, vulnerable and raw, nor do they really love themselves, so loving others is difficult as well. There is a lot of indoctrination of the human psyche which may take some time to unravel. I believe if we do it little by little, with love as our basis of importance, anything is possible.
I'm interested to see where this all goes and am grateful for your raising the questions @edje. Upvoting and following you.
https://steemit.com/life/@gardenofeden/sustainable-habits-in-our-community-we-use-our-lifestyle-towards-building-a-more-supportive-world-for-all
Thank you for your comment. Read also the posts you've linked.
Such way of living as you do with your community is quite rough and will for sure not be for everyone. I like the things you try to do. I guess for you and your gardenofeden community, your lives are totally different to that of the common person. You are out of the system so to speak.
Please also understand that some things you do in your community is certainly GOOD and suistainable, but becomes not sustainable when done by everybody on the planet; ie use 'waste' wood for a fire and grow your own food. When all people on the planet would do that, we would not have enough wood, and we would not have enough land. But that aside. I love what you try to do, since in the end what you try to achieve is a life with more happiness for those that are part of the community, at least that is what I think your goal is.
We definitely agree that if everyone lived a sustainable life then there wouldn't be the excess which we live on. It is sustainable for us in the current state of affairs. Also, most people are too attached to their creature comforts to live the life we do--it is not for everyone, and definitely not for wooses!!! (Ha--I don't even know how to spell that word!) But those of us who have chosen this path feel the freedom we create by making these choices are well worth letting go of the things we thought we needed. Choosing between wants and needs is of great value, and we find that the abundance is way more than we could ever really want.
There is such an excess of wood, and if we consider all the paper towels, toilet paper, office paper, new building waste, etc., and utilized hemp (the most valuable plant on the planet) , there would be more than enough to go around. I can't imagine that growing food and having enough land would be an issue. We have only 3.3 acres and have housed and fed up to 20 people. We could feed everyone here from our own land if need be, though our diets may be more limited than they presently are. We could just trade and barter for those things we do not grow. Much land is used feeding cows which could be repurposed for a more sustainable and prolific reality and our current housing is extremely wasteful which would free up tons of resources.
We will likely be able to live like this for many many years, as consumerism is alive and well with little hope of changing anytime soon. Our goal is to live as happy, healthy, free and responsible as possible and to set an example so people know alternatives are within reach. Our lives are definitely not common and we are truly grateful that is the case!
I'm really blessed to exchange with you and excited to see what other topics you bring to the table. Thanks for engaging and sharing some thought provoking material with the Steemit community. I'm glad you checked out our links--just a little taste of the vortex!!
Thank you so much for your comments and views. I really appreciate what you try to do and that you indeed can be an example how things can be done differently. GREAT and even FANTASTIC! It would not be for me though, but I like to think I use the system we have to try and create a better life with lesser attachment to objects and more time and energy in and with people. Better life means also small things like, don't through any rubbish on the street, refuse plastic bags at the grocery and all these small things. Better life also means starting coversations with those who are in the money big time and have no idea of anything else, do not understand what it means to become happy, always look to others who have more and think "I want that, That'll make me happy". In my group of friends, I have people like you are, I have a bit more moderately thinking people as well, meaning they would not live in a community you have, but are not far away from it. On the other hand, I also have friends that do find what you do totally HIPPIE and disconnected form everything what is important in life (hahahaha, you can not imagine that anymore I would think :))
Regarding enough land for own food; in The Netherlands we have cities/villages/farmer land, and a little bit of nature protected). That takes up 100% of our land. Ok, we export quite a lot, like flowers, patatos and some vegetables, but we also import a lot. We are with 17 million people int he country that measure about 250km from north to south and 140 km from west to east, and part of that is water. I suppose you are in the USA? No comparison regarding number of people and square mile of land you have :) NOte: Whole of Europe counts around 750 million people, and is around 10 million km2 big, the USA counts around 320 million people and is around also around 10 million km2 big. The Netherlands is one of the most dense country in population / km2, we are almost a city state from that perspective.
You may be interested in my post of today; It is about adding more transparency to the centralised governments to make the system better: https://steemit.com/transparency/@edje/will-100-transparency-of-the-individual-solve-the-trust-issue-we-have-with-democratic-systems
Thanks for your acknowledgement @edje. Of course people want to label things/people so they can categorize them somewhere in their brain for understanding. And we know we are also not who people think we are., no matter what they'd like to call us. Though our worlds may be far apart, we have no judgment on others who choose the lifestyle of their own different from ours. There is something in this life for everyone. We are also aware that karma is real and we are the makers of our own realities, so the more honorable we can be with our choices, the more blessed we are.
We too have many friends on the full spectrum and there are many ways of going about change and from many different angles. We have chosen to be the change we wish to see in the world, and we are grateful for the joy in our lives, and if that happens to inspire others that is a magnificent bonus.
I'll check out your post. Thanks for your response. It's fun to exchange with you.
Same here :)
Very good post.
I think the blockchain shouldn't be used for the government but only for governance of small communities with multiple interests but with a collectivist ownership of its property. Individualist creativity, attention or innovation should generate a proportional wealth but under the principle of Human Values on top of Material Value that does not forget that everybody should access the essential basic needs for survival and the equal capacity of fighting for more ascending needs of self-realization. I suggest the readings of some of my last posts that I think have a lot of material to contribute to this post's reflections. My message is if the Human Value is not on top of the pyramid of the Steemit strategy, always commanding over the Money Value I know that on the long run it will always mean the death of Steemit. In the systems change alchemy Matter is fed by Spirit not the other way round. It's Human Spirit that makes Matter "significant" and "meaningful". "Human Value" is the first and last determinant of Steem Value or any blockchained community.Allow me some comments
Human values; I refer to this with the general term RESPECT.
Indeed, when respect is not at the top, as the most important element when dealing with others, than communities and societies fall apart. Fact of life is that not all individuals have respect in their DNA so to speak.
This also counts for Steemit, I believe most of the Steemians have respect as one of their key characteristics, however some do not. When somehow the individuals that do not act with respect for others, are become too harmful for the community, 'tools'* needs to be available to either reduce the harm the can do (from changing their minds and with that their actions, to 'locking'** them up until they are able to live amongst the community again without breaking the community with their actions).
I personally believe in the approach we take in The Netherlands when we put people behind bars; From the first day of imprisonment we prepare the individual for a return to society and have a whole system setup for that.
*tools: this can be anything, could be a team of individuals specialist who can bring someone from being destructive to others and maybe even him/herself to participate in the community again, could also be kind of a police force, or could be a (temporary) silencing of the account.
**locking: could be anything from silencing their account for some time, to limit the reach the can have within the community, could be taking away certain rights/tools (eg voting, or posting in terms of Steemit).
Yes, thanks a lot for your reply, it's all about respect.
I've been in The Netherlands for more than 2 years in holidays for the feel of respect in real communalist democracy but since my first visit in 1979 till 2015 I've seen things are getting worst and the fascistic "mob" is climbing in power and trying to change one of the most tolerant countries in the world is going in the same direction of the as the whole society.
Some "Mussolinisc" figures are fighting for power of money and private property marrying the State for totalitarianism control of the crowds by propaganda.
In Steemit the majority of whales (in my view 97%) have a dignified behavior and they don't abuse power besides of their Vesting Power and the deserved invested in High Uncertainty but made possible Steemit's Dream to became Reality.
Only maybe 3 % of the whales abuse their power using their entourage of tormentors, insulting good members crucial for steemit about their personal traits as a reason to humiliate, subjugate, and using them as "escape-goats" to strengthen their dominance power.
This is a disruptive strategy for the community and the Value of Steem showing behaviors of the "Raged" (violent intimidators to hide their own fears of a punishing father) - Extreme violent groups glued by external hate or dehumanization of other groups).
This fascistic acts of violence with no Respect for People can last for a long time(nobody knows how long) but some day there is a "Mussolini Headkick" day.
History facts showed that fascism always falls.
Although I find the words "fascism" and "Mussolinisc" very strong and not entirely applicable to the state we are in (at least not in real life) but I understand what you are saying.
Not only in The Netherlands, but in whole of Europe as well as USA, we are going through rough times, we are getting more nationalistic, and we see an increase of blaming certain groups for the effects in society that has nothing to do with one another. Polarisation, in one word, is happening. Luckily our last elections showed the Dutch Trump did not really win and will very likely not make it to government (we need 4 to 5 political parties to get to 50+%), and France showed the French Trump was not elected.
Whether in real life societies or on Steemit, only a few are required to make a mess of the whole! We see it at Steemit, we see it in our daily lives. The problem is generally, the mass is not doing anything, they just sit there and do their own thing, either scared to say or do something, or just don't care to much when whatever happens does not directly effect them, the "not in my backyard" syndrome. I have no idea how to wake the mass up, but history showed that things must get worse much more before the mass start to realise they have to do something. This counts for Steemit and this counts for Europe, USA and possibly many other countries.
Yes, I was just mentioning that I think we are crawling those stairs if people don not became Aware.
Just said, Mussolini because he was a fan of corporatism and State would be the same, no need for "revolving-doors" just coexistence in the "House-of-Cards" seen in today's politics.
Quote from The Culture of Conformism, by Patrick Colm Hogan
[P]anic tends to foster racism, authoritarianism, and more generally, consent and conformism- a point that is deeply consequential for U.S. society today.
I bookmarked this, maybe an interesting read.
Great comment @charlie777pt. When love reigns, all is well. When it doesn't chaos rules. Human value is indeed of primary importance.
Great post, like usual! So I am not a fan of big centralized governments I can give ten thousands of reasons. But a good one is how the ECB handles things, could also give factory farming. The cease of production and assets by big governments and the centralisation of currency including inflation is a big problem for example. But I serious change in mentality and awareness is necessary. For now I say we can do a lot more with a lot less government. But their will always be individuals who do not respect the Non-Aggression Principle sadly.
Thanks for stopping by and reading the post and your comment. I do not necessarily like our implementation of governments as well, and may even believe in the possibility for some sort of de-centralised governments to work through technology. But I see the need for some centralised enforcement, always, as long as we are humans. Maybe when we get bionic with computers integrated with our brains, we may be able to understand that harming other eventually harms yourselves and define our actions based on that. But so far I see to many individuals not having those thoughts and actions.
Some questions you don't have to answer ;)
Do I have to answer all your questions first and give you guarantees before I can live free?
Is it you, anyone else or "the majority", who decides if I can be free or not?
And If it's, one of those three, who decides if I can live free or not, doesn't that make you, or them, an master/owner?
If I believe I have to ask you permission to be free, am I free then in my mind? Or am I a slave according to my own thinking?
If I state: I'm free and don't need permission from any other mortal human being(s) to be free. What then? What are you going to do about that? :)
Thank you for your feedback.
To start with, I do not take the 'you' in your comment personally :)
I actually believe nobody is able to live 100% in freedom. There are always certain things somebody does, eg taking care for your loved ones, even at times you do not feel like helping out with eg buying groceries for your mother who sits in a wheelchair. Any question related to 100% freedom, is therefore theory, never practical.
But lets assume we create something we all can be 100% free. Can you than please give your opinion on some of the basics such as: when person A kills person B, you find it ok person A keeps his/her 100% freedom? add to that, person A is your neighbour and lives 20 meters from you own home
To start with, I do not take the 'you' in your comment personally :)
That's great. I asked the questions to get you to look from a different perspective. Sometimes I put a disclaimer in front of such questions like: don't take it personal :) or I write them them the other way around. from your perspective.
If you do something for your mother you don't loose you freedom. Then you consent to doing that, and you had a choice.
When most people talk about freedom they (and I) are talking about freedom from coërsion and violence.
when person A kills person B, you find it ok person A keeps his/her 100% freedom?
Of course not. There is an exception though, if person A did it out of self defence because s/he was attacked by person B. But I guess that is not what you mean.
So I'm not advocating that everybody becomes an hermit or that people don't work together or help each other.
Maybe this little film helps explain what I mean.
Of hier in het Nederlands
Thank you for the reply :) AND for not taking it personal.
So we established that some things are not ok. Now my question is (and that was the purpose of my post), who shall determine if person A is guilty or not? And what shall we do with person A when he is guilty? Proponents of the 100% de-centralised government implemented by blockchains, advocate passive enforcement, ie whatever rules can be defined on the blockchain that is enforced by technology, BUT when a member steps out, or not even steps out, but decide to kill somebody no active enforcement is put forward but just the statement: that shall not happen, and that is not good!....and when I ask that question who and what deals with person A, I get NO RESPONSE. However, they tell me, members have to stick to the 'contract' and we do not want any centralised body. So, these people want something totally decentralised, BUT they have not the answer to my example, who, what and how does determine if person A is guilty or not.
What is your view here? How shall we do that? Something centralised? Or give person C, D, and everybody else the right to define if person A is guilty, and when so, to do whatever somebody else wants? maybe even kill person A?
EDIT: Just watch the video. Unfortunately I could not find the answers to my question in the video. Long story short; The message as brought forward in the video, I heard many many times. But I never got the answers to my questions. My questions are generally avoided with other questions they ask me, or just ignored. I really hope you can provide one!
There are two questions here you ask me what are my thoughts on this and what solusions there exist In a centralized way. I can tell you my view but that would not help you since you have to do your own thinking.
I can't stress this enough. What would you do or propose. We are so indoctrinated that we don't take responsibility for our own life and own problems with the people that surround us.
About the solutions I'll get back to you on that one. I have to gather some info for you. I'll get back to you before Thursday. I'm busy renovating and a bit too tired to write a lot or to gather those things. O.k.?
Have a nice weekend.
p.s. you might see me around here thought ;)
My solution is still something central, since I do not believe to give judge and executioner rights to people. Therefore when it can not be at the individual, it automatically becomes something central. Somehow this central body needs to be under control by the community for this body to handle their delegated tasks to the rules of the community.
I'm looking forward to your response next week.
Happy renovating! And enjoy your weekend.
Judges are people. What else could they be ...angels gods saints?. But most people born in the religion see judges politician and government worker as something else as people. More holy or noble which is strange because they are just people.
But too get back to the private legal systems.
I did not put much time in it I have other things to do, you yourself could do research too, in these matters.
A friend advised me to advice you this book.
anarchy and law
I'm currently reading this but I have a hard time concentrating because I'm pretty tired.
An article possibility of private law
Some video's
law without government - conflict resolution
law without government-principles
law without government - consumers demand
There is more to be found.
But this is the best I can do for now. I do most of the reading in winter, now I'm busy doing other stuff, and I need to relax too. Hope you understand.:)
I personally believe there is much to be gained in prevention and for instance thread management
I really really appreciate your comment here with all the information. I already have this bookmarked and will go through all the links asap and will start reading up on the matter. Thank you so much for your help and all the information and references. Wish you lots of fun with whatever you do, and here on Steemit of course. And yes, relaxing and chilling is also very important!
If we truly look at humanity, most are all in favor of peace. Why then is our history as it is? Basically death and misery with patches of good here and there over the centuries. Observable evidence would highly suggest, with almost absolute certainty that humanity as a whole is good, but there is an element of evil that cannot be eradicated fully on this physical earth, ever. It is in our DNA. It is a spiritual war. The body dies... the spirit energy moves on. If you are good in life, most likely your spirit will go somewhere good. However, none are truly good..none! What then?
Thank you for your work!
I agree to this point 100%. For the community to determine who is evil and decide from who the community needs to be protected, I think we require some centralised and independent body to determine who is evil and how the community needs to be protected from such evil. Such centralised independent body could be implemented differently than we have today, maybe with direct voting for members, and members rotating, maybe by combination of suggestions made by such body and community voting.
I would encourage any idea that promotes solid principles of individual freedom. Speaking from an historical perspective, this concept is impossible. Even in the short term. Why? Because mankind has an Achilles heal .. or heals! Lust, power, envy, resentment, distrust and on and on. True peace cannot be reached without knowing where it comes from to begin with. So, that is the question.. where does "Peace" come from? Lets go there! :) Peace and grace to you beautiful soul.
That would be great! Although I don't think 100% freedom is ever possible. Caring for our loved ones is something that in my book belongs to creating overall and individual happiness, but not always we like to help and support that family member or friend or even our own child at that given point in time, therefore one can never be 100% free. Also we have to have some rules with our community members, our neighbours, with those we live side by side. We always have to respect the other, and by giving that respect, we loose some of our freedom.
Super topic! Not sure though where it comes from. I know that it starts at myself. I think we first need to love ourself, then we can love others. When we know what real love is, then we can understand the true meaning of respect. And when we understand that, we are able to create peace, for ourself, for and with others. But I must say, I need to think this through further to understand better how I think Love, Respect and Peace are influencing each other, and how to stimulate this in others around us.
Agreed--Super Topic!!! Love is always the answer and loving the self is the place to begin. We will not achieve freedom, in my opinion, until we address our own dysfunctions and take responsibility for making personal change. Also, raising a new generation of loving, empowered children is our future, so parenting is key. We must look at all the ways we influence, control, manipulate, coerce, bribe, indoctrinate and suppress them--which takes an incredible amount of insight and dedicated focus. Moving away from the things that simply entertain us and keep us distracted will free lots of energy to do the real work. Instilling a sense of well being will be natural when we ourselves are well.
Inspired to be reading posts and comments of this caliber. Thank you @edje and @manyfish.
Thank you as well for the great contributions you make to this post, not only this comment but also your others :)
My pleasure. Thanks for throwing out here something worth commenting on @edje!
I feel like the passive enforcement will lead to many small, heavily polarized communities, with extreme views and behaviours, that constantly battle other communities. There is a lot of good in people, but there is also a lot of hate. When hate matches with hate things intensify and negative actions manifest in the name of what is 'right.'
In theory, something like this sounds great, but unfortunately there is just too much ignorance out there.
Thank you for sharing your views.
I think you are right, maybe I would state that there is lot of hate in some individuals, ie be far the minority of all of us. But yeh, there are always individuals who do not want to conform to anything and have no issue at all to harm other people, physically and mentally, in such a way they are destructive to the community at large.