You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: De-Centralised Governments: Will This Work?
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 :)
There is nothing wrong with mentors and philosophers trying to influence the voters with reason and evidence.
What is wrong is when propagandists are doing it with pure emotional manipulation and subversion.