You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: De-Centralised Governments: Will This Work?
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.
Fully in agreement. But what if I was giving my friends the advise to vote what is good for me and not for them? Fact is that many countries now have populist in their political systems and not only 10% but up to 20 and 30% of the voters are blinded by what they say. That could also happen in a new system where the community votes for whatever needs to be voted for, or for instance when doctors vote for something... I like to believe in people, and think that the majority is cleaver enough individually and as a collective to win and move the train in the right direction at all times (with here and there some setbacks), but I still need to see it in practise to be sure if all the 'bad' votes can be over won by the 'good' votes. Maybe with the 90%, but it requires vote obligation, rather than voluntarily voting.