Response to @dwinblood - Out-debate @positive NEVER: The Individual is NOT The System!! #steemit - #anarchism

To follow the debate chain: me, him, this post

@positive: Muh Representative Technocracy!
@dwinblood: If enough people felt they were being misrepresented there needed to be a way to quickly recall that representative rather than the slow process we have now. I believe the representative should have the opportunity to explain WHY they voted the way they did, and back it with information.

Nah.

Easy to replace representative = incentive to engage in sophistry

Liars and manipulators would do well under such a system.

How so?:

Why risk people not understanding you and losing your position?

What you need is another layer of representatives that serve as auditors, and get payed when they find flaws.

This provides an incentive to be thorough and to not collude with the representatives as the incentives will be orthogonal.

@positive: I'd rather pool commission from my capital in a fund which goes to my delegate, so that imposing these disincentives can be done at a cost cheaper to me.
How does natural law force you to do anything? That seems contradictory with what I know of natural law.

@dwinblood: It also does not STOP you from pooling your resources. You can do as much of that as you like as long as it is voluntary between yourself and the other participants. As far as making people stick to the agreement on how that pool should be use, you accomplish that with a contract which all of the participants are signatories.

It doesn't stop me but it makes it more costly.
And that's the secret sauce.

Companies have to be set up with coordination from other companies (blockchain registrars and insurance companies, private notaries whatever), or I have to make arrangements on a peer to peer basis.

It costs me time, and puts more pressure on me to be efficient -

Lest my recklessness cost me money.

I don't want that burden, I don't want to spend my time on admin, and John Smith can have a cut of my capital to handle that weight,.

Hell, I'll even let him skim a bit on top through corruption!

The main point is that we're paying for convenience, - i.e. paying for added time which we can spend on things which we regard as far more rewarding!

@dwinblood: Currently our education is very indoctrination like. It often omits information and selectively steers people towards compliance and conformity [...] This is dangerous in a democratic environment as HOW a person was educated is going to steer how they vote with the exception of a few fringe minority individuals or groups.7
...
@dwinblood: This makes Democracy even a Technocratic Democracy unworkable.

I think you make a good point, but you're 20 years late. Formal education is redundant in educating and serves as a daycare centre.

The wealth of information accessible online is far larger than that any institution could possess.

In fact, I would argue children now are far more advanced in cognitive ability and more independent well informed rational thinkers, simply due to the exposure to rich information and digital wheels which allow their hamster-like brains to peddle away through cognitive sublimity...

Point is I don't think ignorance as much a problem as you think.

At least not so much that they can't understand how their interests relate to that of their representatives.

@dwinblood: The Technocratic Democracy could protect the rise of groups who through exceptional power, property, etc could apply force to others (indirect or direct).

In a deregulated world where nothing limits wealth disparity, this will be magnified by orders more than in a technocratic representative government!

Laws based around pre-crime, and what might happen and billed as preventative in reality are based around fear, and risk avoidance. They take away the voluntary choice of people to engage in risky behaviors if that is their choice, and be responsible IF something DOES happen as opposed to being penalized for something that might happen.

I repeat: What's good for the individual is NOT what's good for the system!

Voluntary choice is an abstraction.

It's an ideal which does not benefit the individual, but appeals to notions of equity and fairness.

I'll finish with a quote from my initial post:

And when your pension funds get raided because the system is insecure, "Sorry for your loss", will not put food in your mouth.

And when your home gets raided by thieves, and you get brutally beaten up, you won't be thinking "This'll make home security more robust".

Look to forward to your response (please make it as short as possible so that others can take part in this :) ).