Topic: An Online, Distributed, Decentralized, Purely Democratic, CryptoGovernment (Read 3267 times)

With posts this salty, my name might as well be salty snax lol.

I'm only going to get more and more offensive in my replies as people become more and more offensive in their choice to not read.

Soz lol.

Thank you, Marlo Stanfield, for not taking the time to read the original post, let me paraphrase it for you because you were too inconsiderate to give me the time to read it yourself- Yes, this system allows for this. Every person does not need to participate. If they don't have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision, they can easily delegate their vote to someone who does.


Thank you, efreeti, for not taking the time to read the original post, let me paraphrase it for you because you were too inconsiderate to give me the time to read it yourself- This is already happening, saying it will never happen is illogical in the highest form of the word. You contradict the meaning of the word "never" by saying something that is currently happening will never happen. A "normal" person is indeed very busy, which is why we have a massive and robust DELEFUCKINGATION SYSTEM that has been intricately outlined in the very first post which you decided to not read.

This is true, which is why by explicitly using what you've outlined here as a definition of science, Comparitive Politics is science. And again, I've talked to several comparativists with PhD's in the field about this system (as well as many other people). The comparativists have ALL (100%) said that pure democracy is the only way to instantiate a world government peacefully because of its passive approach to distributing power. I'd argue that it's exactly the same as what Bitcoin is currently doing- instantiating a world currency passively by simply out-competing all previous forms of currency. An online crypto government will just win-out by simply out-competing all previous forms of government.

When scientific results determine whether or not you get funding and are able to make a living you have to accept that science is biased as well. There have been a LOT of scientists that have seen funding dry up for not producing the results governments want. Look at the history of the lipid hypothesis for example. 

The thing is that in science it shouldn't matter in the long run whether someone lies or fabricates data. Because the core of science is based around reproducibility and peer review. Over time the truth comes out. If someone is going to be making decisions based upon evidence and peer reviewed studies that have been independently verified multiple times, then it would be silly to think that I'm going to be better at making a decision based on nothing but my own emotions or ignorance.

scientists are not saints, and neither gods aware of everyone's needs/desires/preferences. They are corruptible just like anyone, including climatologists:
http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html

that's why is probably better not to let anyone to take decisions for you.

Economics is not a science. Social science maybe. But it's not the same.

Climatologist? Sure. Why not?

I think the problem like you said is trusting the wrong people. But it's because we're trusting politicians and we're not trusting the scientists and listening to people who value logic and truth over emotional persuasion. Politicians are the problem. The incentives are not aligned properly at all.

Do you trust economists? They say they're scientific too. How about climatologists? Or...

Trusting the wrong people is why we're so doomed. And everyone should be in charge for choices impacting their life. Right or wrong, it's their life.

I think on a very small scale it can work well. Farming communities. Maybe a small town. A union maybe.

It can be useful. But in many cases direct democracy is just going to amplify ignorance and be guided by emotion rather than logic.

Like for example. If there were a major vote about an energy related issue regarding something like nuclear power and the benefits of using thorium or something, personally I would like to delegate my vote to someone who is a trained scientist and more educated and informed on the potential ramifications and issues related to thorium. Not that I could spend more time learning about myself, but I'm not a professional scientist and I'm not arrogant enough to think that my opinion should count as much as someone who's dedicated their life to the study of science.

Will never happen.

A normal person is usually too occupy to make informed decision on important issues.

What's wrong with delegating individual power to someone who knows better? Does your system allow for this, or does every person need to participate? What if they don't have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision?

Isn't the main problem with our current democracy lack of knowledge? If not, what is?

"If you don't like the proposed form of government here, you can literally go make your own entirely separate government on top of the same platform, and hey, maybe yours will be more successful. I doubt it, because I haven't seen you propose a full crowd-sourced government like I've just done, but I've been wrong before."

OP's an egalitarian shithead

Karl Marx was also an egalitarian shithead

Coincidence?

This is where I get to play prescient in predicting future arguments and quote my past prescient self, "Maybe you didn't hear me. I pretty specifically said the democratic gov that would nest on top of this platform is based entirely on the formal logic principles of liberty."

And another iteration of the division of processes should be noted here, "there's two parts to this system, the platform the government runs on, and the government itself. The platform would be like etherium but much more robust, where anyone can build their own form of government on it, and then there's the government system itself, the first of which I'm proposing as a pure democracy to instantiate and popularize the platform. The reason I chose a pure democracy is because (based on every comparative politicist with a PhD I've talked to, and I've talked to dozens about this over the years) it's the only form of government that can peacefully transition the world into a singular world-government."

If you don't like the proposed form of government here, you can literally go make your own entirely separate government on top of the same platform, and hey, maybe yours will be more successful. I doubt it, because I haven't seen you propose a full crowd-sourced government like I've just done, but I've been wrong before.


No, I said Americans are on the lower end of the intelligence spectrum. I appreciate that you chose to only read that once and assume your reading comprehension was strong enough to argue about it even though your arguments are about things no one here ever said lol. However, I guess I am a bit elitist about this system, because it's not mine, it's hundreds of people's system, similar to how Bitcoin is now. This has been crowd-sourced to death, it's only being presented here now to see if there's any dev teams that can handle it.

So people that disagree with you are from "the lower end of the intelligence spectrum?" What kind of elitist bullshit is that?   

"Democracy".

How little knowledge of history there is around here.

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

You got 100 people in your democracy.

The "democracy" wants to hang you.

That means that if 51 people vote to stretch you neck, you are done*

Halfwits.

Jesus Christ on a raft.

* Of course 49 people, most likely including yourself didn't want to hang you.................

Okay fine, then people in the US will be left behind. I'm okay that the lower-end of the intelligence spectrum won't be the earliest adopters of this kind of system. If anything this is a positive. Why is a "huge" government a bad idea? This government is pretty minimal tbh, there's a lot less human infrastructure involved.


There's only been a couple governments in history that have had real democracy, and the problems they experienced were discussed in detail in the threads this idea was started in a couple years ago on scienceforums. This proposed system directly fixes all the named problems that a pure democracy has ever had, as well as a bunch of solutions for future possible problems. Your concerns with wide-spread disagreement on how things are done is fixed by the layered-law system similar to America's current system where there is district>city>county>state>federal breakdowns in laws.

Democracy has it's problems. Whether or not it's the best form of government in general, I don't know. But this is like taking all of democracy's problems and amplifying them one hundredfold. Direct democracy is the worst form of democracy and a bad idea in almost every case.

On an ultra small scale it might work where everyone's interests are aligned, like a farming community or something. But it really breaks down quickly on any meaningful scale.

Well said!

My point was about people in the US and most other countries never accepting the idea of one government no matter how decentralized or "democratic" it is. A huge government of any kind is a bad idea. No need to display the fact that you are a prick so boastfully.