Topic: Can There Ever Be Too Much Decentralization? (Read 286 times)

There should be no self-interest beyond the common good.

Edgar Wright's Hot Fuzz is one the greatest comedy films ever made.

Not only is it a brilliant send-up of classic action movies like Point Break and Bad Boys II, and a masterwork of writing, editing, and visual humor, it is also an incredible satirical look at what happens when some people decide they know what's best for everyone and justify their actions in the name of the “greater good."

I think there may be some place for a centralized authority but personally I believe its main purpose should be providing security, building infrastructures private companies can't build on their own and making sure those companies remain competitive.

To be clear, I wouldn't wish to deny you the freedom to associate with and self-organize whatever type of governance model you prefer, so long as it's voluntary and not compulsorily forced upon me or anyone for that matter. And likewise I wouldn't seek to force my own political will upon you or anyone else. At the heart of it, that is really where everything goes south. If you want to experiment with your own thinking about this, try replacing the word 'government' with the word 'coercion' and see whether or to what extent that impacts your values and opinions.

Usually when people say things like, "What we really need is ..." I'm thinking to myself, what do you mean we, kemosabe?

Thanks both, you are making valid points and challenging my perceptions. Just wanted to let you know you are having an effect.
I suppose my ideal state is one where the government is absolutely impartial and acts with no self-interest, where it is there only to serve the population, to ensure equality of opportunity. Is that possible? Who knows, maybe it's an impossible dream.

I'm unsure what you are talking about. You think decentralization of the 5G network would be harmful because the 5G technology is harmful itself? So I don't see how a centralized network would not be harmful.,

That I would agree on. It's no secret that governments tend to intentionally form a monopoly not because they didn't want their citizens to be harm or any hocus pocus reasons of the sorts, but instead, they wanted to take control--not that they are not doing it as we speak but also they intended on doing so thru the market. I've seen this kind of "operation" many times over in my country, they'd even controlled one of the media (tv broadcast, newspaper) so that they would hide an alleged massacre (I'm not gonna go into details).


Sure the world is too big for that, but that said, this so-called "free trade" doesn't entirely eliminates the possibilities. Why? E.g. America is having a conflict with China, IIRC, the trade between countries is way off. So what Trump is doing right now is aligned to his principle, "America is only for Americans", that statement alone "monopolizes" the possibilities of "free trade". I don't know what's his real intentions are, aside from banning some people from Mediterranean countries, I think he's planning on isolating America from the rest if I say so myself.

Monopolies and cartels form only because of the goverment.

The world is too big to be able to use coercion against everyone in order to maintain a monopoly. Free trade eliminates those possibilities.

Are you talking about the alleged safety of 5G?

I suppose my ideal state is one where the government is absolutely impartial and acts with no self-interest, where it is there only to serve the population, to ensure equality of opportunity. Is that possible? Who knows, maybe it's an impossible dream.

I do still think that governments are important in preventing monopolies and cartels. Not in all cases, sure, but there are many instances of governments stepping in to ensure at least a degree of fairness. You can't deny that it's easier to acheive a monopoly or form a cartel if there is no government to interfere.

Cartels only exist because goverments make things illegal and eliminate 95% of the competition allowing crooks to use coercion to inflate artificial prices and control the black market.

That sounds a lot like how things operate under state control. An anarchist society doesn't promise utopia but one of the fallacies behind saying things like "it would just be anarchy" as opposed to what exists now, is that any potential criticism you can level against anarchy is already a problem under the current social order. So it's no real argument. E.g. if you're worried about monopolies forming, take a good long look at how government operates. Government is a monopoly by definition. Another one commonly used by people: If there were no government, warlords would take over!  ... do I even need to go there??  

Collusion and cartels to start with. If everyone has self-interest, with no independent and impartial entity to provide checks and balances, there is nothing to stop the society running out of control. What's to stop monopolies forming as well? A big company can grind its competitors into the dust by lowering prices, and then once the competition has gone it can charge whatever the hell it wants, fair or not.

\
Do you think a centralized 5G tower can exist and that it would be less harmful? lol

<....> "Just a theory of mine, please take it with a grain of salt."

Collusion and cartels to start with. If everyone has self-interest, with no independent and impartial entity to provide checks and balances, there is nothing to stop the society running out of control. What's to stop monopolies forming as well? A big company can grind its competitors into the dust by lowering prices, and then once the competition has gone it can charge whatever the hell it wants, fair or not.

I'm not saying the present system is great, it's not, it has awful flaws and huge inequality, and the government aren't impartial at all. I'm just saying I think anarchy would bring problems too, and with no accountability there's nothing to keep it in check. I don't believe it's self-regulating. Well, except through violent uprisings and revolutions, but again, that's hardly an improvement.

How does a capitalist exploit you in an anarchocapitalist society?
There are millions of companies looking for workers, and they have to compete to give the best possible conditions and higher wages in order to obtain the limited workforce. By default the workers live prosperous lives.

In the field of blockchain and cryptocurrency, of course a key focus or principle is that of decentralization. This has positive implications and immense value since the current nature of the global economic system is one of all the power being highly centralized and concentrated in the hands of the few, e.g. central bankers.  

Being participants in the blockchain and crypto industries, we are caught up in the zeitgeist of decentralization which is not a bad thing, but a couple things recently got me wondering about whether decentralization is always useful and more beneficial than something being centralized, or at the least whether there can be a balance between these poles.

These personal incidents were both to do with find and organize information. The first is, I was recently trying to gather info for an article I was writing for a community newsletter about potential dangers and negative impacts of 5G technology. What I realized is that, as someone who was trying to learn about and make sense of this topic enough to understand and write about it, I found there are hundreds of grassroots websites I had to sift through to find what I conceived as the best sources of information, or the most authoritative in terms of accuracy, credibility, etc. I think this is a consequence of how we cannot really rely on experts any longer, because we see that the so-called 'experts' are often people who abuse their authority to mislead or lie to the public and present false information. Because this is happening across the board in so many different domains, e.g. health, politics, education, etc. it is as though in order to really find the truth of anything we each have to become our own experts and authority on every subject, to the extent that we can. This presents obvious challenges as there is simply not enough time in the day, so at some point it seems we have to rely on our judgement of the source of information, but at the end of the day even this does not fully suffice if you really want to find out the truth of something you simply have to go the distance to understand it for yourself. I'm kind of rambling now, and realize this is getting pretty philosophical.

The other instance that get me wondering is sort of the inverse. I had a health issue a couple years ago, that because I found I could not rely on the medical establishment or doctors fully, I had to delve deep to learn everything I could about this situation. It is similar to the learning about 5G I described, in that I found I had to consult hundreds of sources in order to become my own authority on the subject. Because of that experience, I concluded it could be a great help to others dealing with the same health issue if I were to write an ebook to serve as a complete and comprehensive guide to all I had learned about the subject, since such a thorough guide does not yet exist or I would have found it. There is currently no single place one can go to in order to get all of the information I amassed, in one place.  So really what I am seeking to do, is to centralize that information, as I think that not everyone has the luxury of spending the crazy amount of time I took to gather and make sense of all this info (it was not really a luxury I had either, but I was forced to do it for sake of my health and sanity).  So what am I doing in creating that ebook if not centralization?  

I haven't really contemplated it much further yet, but thought I'd pose the question here. Is there a place for centralization as well as decentralization? Is it good in some domains of life or technology to have a balance, or are there cases where one or the other is clearly superior? Or is it that people just need to be free to decide for themselves how to organize and could choose either? Really a very open question, so feel free to reframe or add to it. What are your thoughts?

Yes I am. I can post a link to the article I wrote if anyone cares to read it.

I'm not denying there are plus points and that as a theory it can be compelling. My opposition isn't a knee-jerk 'no', more of a reasoned conclusion. I've been talking with climate-deniers and flat-earthers enough on other threads to know that we shouldn't just jump to decisions without thinking about them. And I am perfectly willing to have my mind changed.

My main objection is ease of exploitation. A lot of people in positions of power, be it government or business, exploit the general population for purposes of self-interest. Inequality is growing within societies and across the globe because of this selfishness and exploitation. People in power corrupt. Not saying all people are the same, just that there is (I think, not sure if there have been studies into it) a correlation between the sort of person who wants to rise to a position of power, and the sort of person who would exploit that power.

Some systems are easier to exploit than others. Communism failed because the rulers could be as corrupt as they liked with no electorate to force them out. Capitalism has more in-built checks, but obviously is a long way from perfect. I will agree that we need a better system, but anarchism despite its potential benefits has massive potential for exploitation.

Yep. Somalia is the best example.