Topic: Consensus-based society with provable trust-free voting - page 3. (Read 11117 times)

By proposing the system that relies on new technology that never existed before (cryptographically provable voting) we will have much less chance of repeating the history compared to attempting to defend the system which could work before but failed. Please understand that consensus-based system is not anti-free-market in any meaningful way. You are free to join/leave any consensus-group or stay alone. Your disliking of it won't prevent others from forming voluntary consensus groups, so by not creating this system we would have achieved nothing.

And no, sound money isn't enough. We've already had gold as a sound money and that didn't prevent the society from derailing itself into a fiscal abyss.

So the model of free market you are so vigorously defending is vulnerable to the attack by criminal gangs?
No surprise it never actually manifested. There is no point in attempting to do the same thing the same way again and again expecting different results. That would be repeating the history. Why not leverage the new technology instead and see what happens? Maybe this time it will actually work.

Yes, so you still have a problem of solving "doom" scenario in your model of free-market.
What if you find yourself in that situation, what would you do?
What if the company you worked for that went bankrupt was the last of the two competitors in this area of expertise and the one that remains in this business already managed to buy enough land and a few media companies slowly turning into a state? Would you join them?

Would you please elaborate on how my argument is fallacy?

If reading through that article didn't empower you to answer my question in a meaningful way, why would you suggest me reading it?

Your reply doesn't provide any constructive solution to the problem in question.
The consensus-based system doesn't force you to be with the larger group and it doesn't imply that the larger group would always achieve consensus for a violent resolution with regards to smaller groups.
In contrary it is a way for peaceful people in that group to have more influence in the decision making and serve as a counter-balance to those people who strive for power and tend to be more aggressive to attempt to maintain power and extend it by any means (violence not excluded).

So you're likely to have less violence with consensus-based system rather than with centrally-managed pyramid-structured profit-driven corporations very afraid to not be successful and therefore being aggressive or they would otherwise face the "doom" scenario, that you still haven't come up with a solution for.

If majority of members in the larger group which might consist of family members with children and their elders would vote for a violent resolution with regards to a smaller group, yes that would be a result.
You cannot change people's morals with the technology, but the technology will allow those with higher morals to be heard and listened to, so that violent resolution of any conflict would have less chance manifesting.

So we will find ourselves in a situation with fewer and fewer competitors which become more and more self-sufficient and gradually turning themselves into a state?
You see, you continue to defend the system which leads to the situation that you don't prefer.

Those statements only contradict if you outsource things that you depend on to other participants on the market. If you have a family garden and a farm which is capable of producing enough food throughout the year, you will have a lot of free time during winter to engage in many other activities that would benefit your performance next year. For example think how to improve the machinery that you use to work more efficiently, so that you could spend less time working on the farm and more time entertaining yourself.

Don't get me wrong, profit and competition isn't a bad thing, but it's the experience that you get throughout your life that matters most and too much concentration on profit would lead to greed and that in turn would lead to fear of loosing what you have so that you become obsessed with power and control.


If reading those articles didn't empower you to produce any variant of a meaningful answer to the questions being discussed or at least a simple approximation of an answer, then what makes you think that me reading those articles would produce a different result?

I'm not against backing up your claims with other sources, but I'm not very comfortable with just sources and no claims.

oh this is the I can see the future guy?

Mmhm.

Keep in mind that this is the same person who started the remote-viewing thread... I don't have much hope for his bullshit filters.

Frankly... in my observation, you don't seem very interested in understanding how things actually work. If you can't distinguish a free market and an unfree market - which appears to be the case here - then there is no way we can have a meaningful conversation about the topic.

I am giving you my honest feedback here. I hope you accept it as such.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - Santayana
 Adding computers to a system based on a logical fallacy won't make the fallacy right. It will only make the wheels fall off faster. Here, a Sci-fi example of what might happen in your system: http://www.johnjosephadams.com/seeds-of-change/?page_id=66

No, we had a market preyed upon by criminal gangs, some of whom decided it would be safer to farm their plunder than to hunt it down.

Mine is at least an argument, rather than a fallacy. Do you not think that road companies know that building extra, unprofitable bridges would spell their doom?

Again with the ad populum, now mixed in with your ignorance of how arbitration works. Please, before you reply, at least read the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

No, I prefer to reject might-makes-right, rather than simply being on the larger side of that equation.

You mean the way to force the smaller group bow down to the larger, whether or not the larger is "right."

You do know that companies go out of business now, right? And don't riot in the streets? The employees go their separate ways, usually finding employment with their former competitors.

Those two bolded statements contradict. Please correct. Either they would no longer be profit-driven, or no longer care about their quality of life.

Did you read any of the articles I linked? They explain how those systems work. Here, the link again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

As I've already mentioned, I'm not very interested in how things are called, but rather how things work.
If you can provide a good explanation of how the system that you are defending would work, I would be willing to engage in a meaningful discussion.

I agree with myrkul. Calling a taxed population  "a free market" is a mistake. Saying that the outrageous accumulation of power and influence caused by favoritism in the laws is "the fault of the free market" is a mistake. These conclusions are not supported by observable reality and, as such, I do not accept them, nor should you.

The concepts you linked to were invented before the advent of Bitcoin and related technologies, so going back into the past in an attempt to understand how things could have worked back then and why they failed might not be quite relevant today.


It doesn't matter what you call them. It's the most competitive way to survive that people have figured out given the technologies they had. I'm not saying it will stay that way, though. You see, in the beginning there were just people and they were free to discover whatever ways are best for their survival. So you can say we already had a free market in the beginning and it led to the creation of states.


Your argument isn't much stronger. It might or it might not work. Road companies might discover that demand for bridges isn't that high, but we still might end up with dozen of bridges if it would mean going out of business for those who don't succeed.

Because in our attempt to compete with the state on the free market we failed and we had a choice to either die from starvation, go rogue or trade whatever we have left (our freedom) on whatever terms the successful competitor would be willing to accept us. This is how free market works. Is this really what you like to promote? I guess what you have in mind is a free ethical market, but you would need some sort of consensus system to determine what the word "ethical" means in the environment you find yourself in.

In the arbitration example above, the consensus group would at least be able to present cryptographically provable evidence of the achieved consensus of a large group of people to the factory prior to taking any actions violent or otherwise. This proof might have more weight for the factory than claims of some self-proclaimed arbitration company.


So you prefer to not have might and bow down to those who have?
Isn't that what you're doing right now in relation to state? I thought you didn't like it.
Consensus-based system is the way to distribute might but still have it, rather than give it away and bow down.


It all boils down to what happens when a company doesn't succeed on the free market. What is the choice?
Just die? Gather into street gangs to get their way through violence (very viable alternative for a private defense company)? Go to your competitor and ask for help? And what if your competitor is the state and it asks for your freedom?

Contrary to the profit-driven corporations on the market, consensus-based groups would tend to become self-sufficient thus they won't suffer too much from the market conditions. They might still engage in a free trade with other groups or individuals if it's more efficient for them to buy stuff on the market than to do it in-house, but generally they don't have to. By being self-sufficient and no longer profit-driven consensus-based groups would concentrate on improving their quality of life, developing new technologies advancing science and entertainment.

Well, that's nice and all, but if you don't read the information provided, you won't know how things work, regardless of the names put on the systems.

False. States are successful protection rackets, nothing more. Paying a fixed fee to one group of bandits who have decided to settle down is preferable to losing large chunks of your economy to whichever roving band comes along. Think of it as the "criminal agricultural revolution."

Well, putting aside the fact that it's highly unlikely that a dozen road companies would try to build bridges at the same time, for any given stretch of river, there are only a few spots where building a bridge would be economical. The narrower, and thus easier to traverse, sections of river would be claimed first, finished first, and more profitable one completed, because of lower maintenance costs. Furthermore, road companies know this, it's their business to. Additional bridges would only be built if demand required them enough to make them profitable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

What prevents lawyers from knocking on your door and presenting you with alleged complaints from some people somewhere now? Oh yeah, no clients. Seriously, look into how arbitration works. You're clearly arguing from ignorance, and it's hurting your case.

I see, so we're back to "might makes right," eh? There are more of us, so we can force you to do what we want? Your system shows it's true colors at last.

Indeed, this might be a problem. Of course, it would be in the best interest of those harmed by the attack to discover who did it, so they can collect damages. When the trail leads back to the protection company, suddenly all those profits they were making evaporate.

Thanks for the links, but I prefer to be practical and focus on how things work rather than how things are called and what labels are being put on them.

In my view, we have always had a free market and it is our ability to compete on it is what changed over time. From the looks of it free market didn't prevent concentration of power and formation of states. Therefore you cannot blame states for the lack of free market because free market is what created states in the first place. You see, nothing prevents you from putting limitations and regulations on states today the same way they do it upon you. It's a matter of competitiveness and coordination of little pieces of power into a bigger piece of power that allows them to succeed.

You need to create a bigger structure to compete with the state, you cannot just say free market will destroy it (because it created it). I do agree that the emergence of sound money like Bitcoin would weaken the state, but without sound alternative on how to proceed working together states won't go away.

I still have a few practical concerns with your view of free market as I understand it (as a collection of specialized companies working to maximize profit):

1) What would prevent building literally dozen of bridges in the same area provided that all the competitors start at roughly the same time and firmly believe that they will accomplish the job first.
The problem is that only one or two bridges are really necessary and the rest will be unused and go bankrupt wasting resources and hurting the environment.
Consensus-based solution: large enough consensus group would be able to determine the actual number of bridges that is necessary before doing the actual job.

2) In your arbitration example you say that production company would give arbitration company an authority over itself. What would prevent the formation of literally dozens of small arbitration companies all coming to the same or different factories and charging them damages for some alleged complaints from some people somewhere. It would seem like a very profitable business to me.
Consensus-based solution: large enough consensus-group would be able to present the factory with the following alternatives: a) join the group and comply with consensus, b) pay the damages and think again if it's still profitable to continue pollution, c) face violent response from consensus group provided that the group is large enough to prevent factory from hurting the environment, d) small consensus group incapable of influencing the factory might seek to merge with other small groups or leave the area peacefully.

3) Consensus-based groups would tend to be self-sufficient and therefore more stable/peaceful while specialized companies on the market might have a hard time surviving when there is not enough demand for their services. Think of the following case: private defense company is having hard time to find customers because the area has become peaceful and nobody needs protection anymore. If they are profit-driven they might consider creating diversions or false flag attacks so that their services are still needed.

Indeed, creating an alternate system to the State and subsequently out-competing it is the goal of Agorism. That system is Anarcho-capitalism. You're simply re-inventing the wheel, with the same flimsy spokes.... It won't take long for the wheels to come right off.

I agree that new technologies will bring us closer to the goal and the difference in understanding that we had comes from the fact that I wanted to be all inclusive from the perspective of free market and considered the state as its equal participant (state is the creation of people after all).

So by definition of free market it should provide an alternative solution to the state that would outcompete it. The system described in this thread might be one of the alternatives that would emerge on the free market as long as there is a need for it (as long as there is a state).


Yes, we already have consensus-based system in its smallest iteration - it's called family.
No one has obligation to marry anyone and no one has to stay married if they no longer agree on how to live together. You probably don't need provable voting for consensus in a family, but as families merge and get bigger they might evolve into a large enough group that will become self-sufficient (grow food, defense, medical help).

Large enough consensus groups would be able to defend the land they occupy and that would give rise to the land ownership without state. Provable voting system would then counter-balance any attempts to acquire and centralize power over that group (a leader might emerge from within the group to attempt to take over). Further structure and topology of society would then solely depend on the consensus of people and their desire to merge and get bigger or to split and form new smaller groups.

If all individuals preemptively and voluntarily agree to obide by the outcome of the election and no violence was used to coerce the minority into compliance and if such an arrangement falls under the scope of the definition of democracy than i have nothing against such this type of demorcay. Sounds like it could be useful in certain contexts.

Certainly not in recorded history. Some civilizations have come close, but none have achieved a truly free market. There's always been some interference by government, usually in the form of taxes or regulations. The closest in recent history would be the American industrialist period, one of the most prosperous time periods in American history, with more millionaires per capita than any time before or since.

Because every time it comes close, the State stomps it down.

And it is emerging now, because enough people have woken up. They reject the failed systems of the past. They reject coercion as a viable method of making decisions.

The major difference is that consensus groups in proposed system are voluntary to begin with and members are free to leave as they wish. The only thing that needs enforcing is that everybody complies with achieved consensus if they decide to stay in the group and receive the benefits it provides.


Have we ever had a free market in history of humanity in your definition?
If yes, what caused it to collapse into what we have now (not free market in your terms)?
What would prevent it from collapsing again in case it emerges in the future?
If no, why free market doesn't emerge provided it is such a great idea?
Why would it ever emerge if never emerged before?

I don't want to turn it into a heated debate, so I will help you a bit
Because not all market players are profit driven!
Once they accumulate enough wealth to enjoy all the material values they can ever dream of they begin their battle for power and control because they become afraid of loosing what they have achieved.

So either we eliminate all the fear on this planet or we need another way to keep those who are still in fear contained within what the rest of us agrees to be acceptable behavior.

Ha! Perfect answer... sums up the whole thread.

this would be a great idea if democracy wasn't a terrible idea.

The producing company themselves give the arbitration company the authority to decide damages. They do this because they think that the arbitrator will decide fairly, and know that if they don't go to arbitration, violence may be the only way to resolve the conflict. Since violence is expensive, and killing your customers bad for business, they prefer a peaceful solution.

Because today's market is not free? In an actually free market, competition would prevent cartels from forming, or ensure that they fail if they do.

In your arbitration example it seems that arbitration company has some authority over producing company. In free market who gives it that authority? What if I and other couple of guys want to start our own arbitration company, who will give me authority to charge polluting factory any damages?


Why is this not happening in today's free market? What would be different in your model of free market that would prevent things that are happening today?


The whole point is to make voting as simple as possible, so that you can finally vote for things that matter sitting on your sofa at home instead of physically gathering in one place to elect another human and give him all the power, because voting in this way is not practical for anything else. With this new system people will be voting how to spend the budget they contributed to, or how to resolve the conflict of any kind.

What would people be voting for if not to transfer power from themselves to someone else. Unless the elected position was purely ceremonial in which case i am force to wonder, what is the point?