Topic: Decentralized Army (Read 3450 times)

Though that might add risk to the war. Giving out the actual status of war to many generals might mean that the risk of one of them being a spy is very high. That means that having so many people to know about the status lowers the chance of winning a battle.

Maybe it could be turned out a bit by users that play different battle situations regularly and based on the outcomes they get scores. Then, depending on the actual battle data confidentially only a handfull could be chosen. Of course the risk still exists because foreign countries might want to place a general in this group.

We live it a digital era now, its not like we need to send scouts on horse between armies to communicate. We could have a control center on the internet itself, and the internet could vote about combat strategies based on a rank system.

An anonymous , decentralized HQ, which would be based on a rank system. For example people would have to play a video game simulator about a combat situation and whomever would score the highest that score would be added to his anonymous profile, and the highest their score is the more voting rights they have, over the real army.

This would ensure that the leadership to be also a decentralized network of specialists, which would be much better than current generals, and also since they would be anonymous and decentralized, no outside influence could influence them.

But this assembly would only assemble when a full out war would happen, local problems would be dealt by the local militias.

You would need to think very careful about how to organize an army consisting of many different subarmies. Normally there is one big head who organizes everything and through delegating he can command and act fast. But if this is missing then i wonder how reaction time would be in case of a war.

One thing to consider too... whose bread i eat those song i sing. Even if you say these people will be honest, we already see that this wont be really true. Think about universities or newspapers. They all depend on donations and know what... the result is that universities dont do science for the danger of GMO. They would lose a lot of money if they would do so.

Or newspapers... losing a big advertising partner can be deadly.

So im not sure how to prevent that those persons have an unhealty influence. Its not so very different from now then.

Well the idea behind my decentralized militia network is that its very easy to mount a defence and very hard to mount an offence.

You need every militia leader to mount an offence to attack another country, which would expose them as powerhungy and warmongering tyrants, so they would quickly become replaced or reorganized.

But if a real threat is coming then its easy to organize them, since they all have a common goal to defend their land, so they would form a temporary coalition which would be disbanded after the war. And because it would be a defensive army , they could not threaten foreign countries with it.

Now the financing is easy, since all rich people in that land would have a good interest to protect their property, they would donate to the army to defeat the agressors, and every other person that cares about that land.

If 1 militia commits crimes agains humanity, then either those people could move, they would not be bounded to that region, or there is always a civil way of private court system to deal with, and the private court will always rule objectively, and the court orders will be enforced by the other militias too.

So we would have 2 critical networks, the army network and the court network, and whenever militia goes out of line, the hurt people can turn to the court, and the court will enforce its orders with the other non-corrupted militias.

If everything is done well, the majority of the things will never be corrupt, and the majority will always clean out the corrupt minority.

When speaking about replacing... what about all the big war things that only a small army cant afford. Plane carrier, stealth bomber, development of these tools.

I think militias has to constantly check things out on other militias in order to prevent that an area, where maybe only rasist or a sect live, have their own legal army and make their own ruling because of that. When the people living their think its fine and good to kill other races then this army is bound to those local rules. Though rules should be defined on a larger scale.

At least some rule would have to be there that militias has to check out the other militias in order to see what goes on there.

Wouldnt that court and the overview be again a risk? And if people could change a provate armies boss then this army is useless since they need the power to stop an uproar.

And people fighting an army to change the boss? They would need weapons for that and they would face an army then. Of course, if other militias work, then they could help. Question is if enough people would stand up since i believe the majority would stay in fear.

Maybe the key would be the militias controlling each other. But even then... factions might build with generals who think different or follow a leader that promises them things. Even without an instant war, things could slowly turn bad. You cant intervene because the problems arent big enough but at one point the factions could turn violent and they might be so big that its a real problem then.

The others will stop them. There will be constant communication between each garrison, if the commander of 1 garrison starts to recruit more people than allowed or buy more weapons, with the mission to conquer the planet, then either the local people would change the leader of that garrison to a better one, or the other garrisons would come in and forcibly replace that commander, if it is found that he abused his power.

A private court system would decide on these problems and instead a big government enforcing the courts, small cooperative militias like this would enforce court orders, so if the garrison commander that abused his power is found guilty and must leave office, then the other commanders could enforce this court order with all means necessary.

ok yeah that makes sense, like a distributed network of small size army tribes?  how do you stop 1 group not getting too big?

An army that is bound to the rules the normal people give them democratically... thats whats ideal in my opionion.

See thats the problem with a regular army, because it's run in a hierarchic scheme, and soldiers have to follow orders or get court martial, weather they like the order or not. And of course the court martial judges are superior officers aswell, so if they are corrupt, they can find him guilty for any bogus charges, and lock him up for good.

And of course the generals can always be corrupted by corporate interest, or private interest, so its really a bad idea to have an army organized like that.

Instead, i think the best solution for private defense is local militia groups, of brigade-size run by a coalition of superior officers, which are elected by the local people. And the militia groups are equal sized and cooperate horizontally, with no superior officer holding the brigades together. So you`ll have a garrison commander, of 1 star general and 10 colonels,  which manage their own regiments.

And the 1 star local garrison commanders cooperate between eachother with other militia groups, and dont have 2 star generals ruling over them.

Does that make sense? Horizontal cooperation, not hierarchical, to avoid powerhungry "Caesar" type generals to create military dictatorships

I'd be happy to support such an army if they are going to protect real freedom.  I'd be worried how they'd function, i assume public would give the orders.

Hows about a decentralized army which instead of regular armies could protect their baker using the Darkleaks back-end code (www.darkleaks.com)?

People would pledge a small amount of bitcoin to claim a protection for an irregular army. This would ampute more power from governments who are illegitimate imao.

What do you think? Discuss.

Hows about a decentralized army which instead of regular armies could protect their baker using the Darkleaks back-end code (www.darkleaks.com)?

People would pledge a small amount of bitcoin to claim a protection for an irregular army. This would ampute more power from governments who are illegitimate imao.

What do you think? Discuss.

First of all, are you even in the US? Do your lords and masters even let lowly subjects such as yourself you own a firearm where you live? Do you fear the coast guard? Because that was designed in a very similar way to the independent militia system, only the governor of each state controls them.

The militias are NOT dangerous, this perception is 100% comprised of media lies any hype. The vast majority of militias are composed of former military and police officers (ie patriotic law abiding citizens). If you are so terrified of militias, why aren't you afraid of the coast guard, or the army, or police for that matter? Militias in the US have never tried to take control. Their only purpose is to serve as an independent armed force to preserve the constitution of the USA. Never have they tried to subvert the government despite the news media jizz you chug down like koolaid.

"normal people feeling the power to rule"? First of all militias aren't for anything except rule of law. Second, you really believe normal people are more dangerous than the psychopaths currently in charge, and you feel safer with them continuing to run things? You are pretty mental. Have you ever heard of Stockholm syndrome? You are right about one thing, the militia are only there to help some people, and that is the people within their own state. There is nothing wrong with that, because that is their duty to protect the law of the land of the state they are based in. Further more, the USA, is SUPPOSED to be run by "normal people", not queens and lords like I am sure are in charge where you live.

You "know all the shit of mankind would go to it". How exactly have you come to this conclusion? Was it from talking with actual militia members or hearing their arguments, or was it because the glowing idiot box told you so? What evidence do you actually have that militias are racist?

"I guess it doesnt need explaination why such people shouldnt be allowed to legally build a military power."
It does not need explaining why? Because you declare it so? If you are going to make an argument usually that requires you back up your points, not just declare them obvious fact for everyone (because it is not).

As far as your Stanford prison experiment example, please explain to me what effect exactly that has on militias that it doesn't have on police, military, coast guard, TSA, DHS, FBI, ATF, etc, or any other government controlled use of force that you are so willing to put your faith in? This argument is moot because it equally applies to any other use of force you feel may be more appropriate.

It is very clear to me that you either:
A. Don't reside in the US (probably in some western European slum that likes to pretend they are better than the rest of the world)
B. A fervent antigun nut (because if you decide to be defenseless, everyone else should be too)
C. Or both

Here is an interview with some actual militia leaders so you can see what bloodthirsty dictatorial racists they are for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky49ltgeXRU

How about we get rid of all laws that infringe upon any of our rights?

The right to self defense is important, but there is also the right to property (which the state constantly violates) and many more important rights!

How about getting rid of all laws that infringe on our right to own guns and ammo, an carry it/them any way we want at any time.

Historically, politicians have always fought for the power to create money out of thin air, so they can increase their spending without having to directly increase taxes. The staggering growth of political power throughout the twentieth century -- the century of war -- was largely made possible by replacing money limited by gold with paper currencies, which can be printed at will by government-controlled banks.

Cryptocurrencies are the first self-limiting monetary systems in the history of mankind, and could be our greatest chance to check the growth of political power since the Magna Carta. Join Stefan Molyneux, the host of Freedomain Radio - the most popular philosophy show in the world - as he reveals the hidden political and military power of government currencies, and shows how cryptocurrencies could be greatest revolution in human history, and the foundation of a truly free and prosperous planet.

The Next Web Europe Conference - April 25th, 2014

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.fdrurl.com/donate

Bitcoin Address: 1Fd8RuZqJNG4v56rPD1v6rgYptwnHeJRWs
Litecoin Address: Lbxr3M8oezWaguEBc35MoyvQT88C85Sqpi