Many would consider what we have to be working, isolated echo chambers aside. For those people, the burden of proof is on YOU on why we should change, and the burden of proof is on YOU on as to why we're wrong, and why we should go through a huge upheaval to meet the desires of a small minority of people.
Please tell me more about how I would go about producing this kind of proof? I hope you don't mean "talk about it"?
For the extent of your attempts to lecture about this topic, you surely are pleading a high level of failure to understand. It seems that both Octaft and I are repeating this theme in various ways to suggest that you cannot just make bare assertions about something being preferred without showing how it applies in real life... where has it been done... Is there a pilot program being applied somewhere? You are providing nothing. In the meantime, we have thousands of examples of various kinds of governments and their application... too numerous to list. Neither Octaft nor I are embracing these various governments as being the solution, but each of us have been saying that if you are proposing another system, then let us know what that would be exactly and how it would play out. We would NOT remove the whole US Government systems and asparatuses without having a plan. Since it seems to be your idea to remove the government, then it is your job to come up with the plan, NOT those of us who are NOT proposing such removal.
You are truly pulling this summary of my previous statement(s) out of your ass. Sorry to be so crude in my description of what you seem to be doing, but I have NOT made any assertions about human nature in ways that you are attributing to me.
I am truly sorry, but you seem to be misunderstanding me here. I reckon English is not your primary language? I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I have stated that I have often seen this argument being made,
as well as what sort of ideas usually follow. This doesn't necessarily mean, that you hold these same ideas, right? Well, to be fair, I find your way of expressing yourself confusing and I'm not quite sure what your points are most of the time. Please don't take this as an attempt to insult you.
Yes, YOU can attempt to search for some kind of weakness all that you want. YOU are grasping at straws.... B/c you do NOT understand demonstrates a point that we are engaging in a fruitless battle, here, and it seems best that we just leave this topic until some point that you are able to come with some more concrete ideas or life examples or something beyond pure speculation and hypotheticals.
Look, guys - octaft and JayJuanGee. I have done this many times and I can see where this is going. You'll be asking me to provide proof that some other system would be better. You will ask me how this other system would work, how it would achieve this or that. And I'll be replying that I do not know, after which you will probably feel like you "won the debate" because I can't produce any counter arguments. When in fact my argument is precisely that I do not know. Neither do you. And that is the reason why none of us should be in charge of all of us. The point is that having one single system is a bad idea. Multiple choices are needed.
Currently, we do NOT have one single system. There are a multitude of varying kinds of government systems in the United states... both on the federal level and then even more numerous examples on the local level. You seem to have a tendency to oversimplify your rendition of facts and fail to provide specific examples or discussion points which provides very little confidence that you are attempting to accomplish anything beyond speaking in generalities.... which is a big waste of our time.
Self organizing systems and
Emergent order exist in life all around us. Utilizing them for the full benefit of society just runs counter to our prevailing culture and financial status quo. I'm at a loss to explain this to you.
If I knew how a free and decentralized society would organize itself it would cease being the superior option, because we could just go ahead and do exactly that, right now. Do you see what I mean? The superior alternative quite obviously is something you and I on our own can't think of, that is why it is superior. You are familiar with the concept of synergy, I presume?
There is nothing wrong with attaching references to wikipedia articles, and I have NO problems with the concepts described within the articles. These concepts can be applied to existing systems or can be used to revise existing systems.
This is one of the reasons why the technology behind Bitcoin is so powerful. There is absolutely no way to predict all the ways how it will be used, by whom and for what purpose. People through trial and error, will come up with innovations so astounding that we probably can't even imagine them right now. They can innovate, without permission, because the technology is open source and decentralized. Yet here we are, on bitcointalk, proclaiming the superiority of decentralized open source financial technology, when in fact so far there has been little evidence that it is better right now. I find myself constantly amazed by the amount of bitcoiners who just don't seem to get this.
I believe that a lot of people involved in bitcoin already seem to agree on these points that bitcoin has the ability to assist us to reorganize society and to adopt truly revolutionary changes in the way that people interact or even the distribution of benefits in society. So long as bitcoin continues to exist, these kinds of innovations (yet to be known precisely) are going to continue to come about. We can agree that these kinds of innovations are taking place and are going to continue to take place. However, that does NOT mean that we are going to agree that we should throw away our existing system, prior to the more broader implementations of these various innovations.
