Zeitgeist / Democracy and more

Compliment. I very much admire the Venus project and SAFE seems to be shaping up to be a resource economy in it’s own way. Have you not listened to any of the talks by Jacque Fresco? The man is a genius.

3 Likes

Just as a short answer, because this goes pretty much OT, yes, I know Jacque Fresco and, no, I don´t find it very pleasant to relate Maidsafe to people from the Zeitgeist movement.

1 Like

An interview with the figurehead of the Zeitgeist movement has confirmed the divergence of the two organizations.

Yeah the Venus project isn’t the same as the Zeitgeist movement.

1 Like

The key for me is that all forms of power need to be directly accountable for harm they cause. You can’t have a computer system that is unaccuntable, so if it is open source and subject to challenge and informed democratic subversion then fine, that’s much less frightening. :slight_smile:

I’d rather see us build on the jury system in a decentralised way online to develop systems that encourage informed participation, wisdom of crowds etc rather than mob rule that anarchists are so terrified of. Then we could just mandate a democratically legitimised hippocratic imperative to replace ‘law’ and make everyone directly and democratically accountable for any harm they cause.

Surely this is the obvious solution to the problems created by centralised power?! Those who wear the rings of power are invisible and therefore unaccountable. In order to throw the rings into the fires of mount doom we must destroy power itself by making all forms of power directly accountable for any harm caused.

2 Likes

I am excited to see Jacque Fresco’s theory of a resource based economy be tested and proven through the implementation of Safecoins. I prefer to leave the management of resources to the next generation which with the help of peaceful parenting practices will have much more empathy, love and less fear then we do today.

Do it the way it’s done in Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. If you want a Trial both defendant and plaintiff have to pay or the case is dismissed. If either party doesn’t accept the Judge and Jury then there’s no trial. If jury members act inappropriately (fall asleep, show up drunk, don’t pay attention, etc) then they are fined or otherwise punished. If they do a good job they’re paid. In short Jury work.

Democracy IS mob rule. It’s rule by majority. To say something is democratically legitimized is to say that the individual or minority is not legitimate. Again this discriminates against the individual.

It is the job of the teacher to make the obvious apparent. So why is this obvious? Apparantly you need to further enlighten us.

This does not imply democracy but rather counterbalances of power. And even with democracy what acts as a balance for the majority opinion itself? What is the recourse of minoriies and individuals? No democracy is not the way. No instead the link between power and responsibility must be maintained. If a democracy can hold someone accountable so can the individual with a decentralized group of friends and allies. But perhaps more to the point what if it was in one’s best interest to be responsibly? If you act irresponsibly you lose profits. You don’t need democratic enforcement all you need is reputation.

1 Like

That is exactly what I had in mind for quite some time. Glad to know you already read that book. I just need a partner to help, and communicate with me to build this platform. I got it all laid out, and now working on the program but I have been continuously getting stuck on things that I don’t understand. I don’t know what am I doing wrong and it would be awesome to have another person who is committed to this project can help me out. FYI, I am building this with rust language.

All I am doing right now, is studying the safenet protocol, and messaging system. Working to understand how to build a right API that is ready to plug into safenet.

1 Like

I think I just need to clarify then when I say democracy I do not mean, elected representation, or the creation of laws or edicts for dominion. The only kind of democracy I’m talking about is direct accountability for harm caused… as I said, ‘laws’ don’t work. Democracy is certainly NOT mob rule if it does not seek dominion, but rather just a decentralised means for dispute resolution and the accountability of power.

When I talk about democratic legitimacy all I’m talking about is the method by which we empower decentralised democratic accountability… the current system claims its authority/legitimacy by majority representation, but if an online democratic movement could demonstrate a much greater weight of public opinion then it might be possible to use this to change the things that politicians can’t/won’t change.

Why is this obvious?
Well, it seems obvious, but I didn’t mean to upset anyone, apologies if I sounded like a twat :slight_smile: I can be sometimes… Because power is just the unfettered projection of personal bias out into the world. When we project our bias beyond what we can see or understand we become capable of causing great harm/evil outside of consequences we see/feel. The businessman in New York is not ‘evil’ to farm his work out to sweatshops, he is just short-sighted and lacks empathy; it’s the fact that he has the ability to project his short-sightedness/callousness that’s the problem. The answer to this problem is obvious, we’ve been trying to do it for millenia… accountability. The reason the accountability system doesn’t work imo is because legislation is corrupt from inception (lobbying) to application (wealth buys best representation). Laws provide the guidelines for how to get around morality and get away with it, they excuse behaviour outside of their grasp as ‘legal’ and therefore legitimate (like tax evasion). Surely the only ‘obvious’ response to that is to change the system. Laws are just further projections of bias from lawmakers and mechanisms for dominion, where all we really need is to make sure that we are not causing harm and that we are accountable to the people we are harming if we are…?

Again your last point doesn’t really apply as I am not talking about the kind of democracy you are referring to, I am only using the word in the context of decentralised, democratic accountability and the jury system, NOT as a system of government or dominion!

And again, sorry if I offended when I said the thing about anarchists… I love anarchism, I just get annoyed by how quickly most seem to reject a vision of democracy that seeks decentralised but coordinated accountability rather than dominionist governance. I’m a panarchist myself - which is just the same thing as an anarchist but people don’t get so scared of the idea of ‘chaos’ that’s unfortunately associated with anarchy in our culture. :frowning: Really, anarchy and democracy are not so different and democracy is the more popular idea/word if you want people to support your cause these days, having no rulers and having the people rule themselves only becomes dfifferent if the people centralise political power and are represented by others to legislate and govern for them (not very democratic ideas), why can’t we rule ourselves without that and call it democracy. It’s all just semantics and loaded language I guess…

1 Like

Okay but after reading this I run into a few issues. I’ll use your sweatshop example for further illistration. Not that I support it but because it’s the one you decided to use.

  1. Morality is ultimately subjective. The system you propose raises several moral questions about privacy.

  2. [quote=“Jabba, post:51, topic:6816”]
    Because power is just the unfettered projection of personal bias out into the world. When we project our bias beyond what we can see or understand we become capable of causing great harm/evil outside of consequences we see/feel. The businessman in New York is not ‘evil’ to farm his work out to sweatshops, he is just short-sighted and lacks empathy; it’s the fact that he has the ability to project his short-sightedness/callousness that’s the problem. The answer to this problem is obvious, we’ve been trying to do it for millenia… accountability.
    [/quote]
    Who are you, or anyone else, to project your subjective morality on another and tell them how to utilize their power? Especially when it concerns a consentual transaction? There’s no reason at all they shouldn’t be able to start or maintain a sweatshop. Yes they are responsible but how is that accountibiliy going to be established without invading one’s privacy? And even if you establish that line of responsibility how do you hold them accountable to what? That’s where I think having a recourse for those in the sweatshop is more important than focusing on the boss in New York. If you champion the sweatshop worker and give them the option to opt out and/or challenge whatever oppressor they’ve been directly suffering under then not only can their consent be withdrawn but also a line of accountability established through all the links of the hierarchy.

  3. Legal != Moral.

Then how do you plan to hold anyone accountable for anything? Woot we found Colonel Mustard in the Library with Knife but since we aren’t going to exert any dominance over him he gets to go free!

Actually anarchy and democracy are quite different. Democracy asserts one CAN assert force over another if the majority agrees with you. Anarchy is all about consent and one is only allowed to use force in self defense. If you are asserting that simply by making our own choices and ruling ourselves we are “voting” and collectively that is “democracy” then yes I suppose one could call it that however the underlying core idea of consent would still need to apply. I also prefer not to confuse words as in the latter example no one is ruling over any other so really the term democracy doesn’t truly apply. If you learn your Latin you learn what the words mean and if they apply.

I know a bit of Latin and Greek actually, I did Classics for my degree back in the 90s… :wink: Maybe check the supercilious tone, I don’t think I deserve to be patronised and it doesn’t get us anywhere to be condescending.

Demos = community/people
Kratos = authority/power

An Archos = without rulers

Your discussion about consent and voluntarism is exactly what I meant when I said ‘loaded language’. These are not implied in the Greek at all. The community having power does not imply what scope or scale that power involves, we are just used to making the language fit the perverse models we’ve seen throughout history. We’ve also never seen real Capitalism or Socialism, only centralised pretenders to those ideals. The practical reality of any form of ‘government’ is power centralisation. Democratic accountability does not require this kind of model just because we’ve only seen versions of it that work in this way.

“Then how do you plan to hold anyone accountable for anything? Woot we found Colonel Mustard in the Library with Knife but since we aren’t going to exert any dominance over him he gets to go free!”

Well this is exactly the challenge isn’t it? How do we decentralise the system, keep it open-source and voluntary, whilst also encouraging informed decision making and education rather than group hysteria or mob rule? All we need is a mandate to uphold a hippocratic imperative, not ‘law’. If you harm anyone you are accountable and the community can defend itself from you. I actually think there are quite a few things we can do to create this kind of system, but that’s a huge topic and too big for a forum post. That’s really what I think we should all be working on and discussing together, not petty arguments about semantic interpretations of politically loaded words.

I don’t really understand your point about legal=moral or privacy, you’d need to explain that for me…