I believe most of the tyranny and atrocities in the world are committed due to a lack of consensus between individuals, thus they arrogantly try to push their own views onto others.
This is why political hierarchy is present, you elect 100-500 politicians, they "represent" you and against your will they create new laws with 51% approval, and then you wonder why things are so messed up. Or the judiciary, where you have 1 tyrant judge that literally has the power over life or death like Osiris, in fact most of these institutions are so primitive that they literally date back to ancient practices. A jury system is a little bit better, but not that much, a jury can still be bribed/threatened or just corrupted by their own views.
Why would humans put their fates in centralized structures like these? Therefore I have proposed a voluntary consensus mechanism that would eliminate most coercion from the world and it can be applied easily. I have already talked about this here:
- https://steemit.com/politics/@profitgenerator/direct-democracy-is-not-socialism
- https://steemit.com/philosophy/@profitgenerator/majority-is-always-right
The concept
The concept is very simple, these rules should be understood by all humans, and then we will achieve voluntary anarchy:
- Minimum 90% consensus between all humans, or the people affected by the decision, in order to make a decision
- If consensus is not reached, break off from the group, and create your own group where you can achieve voluntary consensus
If all humans would agree by these 2 rules, we could have a free society by tomorrow. This is the only way to achieve a voluntary society, by either reaching consensus voluntarily, or by breaking off from the group if consensus is not possible
It's so easy, that you are probably already doing it in your life, it's just that it has to be extended to the entire humanity.
The individual
- If you are alone, like on a deserted island, then you already have 100% consensus, so you do what you want.
The family
- The smallest unit of society is the individual. The smallest group is the family and/or relationship. Therefore if you are in a relationship, you already need a 90% consensus in order make decisions, 1 partner might have doubts that is why 90%, but with voluntary persuasion its possible to reach consensus. If consensus can't be reached, you just break up the relationship, it's that simple. Otherwise it's like slavery or domestic abuse, and we are all against that.
So this system already works and it's already used in romantic relationship structures. Let's see if it's scales up.
Family with Kids
- In a family where kids are involved it's also good if consensus can be reached. You certainly don't want to spank or beat your kids if they disobey, that is just family tyranny. Also if the 2 parents decide something and leave the kid out of the decision process, that is tyranny as well. Even though its 66.66% consensus, it still tyranny. So it's best if the threshold is 90% and not lower to avoid coercion.
So as you can see the 50%+1 vote current democracy system is very flawed, even the 66.66% case in a household amounts to tyranny, then what do you think a 50% vote is? It's even worse if the 1-2% political lobbyists make the actual decisions. So can this system scale up to the political arena? Sure.
City
If we have a city and want to introduce this voluntary governance system into it, not a tyranncial structure with 1 mayor and his bureaucrat friends running the show, then it could work.
There are many issues in the governance of a city, and until 90% consensus can't be reached, there is no point in forcing a policy onto the rest of the citizens.
- If 90% consensus is reached, then it's good, most people agree by an overwhelming majority, so it's not a tyranny.
- If consensus can't be reached then the governance should just break up into boroughs or down to streets until consensus is reached.
Country
Same thing:
- If all citizens of a country agree by 90% majority on something, then that something is already a law by definition
- If not then they need to split up into several smaller countries based on cultural or other concepts until consensus between that group can be reached
Globe
- I think all humans, or certainly 90% agree that theft,murder,rape is wrong, so it's not hard to imagine these laws being applied indiscriminately around the entire globe
- But not all humans might agree on economic policy or cultural things, so we don't need to live in a "1 world government", but in your own group where you can achieve 90% consensus with
Advantages
This is a very flexible system in my opinion, and if people were to apply this system from their family lives up to a country and certain things can easily be agreed on by all humans (theft,rape,murder is wrong).
It is totally scalable, and it would eliminate all tyrannical institutions, from the bottom up, because as we've seen, top down control never leads to freedom.
This is not communism, although I believe Marx had envisioned a similar world, but he was wrong on many practical issues. I think this is what the communists would refer to as a "stateless society". However the communists were wrong on the application of it like the elimination of private property and the creation of a bureaucratic dictatorship which was an unforgivable flaw in Marxist thought.
In my theory, there would be private property, because remember this is not a 50% democracy like the communists have envisioned, this is a 90% democracy, meaning that you can't vote away private property, and everyone is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which includes their property.
Every human would become politically equal, but not necessarily economically equal. This is where I would think the balance between the left and right can be achieved. You can have social equality, but you can't have economic equality.
So for instance if you have a city where most people are small businessmen, they are not that dumb to vote to collectivize their business, but they are also not that dumb either to set up a government that would tax or give privileges to big corporations to take over their businesses.
So this is how you can have balance in capitalism and to stop monopolization, that includes government, but not limited to it, since in some cases big corporations or NGO's are also bad for small businesspeople.
This is the natural way to achieve freedom. The biological cells already work this way, they work as a "swarm" in cooperation, and whenever a cell gets too big and incompatible with itself, it splits in two.
So nature does this, humans already do this on small scale, so there is no reason we can't do this on big scale to remove the oppression from today's society and achieve global freedom.
Sources:
The Ludwig von Mises Institute GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0, from Wikimedia Commons
Let me guess, you're in your teens, aren't you?
No I am in my 30's, what is your argument?
Then you have a problem. If you were a teen it would be understandable to have naive and idealistic views. But at your age, you should know better.
There's literally everything wrong with almost every paragraph you wrote, it would take too long to debunk it all. So let me just say:
And no, there's no universal agreement even on such things as murder, theft, or rape. Is reckless driving casing death a murder, or just accident? Drunken brawl resulting in death? Is infringing intellectual property a theft or not? You get the gist
Interesting thougts, thanks for sharing.
Are you saying that if 90% of a group of people are for taxation or a law. Then it's good or OK to force the 10% to pay or obey?
I don't get your line of reasoning that if 90%, 99% or even 100% is for slavery (which means you have a "choice" between obeying or being murdered) that it could be a good thing.
edit;
There always need's to be the option of not voting and not participating in the system, or getting out.
I hope it's clear what I'm trying to say here, English is not my native language
That will not happen. Most people are either not aware of the taxes and of a world where there would be no taxes. Or they feel they have no power to change things.
The thing is that if 90% of people agree on something, there isn't anthing the other 10% can do, with our without coercion, this is just how society works.
However if only 10% of humans are evil, and we are being ruled by them right now. Wouldn't it make sense for the other 90% to take back control, and to remove evil from power?
I don't believe in the; those people are bad and those people are good thing
I see it more like; some people DO 90%/100% bad stuff and some people DO 10% or less% bad stuff and you have all sorts in between :)
But most people aren't even aware that they are doing bad stuff because they are brainwashed that what they are cheering for is the good thing.
Most people do things because they think they are good that way Only very few people do evil stuff deliberately and knowing it is evil stuff.
I also believe you can not remove evil from power by consensus, evil is always striving to get that power and is a master a doing that. If you want strive for the position to rule other people by force than you become evil if you "weren't" evil already.
What you see as an evil politician someone else sees that same politician as good and vice versa. There are lot's of people who think Obama or trump or whoever is or was, a good politician.
Maybe you don't believe in the possibility to live without a ruler or master. but I already have no master, no-one is my master and no-one will ever be my master/ruler again. maybe one day a tyrant or bully or something in between will kill me but he will never be my master. I have no master/ ruler. I have no slaves/subject.
You can work on your idea thought it's not for me to decide how someone pick's their ruler or master or how big someone believes the group must be to get a what they believe to be moral and good ruler. Like I said I don't believe ruling someone aka telling someone what to do through force, is a good or moral.....ever.
Good luck though with your endeavors :) Peace
That is why they need to be exposed to their own logical flaws. Unless the issues are discussed, people dont realize in how much BS they believe in.
Think of it like a marketplace of ideas where people choose a path that they think they are good for them. And when they realize that 90% of peole disagree with them, then they will realize that they are the idiots.
Even if it comes to scientific arguments, you don't have to know the answer, but I believe 90% of humans would approve that you need to apply the scientific method to things before you come up with the conclusion.
Humans can already make choices in their own lives, and some of them are good , some ar bad, but if they are not exposed to their own stupidity, then they will never improve.
Electing a ruler is just kicking the can down the road, and it gives an illusion of comfort, but problems are not getting solved that way.
The pack leader evolutionary strategy is good for small tribes in a hostile environment, where you need quick decisions, but our society has outgrown that, now we need to make safe decisions, since 1 bad mistake can literally end the human race.
And you can't let a tiny group of people make those decisions. Since we are on the verge of nuclear war, exactly because of this problem.
Hahaha @profitgenerator, after carefully reading your entire article top to bottom, now I have no doubts whatsoever that humanity fate will be.. entering into a never ending Mitosis process where each one and everyone of us will remain at 90% or even 100% of full Freedom & Democracy like the following pic below. LoL
So basically you are sayig that 2 people are incapable of reaching consensus on basic issues, therefore we are ought to be ruled over by tyrants for eternity?
There is already anarchy in the family (unless it's an abusive family) and in romantic relationships (unless it's abusive). So there is no reason why it can't scale up.
¡No! what I am articulately saying with that Pic is: "We are going to be ruled over only by the tyranny of our own mind projected shadows ¡For Ever Alone!
I dont even know what you mean by that. I am literally saying in the post above that we are capable of consensus, so there is no individualism if humans are capable of teamwork, which they are. But if they are not then individualism is the backup plan.
I can easily cooperate with any person I meet, but if cooperation is not possible for some reason, then we just go our own separate ways. It's that simple.
Exactly!! reach consensus will be always a so so possibility at very very low amounts/percentages of individuals participation for any collective plan or project. But steadily reach 90% or more of consensus when we are talking about those High Levels of individuals participation surpassing the boundaries of the number of members in an usual/regular family... I have no doubt you will be on your way to becoming a lone ringleader in a snap. ;)
Acutally that is not true, Nash demonstrated scientifically that cooperating in groups is more socially and economically advantageous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr.
Which proves that consensus is possible, not only possible, but we should strive to reach it. Again breaking off from a group is only as a last resort, and usually you are the one who is punished for it, since it economically disadvantagous to break off.
So people are incentivized to work together, until they find an acceptable solution that most of them can agree to.
It's not that people need to find the solution immediately, but that they need to work until they find it.
For example if you want to buy a family house for 2 kids and a wife, you dont know what house they want, so you need to sit down and discuss it until it becomes acceptable for everyone. That is when consensus is reached.
And there are usually thing that most humans agree on, so reaching consensus in the million level scale is also possible.
I know where you are coming from with that John Nash link example, since I am a mathematician myself too. That's exactly the Math Utopy when we scale up the numbers of our clamors to levels of: "Minimum 90% consensus between all humans" along your whole post.
The family, Family with Kids, City, Country, Globe... ¿Notice the Unpredictable HUMAN factor on that equation?
Going through a simple & pure Logic Reasoning to reach that 90% of consensus, which you are proposing here, when dealing with such Quantum Brainy Creatures replete of immensely diverse and different upbringings, interests, circumstances, wishes, yearnings, goals, etc, etc. ¿Does that not tell you anything about this mathematical fallacy?
Take our debate like a sample. We both are scarcely two of those Quantum Creatures trying to reach consensus. Now scale this up to the numeric levels of tiny clans, sects, little tribes, communities, a whole village, cities, bigger societies, countries, continents or the entire planet like you imply. Oh boy! even try to reach a merely fifty-fifty percent of consensus at such high amounts of multifarious termites, we will need to define before if we are talking about waves or particles in first place. ;)
two points:
One) people don't live and interact in one dimension, so if there is a problem with scale-ability, it is here for sure. People can 90% agree that murder is wrong, but not minimum wage. Each axis issue or dimension of the society bifurcates it so 33 (2^33) important issues divide the world into kingdoms of one each. That is a simplification, and not actually true, but a very few more dimensions and it is probablistically true.
Two) The system is all intra with no consideration for inter. Take a group of pirates that belief cohere 90% internally that raping and pillaging others is a good thing. Each group, unaided by any systemic properties is in an essentially lawless state regarding how to deal with that. If that were rare, your system could prolly absorb that entropy, but some shade of that may well be > 50% of out group interactions.
Other things that should be represented in the system are economy of scale and the concept of 'critical mass'. 'Critical mass' references the non-linearity in most systems and represents a 'phase change' in behavior such as people grouping to move a tree - at some point adding another person will allow the tree to be lifted, adding a wholly new option for moving it.