It is clear that your perspective in life is one where "guns should be banned" but I bet you believe "government should have guns". This creates an unbalanced system in itself, but perhaps what you really want is a system where the guns are put in the hands of people who are up voted. Perhaps only the top N people by total approval voting should have the power to down vote.
This kind of representative government would suffer the same problems that our governments suffer today. The people who are given power do not pay the price for their abuse of power. The worst that happens is they get voted out.
The current system is unbalanced, but only because people can shoot from behind a shield where they cannot be hurt. People will stop shooting as soon as they risk retaliation.
You don't go into a bar full of armed people and shoot someone unless you are sure everyone else in the bar is on your side. Gun crime is only a problem if people can "get away with murder", if the probability of getting caught and shot yourself is high enough then you will behave.
Unlike the use of guns, the network has the ability to "heal" those who are shot and compensate them for the abuse they suffered from the less civilized among us.
awesome way to put it... although I did agree with some points he made... it was still too anti-gunish for me that I intentionally upvoted my comment to keep away from his...
speaking of... would that be considered abuse?
nope, I often upvote my own comments to bring them to the top of the discussion. Privilege of Steem Power.
I do exactly the same! And here comes an idea!!!
When I upvote my comment I should have the option to not get paid (like with post where I decline rewards) That way I push my comment to the top without the community to accuse me that I am doing it for the rewards! And another suggestion is to get double power (visibility) when doing this!!!!!
Same
Touche
Yours is an interesting perspective too, I have some difficulty applying the analogy of guns and shooting to the actual Network and the mechanics of this due to lack of tech knowledge. Maybe if I just work through your post mainly keeping to the real world and see how it goes. There are some major differences though, such as no physical borders online, so some things that would work online would not translate/work in the real world. Due to this I may find myself objecting to things on the grounds they wouldn’t work in the real world, when in fact they could online.
I would say that in an ideal world neither govt nor anybody else would have guns. However, we live in a world with borders and the security of the populace from invasion and such is a legitimate concern. It’s interesting that you mentioned property rights earlier because it is quite pertinent to this conversation. Property rights originally stem from whoever uses the land. If we take the UK as an example, the inhabitants can’t defend their borders without working together and paying for an army etc. If an invader was successful, then they would have the property rights – in order to protect our property rights we end up with a representative Govt given the consensus of the majority to raise an army. The army has the guns, directed by the Govt, who in turn are given this right by the population. I don’t see this as an un-balanced situation, it’s not ideal but a needs must situation. I’d say it is only unbalanced if the Govt has guns without the consensus of the populace.
The ideal situation to me would be to do away with Govt functionality/powers insofar as that is possible and de-centralise things as much as possible, bearing in mind what I’ve said, there are certain areas where for practical purposes we need some form of centralised entity. We still need governance even without Govt though. While I’m thinking about it, your argument about representative Govt would also seem to apply to the way the witness system works?
One thing I would change is the way political parties set out their various stalls/manifestos for the population to vote on which one to choose. I would de-centralise this so that the population agree on an agenda then employ a “Govt” to carry out that agenda, along with the ability to sack that Govt for gross misconduct for not carrying out the populations wishes. I would also ensure that all public funds/Govt meetings etc are put on some kind of Blockchain for transparency. This would also be useful for tax purposes…..OH NOES….I mentioned the “T” word…..lol.
I’d say that the idea of a community pot to pay for infrastructure and care of the weak and vulnerable is a good thing. The main objection seems to be that money is spent on things that people don’t want it spent on. Again, if this is de-centralised and everybody given a choice on where to spend it for the good of the community as a whole then I think it’s a good thing.
Having pondered the upvote/downvote/flag situation some more I have come to the conclusion that we do indeed need all 3. The main issue I see now is around conflict resolution and I suggested a Court of peers randomly picked each week. This would work in conjunction with a time delay before rewards are paid. The “accused” could be found algorithmically I think, There would be no central authority and no people in position for more than a week, thereby negating fears of corruption. Users click the “agree to terms” and Bob’s your uncle, you’re covered. Any claims of force being used would be illegitimate as people can decide not to agree in exactly the same way people have the choice to join any society/community or not. Anyway, just my thoughts, cheers.
Edit: The flagging in this model would have no impact whatsoever on a post, it only alerts the community who alert the court. This will make people think twice about flagging.