Decentralized Army

[GreenStox]

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.

No, the citizenry would be armed, it would be a free society. The militias role is only to provide an organized defense of that land.

So if 2 burglars would attack your house you would grab your gun and deal with them. But if 20 burglars would attack it, you would call the militia.
It would both fill the role of police and military in that region.

So the question is weather if 1 militia leader becomes a tyrant how to stop him?

Very simple, the citizenry itself is armed, so the leverage is pretty equal. Also since the militia is from local citizens, they are much likely to disobey as the community doesnt like him. So at this point if in an objective court it is determined that the garrison commander is a tyrant, and it is ordered to leave office the following can happen

1) He wont leave, and will order his henchmen to continue the tyrrany and fear in that region
THEN
    A) the citizenry will revolt because all of the have guys and they could easily combat that garrison of 3000-4000 soldiers
    B) due to the pressure, the soldiers will disobey, try to coup-de-etat him, or just resign from duty, so the tyrant would be left powerless
    C) you call in a neighboring militia or form a temporary coalition of them, which will be disbanded after the conflict is over, to overthrow the tyrant with force and possible a small battle has to take place. Now this is the worst case scenario so the other 2 are more likely to happen
2) He will obey the court order and resign, giving up all power, and possibly face charges because he was a tyrant
3) He will try to bribe the court or threaten it to change the ruling, but this can bring that court's legitimacy in question, and since it's a private court i dont think it's owners would risk this

So this is a perfect example how to handle these unconfortable situations.

[SebastianJu]

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.

[GreenStox]

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.

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.

[SebastianJu]

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.

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.

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.

[GreenStox]

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.

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.

[SebastianJu]

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.

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.

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.

[GreenStox]

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.

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.

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.

Well then we need to secure the internet first, besides a system based on reputation is not that bad after all. And i`m pretty sure that in a free society like this we would have very few wars, like 1 in a 100 years, not 1 every single year like now. People would have better things to do than to war eachother.

And for minor conflicts the militia network is just as good.