Consensus-based society with provable trust-free voting

[interlagos]

Letting private corporations rule the market would create danger that governments of today will be replaced with corporations of tomorrow and looking at how corporations are structured today after the idea of central governance at the top of the pyramid we might as well just get even worse system than we have today.

Without government granting those corporations their legal shield, and without the cloak of legitimacy granted to the government, companies would not be able to pull off the shit they do today, nor the shit the government pulls.

Because today we lack both of the components of the free society - sound money and provable voting.

Provable voting is not a pillar of a free society. It is, instead, a means for the majority to force their will on the minority, unless 100% consensus is required to pass a vote.

Replace it with a free market, and you might have something.

What makes you think we don't have a free market today?

The fact that we don't. There are laws limiting who can and cannot sell or provide services, there are laws limiting what goods or services you can or cannot offer, laws limiting the price of certain goods or services... the market is constrained and distorted at nearly every turn. That's not a free market.

I understand but that's the paradox - what we have now is the result of actions of participants of the "free market" called Earth. So all the regulations and limitations and restrictions are not coming from the sky, they are created by those who think they are strong enough to pull it off and the free market let's them do it.

What I propose in this thread is a system that would help regular people to achieve consensus and take actions in a coordinated way thus empowering themselves to compete with the sharks of the "free market" of today called governments.

[myrkul]

So all the regulations and limitations and restrictions are not coming from the sky, they are created by those who think they are strong enough to pull it off and the free market let's them do it.

So by that logic, the rape victim is to blame, since she lets the rapist do it? When violence enters the equation, the market is no longer free, it is being coerced, distorted.

[interlagos]

So all the regulations and limitations and restrictions are not coming from the sky, they are created by those who think they are strong enough to pull it off and the free market let's them do it.

So by that logic, the rape victim is to blame, since she lets the rapist do it? When violence enters the equation, the market is no longer free, it is being coerced, distorted.

I'd say it's more like trickery and bribery on the mass scale is what resulted in our today's society.
The use of force is sold under "protecting the people" or "fighting for democracy" via large broadcasting networks, that's why it is accepted by the masses. But none of these phenomena is prohibited by the free market.

So again it boils down to a lack of coordination on the people's side rather than lack of overall power.
We need to figure out how to consolidate this power so that it is able to protect itself.

[myrkul]

So all the regulations and limitations and restrictions are not coming from the sky, they are created by those who think they are strong enough to pull it off and the free market let's them do it.

So by that logic, the rape victim is to blame, since she lets the rapist do it? When violence enters the equation, the market is no longer free, it is being coerced, distorted.

I'd say it's more like trickery and bribery on the mass scale is what resulted in our today's society.

Fraud is just as bad (and market distorting) as using force or threatening to use force, which is why the nonaggression principle includes it as one of the things which no person has the right to use against another.

[interlagos]

So all the regulations and limitations and restrictions are not coming from the sky, they are created by those who think they are strong enough to pull it off and the free market let's them do it.

So by that logic, the rape victim is to blame, since she lets the rapist do it? When violence enters the equation, the market is no longer free, it is being coerced, distorted.

I'd say it's more like trickery and bribery on the mass scale is what resulted in our today's society.

Fraud is just as bad (and market distorting) as using force or threatening to use force, which is why the nonaggression principle includes it as one of the things which no person has the right to use against another.

I like NAP and I'm all for it, but the paradox is that trying to enforce it would be in violation of NAP.
So NAP is the ultimate goal for society, but we only get there when everybody accepts it voluntary.
The consensus-based approach might be a first approximation, a first step in that direction, because it will at least create the awareness of what people are willing to do with their time and their money and it will highlight those things that are not yet representative of the ideas proposed by NAP.

[myrkul]

So all the regulations and limitations and restrictions are not coming from the sky, they are created by those who think they are strong enough to pull it off and the free market let's them do it.

So by that logic, the rape victim is to blame, since she lets the rapist do it? When violence enters the equation, the market is no longer free, it is being coerced, distorted.

I'd say it's more like trickery and bribery on the mass scale is what resulted in our today's society.

Fraud is just as bad (and market distorting) as using force or threatening to use force, which is why the nonaggression principle includes it as one of the things which no person has the right to use against another.

I like NAP and I'm all for it, but the paradox is that trying to enforce it would be in violation of NAP.

On the contrary, "enforcing" the NAP is called "defense" (sometimes "self-defense").

[interlagos]

So all the regulations and limitations and restrictions are not coming from the sky, they are created by those who think they are strong enough to pull it off and the free market let's them do it.

So by that logic, the rape victim is to blame, since she lets the rapist do it? When violence enters the equation, the market is no longer free, it is being coerced, distorted.

I'd say it's more like trickery and bribery on the mass scale is what resulted in our today's society.

Fraud is just as bad (and market distorting) as using force or threatening to use force, which is why the nonaggression principle includes it as one of the things which no person has the right to use against another.

I like NAP and I'm all for it, but the paradox is that trying to enforce it would be in violation of NAP.

On the contrary, "enforcing" the NAP is called "defense" (sometimes "self-defense").

Unfortunately it's a bit wider than self-defense.
If I build a factory that produces chemical waste and start dumping that waste into the river you drink from you would have to "attack" me to prevent me from doing it.

[myrkul]

So all the regulations and limitations and restrictions are not coming from the sky, they are created by those who think they are strong enough to pull it off and the free market let's them do it.

So by that logic, the rape victim is to blame, since she lets the rapist do it? When violence enters the equation, the market is no longer free, it is being coerced, distorted.

I'd say it's more like trickery and bribery on the mass scale is what resulted in our today's society.

Fraud is just as bad (and market distorting) as using force or threatening to use force, which is why the nonaggression principle includes it as one of the things which no person has the right to use against another.

I like NAP and I'm all for it, but the paradox is that trying to enforce it would be in violation of NAP.

On the contrary, "enforcing" the NAP is called "defense" (sometimes "self-defense").

Unfortunately it's a bit wider than self-defense.
If I build a factory that produces chemical waste and start dumping that waste into the river you drink from you would have to "attack" me to prevent me from doing it.

Is an attempt to poison someone not an attack? If you attempt to stop that person from poisoning you, is it not defense?

[interlagos]

So all the regulations and limitations and restrictions are not coming from the sky, they are created by those who think they are strong enough to pull it off and the free market let's them do it.

So by that logic, the rape victim is to blame, since she lets the rapist do it? When violence enters the equation, the market is no longer free, it is being coerced, distorted.

I'd say it's more like trickery and bribery on the mass scale is what resulted in our today's society.

Fraud is just as bad (and market distorting) as using force or threatening to use force, which is why the nonaggression principle includes it as one of the things which no person has the right to use against another.

I like NAP and I'm all for it, but the paradox is that trying to enforce it would be in violation of NAP.

On the contrary, "enforcing" the NAP is called "defense" (sometimes "self-defense").

Unfortunately it's a bit wider than self-defense.
If I build a factory that produces chemical waste and start dumping that waste into the river you drink from you would have to "attack" me to prevent me from doing it.

Is an attempt to poison someone not an attack? If you attempt to stop that person from poisoning you, is it not defense?

In a black-and-white case like that yes that would be an attack.

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

[myrkul]

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

[interlagos]

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

[myrkul]

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

Luckily, such a way exists already. It's called arbitration. If someone is harmed, they seek damages from the company. If enough people seek damages from the company, putting any chemicals out into the water may become unprofitable. Smart companies know this, and factor it into the cost/benefit analysis before doing any dumping. ...and now we're back at the corporate protections granted by governments. Limited liability in these sorts of things distorts the possible costs to the company, and encourages them to take more damaging actions than they might otherwise have.

[interlagos]

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

Luckily, such a way exists already. It's called arbitration. If someone is harmed, they seek damages from the company. If enough people seek damages from the company, putting any chemicals out into the water may become unprofitable. Smart companies know this, and factor it into the cost/benefit analysis before doing any dumping. ...and now we're back at the corporate protections granted by governments. Limited liability in these sorts of things distorts the possible costs to the company, and encourages them to take more damaging actions than they might otherwise have.

Does free market provide arbitration? I thought it's more like you are on your own...
And what if that polluting company pays to the arbiter to not take any action against it?

[myrkul]

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

Luckily, such a way exists already. It's called arbitration. If someone is harmed, they seek damages from the company. If enough people seek damages from the company, putting any chemicals out into the water may become unprofitable. Smart companies know this, and factor it into the cost/benefit analysis before doing any dumping. ...and now we're back at the corporate protections granted by governments. Limited liability in these sorts of things distorts the possible costs to the company, and encourages them to take more damaging actions than they might otherwise have.

Does free market provide arbitration? I thought it's more like you are on your own...

The free market provides anything there is a need for. That's the point.

And what if that polluting company pays to the arbiter to not take any action against it?

Then another arbitration company would take the case, instead. No monopoly on justice means you can't buy off the justice provider.

[interlagos]

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

Luckily, such a way exists already. It's called arbitration. If someone is harmed, they seek damages from the company. If enough people seek damages from the company, putting any chemicals out into the water may become unprofitable. Smart companies know this, and factor it into the cost/benefit analysis before doing any dumping. ...and now we're back at the corporate protections granted by governments. Limited liability in these sorts of things distorts the possible costs to the company, and encourages them to take more damaging actions than they might otherwise have.

Does free market provide arbitration? I thought it's more like you are on your own...

The free market provides anything there is a need for. That's the point.

And what if that polluting company pays to the arbiter to not take any action against it?

Then another arbitration company would take the case, instead. No monopoly on justice means you can't buy off the justice provider.

I see, it seems like with the free market it's always somebody else who will solve the problem and not the people themselves. I think this kind of attitude is what led us to where we are.

What if all those companies and providers not constrained by anything else start realizing that there are ways to collude and form cartels which would eliminate possibilities for competition thus allowing them to do less work for more profit.

And that is not a hypothetical scenario, that's precisely what we have now.
The consensus-based system would open the decision making process in society in the same way the blockchain opens the information about financial transactions.

[myrkul]

I see, it seems like with the free market it's always somebody else who will solve the problem and not the people themselves. I think this kind of attitude is what led us to where we are.

Um... Wat? The market is the people. Arbitration companies are run by people. People hire arbitration companies. "It's always someone else" is the opposite of the free market.

What if all those companies and providers not constrained by anything else start realizing that there are ways to collude and form cartels which would eliminate possibilities for competition thus allowing them to do less work for more profit.

Cartels always fall apart. Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Without enforceable agreements, members of a cartel are also involved in a (multi-player) prisoners' dilemma. 'Cooperating' typically means keeping prices at a pre-agreed minimum level. 'Defecting' means selling under this minimum level, instantly taking business (and profits) from other cartel members.

[Anon136]

how about we keep the power to ourselves

provably-fair voting.

What would people be voting for if not to transfer power from themselves to someone else. Unless the elected position was purely ceremonial in which case i am force to wonder, what is the point?

[interlagos]

I see, it seems like with the free market it's always somebody else who will solve the problem and not the people themselves. I think this kind of attitude is what led us to where we are.

Um... Wat? The market is the people. Arbitration companies are run by people. People hire arbitration companies. "It's always someone else" is the opposite of the free market.

In your arbitration example it seems that arbitration company has some authority over producing company. In free market who gives it that authority? What if I and other couple of guys want to start our own arbitration company, who will give me authority to charge polluting factory any damages?

What if all those companies and providers not constrained by anything else start realizing that there are ways to collude and form cartels which would eliminate possibilities for competition thus allowing them to do less work for more profit.

Cartels always fall apart. Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Without enforceable agreements, members of a cartel are also involved in a (multi-player) prisoners' dilemma. 'Cooperating' typically means keeping prices at a pre-agreed minimum level. 'Defecting' means selling under this minimum level, instantly taking business (and profits) from other cartel members.

Why is this not happening in today's free market? What would be different in your model of free market that would prevent things that are happening today?

how about we keep the power to ourselves

provably-fair voting.

What would people be voting for if not to transfer power from themselves to someone else. Unless the elected position was purely ceremonial in which case i am force to wonder, what is the point?

The whole point is to make voting as simple as possible, so that you can finally vote for things that matter sitting on your sofa at home instead of physically gathering in one place to elect another human and give him all the power, because voting in this way is not practical for anything else. With this new system people will be voting how to spend the budget they contributed to, or how to resolve the conflict of any kind.

[myrkul]

I see, it seems like with the free market it's always somebody else who will solve the problem and not the people themselves. I think this kind of attitude is what led us to where we are.

Um... Wat? The market is the people. Arbitration companies are run by people. People hire arbitration companies. "It's always someone else" is the opposite of the free market.

In your arbitration example it seems that arbitration company has some authority over producing company. In free market who gives it that authority? What if I and other couple of guys want to start our own arbitration company, who will give me authority to charge polluting factory any damages?

The producing company themselves give the arbitration company the authority to decide damages. They do this because they think that the arbitrator will decide fairly, and know that if they don't go to arbitration, violence may be the only way to resolve the conflict. Since violence is expensive, and killing your customers bad for business, they prefer a peaceful solution.

What if all those companies and providers not constrained by anything else start realizing that there are ways to collude and form cartels which would eliminate possibilities for competition thus allowing them to do less work for more profit.

Cartels always fall apart. Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Without enforceable agreements, members of a cartel are also involved in a (multi-player) prisoners' dilemma. 'Cooperating' typically means keeping prices at a pre-agreed minimum level. 'Defecting' means selling under this minimum level, instantly taking business (and profits) from other cartel members.

Why is this not happening in today's free market?

Because today's market is not free? In an actually free market, competition would prevent cartels from forming, or ensure that they fail if they do.

[Anon136]

I see, it seems like with the free market it's always somebody else who will solve the problem and not the people themselves. I think this kind of attitude is what led us to where we are.

Um... Wat? The market is the people. Arbitration companies are run by people. People hire arbitration companies. "It's always someone else" is the opposite of the free market.

In your arbitration example it seems that arbitration company has some authority over producing company. In free market who gives it that authority? What if I and other couple of guys want to start our own arbitration company, who will give me authority to charge polluting factory any damages?

What if all those companies and providers not constrained by anything else start realizing that there are ways to collude and form cartels which would eliminate possibilities for competition thus allowing them to do less work for more profit.

Cartels always fall apart. Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Without enforceable agreements, members of a cartel are also involved in a (multi-player) prisoners' dilemma. 'Cooperating' typically means keeping prices at a pre-agreed minimum level. 'Defecting' means selling under this minimum level, instantly taking business (and profits) from other cartel members.

Why is this not happening in today's free market? What would be different in your model of free market that would prevent things that are happening today?

how about we keep the power to ourselves

provably-fair voting.

What would people be voting for if not to transfer power from themselves to someone else. Unless the elected position was purely ceremonial in which case i am force to wonder, what is the point?

The whole point is to make voting as simple as possible, so that you can finally vote for things that matter sitting on your sofa at home instead of physically gathering in one place to elect another human and give him all the power, because voting in this way is not practical for anything else. With this new system people will be voting how to spend the budget they contributed to, or how to resolve the conflict of any kind.

this would be a great idea if democracy wasn't a terrible idea.