Consensus-based society with provable trust-free voting

[Rudd-O]

It's not about forcing anyone to obey anything

Ha.  Of course it is about that.  Why, then, are we non-voters forced to obey the orders that the voters (allegedly) gave everyone?  You think I can just stop paying the tax used to murder human beings abroad, and not be put in a cage?  How is that not force against me?

[1714788201]

1714788201

[1714788201]

1714788201

[1714788201]

1714788201

[myrkul]

So, what you propose is a provable opinion poll? A way to gather information?

I guess that's fine. Democracy with no teeth can't bite you in the ass.

[Rudd-O]

So, what you propose is a provable opinion poll? A way to gather information?

I guess that's fine. Democracy with no teeth can't bite you in the ass.

Yes, if that's the case, that would be fine.

Of course, a futarchy would be even better.  People can pony up money on their polls.  That usually makes them more accurate and cautious about not saying idiotic shit.

[interlagos]

The technology itself cannot be responsible for people's future decisions to force it upon someone.
Who knows maybe one day we will be forced to use Bitcoin.

This thread was more about the technology rather that the model of society based on it.
I decided to include a reference model of society to just provide some examples of how technology could be applied. In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out. I think it's fair, but I can't possibly account for all variations of how said technology can be used. I've already proposed it for adoption in Bitcoin Foundation thread and Gavin said that it was a great idea. However he said that they would have to think more about voting and would probably use something simpler in the beginning.

While discussing certain examples above I expected more arguments than contradictions from you guys (if you go up through the page you will know what I mean) but nonetheless I enjoyed every bit of this conversation. Here is the gift for you two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkzjBfTDH20

[myrkul]

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

[interlagos]

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.

So by leaving a certain consensus group you would loose or significantly weaken your ability to defend the land you think is yours. That consideration along with other benefits that consensus group might provide would create a necessary degree of stickiness, so that it doesn't fall apart too early.

You can also use the information derived from provable voting procedures to gauge the level of acceptable behavior of society you find yourself in (regardless of whether it's forced or not) and to make a determination for yourself whether it is representative of your values and you would like to continue to support the group or it's something that you don't prefer and you'd better leave the group and not contribute to its cause.

It's also possible to imagine a loosely tied consensus groups in which individuals proceed fairly independently on a regular basis but are capable of forming a larger group very quickly to consolidate enough power to deflect any outside attacks or make an important decision about environmental issues which would affect anyone anyway. Whether achieved consensus is going to be forced, ignored or taken into consideration by anyone individually would solely depend on the people of that society.

EDIT: Regarding questions about being profit-driven and how it works with consensus-based groups, my vision would be that individuals within or outside of the consensus groups might very well be profit-driven. However consensus would determine what would mean to be "ethical" while still remaining profit-driven.
Whether "ethical" behavior needs to be enforced and how would be for consensus group to decide.

So instead of looking for protection on the free market and paying private defense company which might be quite expensive actually, one can seek like-minded people and stick around them so that together they will be able to defense themselves by their own means when the need arises. And that behavior is very well in line with being profit-driven as it might be cheaper that way than outsourcing everything to free market and pay for it.

[myrkul]

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.

Regional monopoly? Guided by democracy? Held together by threat of conquest?

Yeah, that's a State. Sorry.

[interlagos]

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.

Regional monopoly? Guided by democracy? Held together by threat of conquest?

Yeah, that's a State. Sorry.

You might call it that if you wish, but it would be a different kind of state
You see, you keep calling things names, while I explain how things work.

In any case, with this system you will have "rules but no rulers". Sounds familiar?

[myrkul]

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.

Regional monopoly? Guided by democracy? Held together by threat of conquest?

Yeah, that's a State. Sorry.

You might call it that if you wish, but it would be a different kind of state
You see, you keep calling things names, while I explain how things work.

In any case, with this system you will have "rules but no rulers". Sounds familiar?

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" - Mather Byles

[interlagos]

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.

Regional monopoly? Guided by democracy? Held together by threat of conquest?

Yeah, that's a State. Sorry.

You might call it that if you wish, but it would be a different kind of state
You see, you keep calling things names, while I explain how things work.

In any case, with this system you will have "rules but no rulers". Sounds familiar?

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" - Mather Byles

I like your knowledge of history and popular quotes, but you keep making assumptions about intentions of people around you and their level of morality and ethical behavior. As we've agreed this is generally unknown and there is no point arguing about it.
If you find yourself in a street gang or on a remote island populated with cannibals that quote might be applicable.

Instead of making assumptions about people the provable voting system will allow you to know with a good level of certainty of their understanding of ethical behavior. And as I mentioned before having more information is better than having less. You might even pretend for awhile that you agree with them while finding your way closer to the border and once you get close you make a run from that nightmare.

But why think so bad about people? Would you think a population of a large country would directly vote to initiate a war against another country while not being under direct attack? I doubt it.

Also as I edited one of my posts above, it boils down to what is more profitable. Think of it as what would you like to outsource to free market compared to what you would like to keep in-house. Would you outsource defense or judgment about ethical behavior to a random company on the market and pay for it or would it be cheaper for people to consolidate resources and do it by their means in-house?
Initial clustering of people by their understanding of ethical behavior would produce more peaceful society that clustering people by their motivation for profit which is what your model of free market would imply (as I understand it).

Also things like states and democracies exist not because some crazy people invented them, but because that's how things work. That's how stars form as well, matter in a dust clouds start to coalesce and form clusters of gravity which accumulate more and more mass until pressure and temperature becomes high enough so that thermonuclear reaction becomes self-sufficient. You might not like it but power on free market tends to consolidate and form self-sufficient clusters the same way. It's simple physics.

So instead of arguing with gravity how about we improve technologies so that those clusters of power which would form anyway won't get easily corrupted to grow out of proportion and turn into a tyrannical black holes? See where I'm going?

[myrkul]

But why think so bad about people? Would you think a population of a large country would directly vote to initiate a war against another country while not being under direct attack? I doubt it.

"...envy is the root, the seed that gives life to the tyranny of the majority. Democracy satisfies this covetous nature while sanitizing the evil – creating a false legitimacy to the end result of envy, that being theft and destruction." - "Bionic Mosquito"

"A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’" - Robert A. Heinlein

And a personal favorite, H.L. Mencken:
“No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
― H.L. Mencken, Gist of Mencken

Every person will always vote themselves a bailout. All it takes is a convincing speaker, and for someone to put it to a vote. Then greed and envy take over, and by virtue of Democracy, each person's hands are clean when the army enters and slaughters the other territory.

[interlagos]

But why think so bad about people? Would you think a population of a large country would directly vote to initiate a war against another country while not being under direct attack? I doubt it.

"...envy is the root, the seed that gives life to the tyranny of the majority. Democracy satisfies this covetous nature while sanitizing the evil – creating a false legitimacy to the end result of envy, that being theft and destruction." - "Bionic Mosquito"

"A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’" - Robert A. Heinlein

And a personal favorite, H.L. Mencken:
“No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
― H.L. Mencken, Gist of Mencken

Every person will always vote themselves a bailout. All it takes is a convincing speaker, and for someone to put it to a vote. Then greed and envy take over, and by virtue of Democracy, each person's hands are clean when the army enters and slaughters the other territory.

I forgot to mention that topics to vote on in the consensus-based system are submitted by individual peers and are assessed and approved for voting by the rest of the peer-to-peer network. So their is no central body who would decide what people are going to vote on or which topics are welcome and which would be suppressed.

It doesn't mean that people would have to vote blindly, they can discuss the matter with themselves or listen to experts in their society before making their choice. And even if achieved consensus doesn't seem to satisfy what people have originally thought it would do there is no limitation that would prevent some peer to raise this question again and see if the previous decision can be overturned. There is no 4 years period of taboo on voting in this system. If something doesn't work change it.

Also remember as I've explained in my other thread, all versions of reality already exist, even those where quotes that you provided are true. It's all about sticking to a time track that you prefer, but you need to be representative of that vibration or you won't be able to perceive it.

[myrkul]

Also remember as I've explained in my other thread, all versions of reality already exist, even those where quotes that you provided are true. It's all about sticking to a time track that you prefer, but you need to be representative of that vibration or you won't be able to perceive it.

...and with that, reality is left behind. Tell you what, why don't you shift to the time track in which I agree completely with you? That way, we're both happy.

[interlagos]

Also remember as I've explained in my other thread, all versions of reality already exist, even those where quotes that you provided are true. It's all about sticking to a time track that you prefer, but you need to be representative of that vibration or you won't be able to perceive it.

...and with that, reality is left behind. Tell you what, why don't you shift to the time track in which I agree completely with you? That way, we're both happy.

+1000
I'm sticking to that time track as much as I can, throwing anchors around left and right

[myrkul]

Also remember as I've explained in my other thread, all versions of reality already exist, even those where quotes that you provided are true. It's all about sticking to a time track that you prefer, but you need to be representative of that vibration or you won't be able to perceive it.

...and with that, reality is left behind. Tell you what, why don't you shift to the time track in which I agree completely with you? That way, we're both happy.

+1000
I'm sticking to that time track as much as I can, throwing anchors around left and right

/sigh... No, my friend. You have no anchor. That's the problem.

[Rudd-O]

it's funny how statists say that they want to replace the state but end up proposing... a state. it's like tribalism is baked in their brains and they can only offer solutions that make use of organized violence.

[interlagos]

it's funny how statists say that they want to replace the state but end up proposing... a state. it's like tribalism is baked in their brains and they can only offer solutions that make use of organized violence.

So you'd rather bow down to your boss while working in a "peaceful" and "non-aggressive" company on a "free" market, than working in collaboration with like-minded people in a consensus-based system striving to achieve self-sustainability and therefore being not dependent on market conditions?

Don't you see that big businesses of today control the market and make rules? The trick is that they call it "democracy" so that people like you would be utterly opposed to it and never even look that way again.
Please understand that the last time we had real government and democracy was when we used gold and silver as money. The problem is that technology at the time wasn't good enough to keep the structure sustainable, so it was taken over. Today everything is private, money is the property of a private bank and the thing that you call government is a private TV show to keep the rest of you entertained and utterly oblivious of what is really going on. So if you would like to call what we have today a "democracy" and you are so utterly opposed to it, I would applaud your ignorance. This is where name calling approach leads you guys, you play with those nice words and labels, while the reality about how things actually work slips away. The free market ruled by private companies is no longer a wet dream it is a reality of today, welcome!

Would you go pay to one of those triple-letter agencies for your protection if they were private defense companies that you guys are all dreaming about? And who would you pay to protect yourself from those agencies?

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a middle ground between centrally-managed pyramid-structured profit-driven cluster of power and the one where people listen to each other's opinions first before rushing to take any action, which is what consensus-based system proposes?

You can't argue with gravity and prevent clusters of power from forming, the only thing you can attempt to change is how those clusters are structured, so that they don't turn themselves into a tyrannical black holes eating everything around for breakfast.

So is there a middle ground?

EDIT: If you find yourself offended by the sharp-edged sentences that I used above, please understand that I needed to express myself within those frequency bands that are most representative on this forum, so that they can form a constructive interference in a way that you will be able to perceive the ideas and we can have an argument. You can look at that as a reflection to gauge where you're at on the frequency spectrum.

[Anon136]

it's funny how statists say that they want to replace the state but end up proposing... a state. it's like tribalism is baked in their brains and they can only offer solutions that make use of organized violence.

So you'd rather bow down to your boss while working in a "peaceful" and "non-aggressive" company on a "free" market, than working in collaboration with like-minded people in a consensus-based system striving to achieve self-sustainability and therefore being not dependent on market conditions?

First of all most people dont bow to their bosses. The only people we have to "bow down to" are agents of the state. I can tell my boss to go fuck himself and never have to see him again any moment of any day i feel like. Of course doing so may mean that i have to take a slightly worse job but its worth it to me for the freedom it gives me (like for example the freedom to utilize his capital in order to increase my productivity), freedom i absolutely do not have in my relationship with the state.

so down to brass tax, do you or do you not support the imposition of a monopoly on the legitimized use of violence with in a geographical region (a state). if you do than tell me how peoples relationship with such an institution would not necessitate "bowing down" at least in some metaphorical sense (which i believe is the sense you used it in originally)

If you do not support such an institution that what specifically is your disagreement with anarcho-capitalists? If you just want some other sort of voluntary system, like for example you want to homestead your own little community and have everyone who lives there agree to literally actually sign a real physical social contract or else leave the group i dont think any of us would have a problem with that.

P.S. dont give me any bs about how its the capitalists fault that people have to work inorder to survive

[myrkul]

Don't you see that big businesses of today control the market and make rules?

As yourself why that is. What entity has allowed them to do that?

Would you go pay to one of those triple-letter agencies for your protection if they were private defense companies that you guys are all dreaming about? And who would you pay to protect yourself from those agencies?

You know, it's funny. I don't see ADT shooting it's customers, nor Brinks. Private companies on the free market don't get ahead by shooting their customers. Violent monopolies sometimes have to to keep their monopoly.

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a middle ground between centrally-managed pyramid-structured profit-driven cluster of power and the one where people listen to each other's opinions first before rushing to take any action, which is what consensus-based system proposes?

Yes. Each individual doing what and as they see fit, cooperating or competing as they choose. Though I wouldn't call it a "middle ground," more like a "third option."

[Rudd-O]

it's funny how statists say that they want to replace the state but end up proposing... a state. it's like tribalism is baked in their brains and they can only offer solutions that make use of organized violence.

So you'd rather bow down to your boss while working in a "peaceful" and "non-aggressive" company on a "free" market, than working in collaboration with like-minded people in a consensus-based system striving to achieve self-sustainability and therefore being not dependent on market conditions?

Opening your comment by putting words in my mouth, or asking me "have you stopped beating your wife yet" types of questions, does not exactly constitute an incentive to address your questions.  It makes me think "well, it's unlikely that this person will actually process whatever I say, so why bother".