An Online, Distributed, Decentralized, Purely Democratic, CryptoGovernment

[Marlo Stanfield]

Will never happen.

A normal person is usually too occupy to make informed decision on important issues.

I think on a very small scale it can work well. Farming communities. Maybe a small town. A union maybe.

It can be useful. But in many cases direct democracy is just going to amplify ignorance and be guided by emotion rather than logic.

Like for example. If there were a major vote about an energy related issue regarding something like nuclear power and the benefits of using thorium or something, personally I would like to delegate my vote to someone who is a trained scientist and more educated and informed on the potential ramifications and issues related to thorium. Not that I could spend more time learning about myself, but I'm not a professional scientist and I'm not arrogant enough to think that my opinion should count as much as someone who's dedicated their life to the study of science.

[conspirosphere.tk]

I'm not arrogant enough to think that my opinion should count as much as someone who's dedicated their life to the study of science.

Do you trust economists? They say they're scientific too. How about climatologists? Or...

Trusting the wrong people is why we're so doomed. And everyone should be in charge for choices impacting their life. Right or wrong, it's their life.

[Marlo Stanfield]

I'm not arrogant enough to think that my opinion should count as much as someone who's dedicated their life to the study of science.

Do you trust economists? They say they're scientific too. How about climatologists? Or...

Trusting the wrong people is why we're so doomed. And everyone should be in charge for choices impacting their life. Right or wrong, it's their life.

Economics is not a science. Social science maybe. But it's not the same.

Climatologist? Sure. Why not?

I think the problem like you said is trusting the wrong people. But it's because we're trusting politicians and we're not trusting the scientists and listening to people who value logic and truth over emotional persuasion. Politicians are the problem. The incentives are not aligned properly at all.

[conspirosphere.tk]

it's because we're trusting politicians and we're not trusting the scientists and listening to people who value logic and truth over emotional persuasion. Politicians are the problem. The incentives are not aligned properly at all.

scientists are not saints, and neither gods aware of everyone's needs/desires/preferences. They are corruptible just like anyone, including climatologists:
http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html

that's why is probably better not to let anyone to take decisions for you.

[Marlo Stanfield]

it's because we're trusting politicians and we're not trusting the scientists and listening to people who value logic and truth over emotional persuasion. Politicians are the problem. The incentives are not aligned properly at all.

scientists are not saints, and neither gods aware of everyone's needs/desires/preferences. They are corruptible just like anyone, including climatologists:
http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html

that's why is probably better not to let anyone to take decisions for you.

The thing is that in science it shouldn't matter in the long run whether someone lies or fabricates data. Because the core of science is based around reproducibility and peer review. Over time the truth comes out. If someone is going to be making decisions based upon evidence and peer reviewed studies that have been independently verified multiple times, then it would be silly to think that I'm going to be better at making a decision based on nothing but my own emotions or ignorance.

[Ron~Popeil]

I'm not arrogant enough to think that my opinion should count as much as someone who's dedicated their life to the study of science.

Do you trust economists? They say they're scientific too. How about climatologists? Or...

Trusting the wrong people is why we're so doomed. And everyone should be in charge for choices impacting their life. Right or wrong, it's their life.

When scientific results determine whether or not you get funding and are able to make a living you have to accept that science is biased as well. There have been a LOT of scientists that have seen funding dry up for not producing the results governments want. Look at the history of the lipid hypothesis for example. 

[Snax]

The thing is that in science it shouldn't matter in the long run whether someone lies or fabricates data. Because the core of science is based around reproducibility and peer review. Over time the truth comes out. If someone is going to be making decisions based upon evidence and peer reviewed studies that have been independently verified multiple times, then it would be silly to think that I'm going to be better at making a decision based on nothing but my own emotions or ignorance.

This is true, which is why by explicitly using what you've outlined here as a definition of science, Comparitive Politics is science. And again, I've talked to several comparativists with PhD's in the field about this system (as well as many other people). The comparativists have ALL (100%) said that pure democracy is the only way to instantiate a world government peacefully because of its passive approach to distributing power. I'd argue that it's exactly the same as what Bitcoin is currently doing- instantiating a world currency passively by simply out-competing all previous forms of currency. An online crypto government will just win-out by simply out-competing all previous forms of government.

[Snax]

What's wrong with delegating individual power to someone who knows better? Does your system allow for this, or does every person need to participate? What if they don't have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision?

Isn't the main problem with our current democracy lack of knowledge? If not, what is?

Thank you, Marlo Stanfield, for not taking the time to read the original post, let me paraphrase it for you because you were too inconsiderate to give me the time to read it yourself- Yes, this system allows for this. Every person does not need to participate. If they don't have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision, they can easily delegate their vote to someone who does.

Will never happen.

A normal person is usually too occupy to make informed decision on important issues.

Thank you, efreeti, for not taking the time to read the original post, let me paraphrase it for you because you were too inconsiderate to give me the time to read it yourself- This is already happening, saying it will never happen is illogical in the highest form of the word. You contradict the meaning of the word "never" by saying something that is currently happening will never happen. A "normal" person is indeed very busy, which is why we have a massive and robust DELEFUCKINGATION SYSTEM that has been intricately outlined in the very first post which you decided to not read.

[Snax]

With posts this salty, my name might as well be salty snax lol.

I'm only going to get more and more offensive in my replies as people become more and more offensive in their choice to not read.

Soz lol.