These models reduce or completely eliminate the need for representatives by turning politicians into code and using consensus via district.
I have heard of the idea that blockchain can do that but that sounds like a democracy, I would never want to live in a democracy and have my rights and such be subject to the will of a mob, especially not one voting online.
Localization gets rid of the parasitic model of governance where the few scrape the largesse of the masses without providing any benefit under the guise of "globalization". Using the ethics of "opt in" rather than "opt out" one can reduce the violence of state and gain legitimacy again.
that seems like one problem I don't hear a good solution to, lets say the alternative protection agencies have not yet formed a monopoly and that there are those who opt out, what's to stop me from enslaving or killing an opt out?
A government that you cannot opt out of is a violent government because it forces coercion at gunpoint by its armed enforcers wearing a badge.
Yeah that is one of those false premises that the whole argument seems to be based on, no they won't kill you if you don't pay your taxes. Tax evasion is just not a capital crime in the US. If you don't pay your taxes and then attack a cop the cop might shoot you in self defense but you were killed in self defense by a cop not executed by the state for a failure to pay your taxes. This is one of those things that seems like almost a religious belief, at least that is the only way I can explain it because it totally is bizarre.
The old models of governance are no longer needed. Technology has replaced lower level manufacturing jobs starting several decades ago and has been climbing the professional ladder ever since. Now the banking system is being disintermediated by cryptocurrencies and DAO's are doing the same to the legal system. Pretty soon lawyers will also need to be coders or they will be out of work.
Nope, what we see is that technology enhances those professions rather than replacing them or else we would be seeing massive unemployment instead of record low unemployment.
I didn't say they would kill you. It's no less violent if through a gun one is intimidated or coerced into compliance. This is extremely unethical and immoral. A state that so governs will lose moral authority (and ultimately the consent of the governed).
The natural law of self defense. There are no guarantees in life. Everyone needs to step up and assume responsibility rather than asking the state to do this. When the state does this, it magnifies death and destruction and terrorism is the result because it's a byproduct of that authority. Minimize the authority and you minimize the power of death and destruction. The goal of such downsizing technology is to localize distribution of wealth in such a way as to minimize honeypots that allow such things as nukes to come into existence (because they are expensive).
These monstrosities exist because of globalization. For those that already exist, a multisig contract for detonation involving secured hashes will prevent nuclear accidents caused by political miscalculation. Once this is in place dismantling will be incentivized because a multisig expansion beyond the few who are war mongers would never allow enough consensus to detonate. Then it becomes an unnecessary cost to maintain with no real use case.
That's not always the case. Some jobs have not come back. Everyone thought that ATM's would put bank tellers out of business, but they just changed duties. However, the changes coming in the future are much more extreme; politicians may instead become "witnesses" similar to what you see on the Steem blockchain and have far less power (if we have any sense). Those who take on new training will adapt such as lawyers writing Dapp code. As for democracy, I just pointed out Cicada as an example of what is possible, but republics could just hard code their constitution (similar to what EOS is doing right now).
I'm not saying that we couldn't go the other way. I've been writing about this on my blog for almost a year now. We could be in for a digital panopticon if IoT/AI is successful in enslaving humanity. If that's the case, then we could have an extended Orwellian period and this will be the result...
The real choice isn't democrat or republican (that's about fighting over the crumbs that fall off the table). It's whether we have liberty or slavery on steroids.
once I have enough slaves working for me I will be able to afford a second hand nuke in no time! Before the modern era most people were actual slaves to some degree, whether they be indentured servants, serfs or chattel, so blaming globalization for slavery does not make a lot of sense. People who live in stone age tribes seem to all practice slavery. Slavery is almost essential in a society without fossil fuels to do all the hard work. Whose consensus would I need to detonate my nuke?
who said the real choice was democrat or republican?
Nuclear weapons have lead to an end to massive global conflicts that took millions of lives, a world without them would be one in which the price of aggression was cheap.
(sorry, I can't watch 52 minutes of someone with no neck giving a lecture)
To be more precise, globalization makes slavery worse. The actual cause is the human condition that hasn't understood the moral / ethical considerations of natural law in that no act of coercion is without some form of violence. Many times that violence is concealed by the stroke of a pen, yet does far more damage than a riot in Los Angeles.
And yet governments have still claimed millions of lives around the world without nuclear weapons.
The scientific community is becoming wise to the stupidity of allowing central authority dictate the fate of humanity on the whims of political psychopaths. Extinction is only a matter of time if we don't intervene. We've been discussing how to reign in nukes when governments start to fail and can no longer control their stockpiles through their inherent instability and irresponsibility.
But without nuclear weapons it was like 30 million a year. When governments fail powerful slave owners like me will buy our own nukes and scientists that don't like it can find themselves chained in the salt mines along with anyone else who complains.
At which point you have become like government. I don't distinguish human behavior because someone decides to make up costumes to try to legitimize their bad behavior. ISIS, Israel, China, the USA, etc all have fundamentally the same problems. This is the point decentralized governance will attempt to fix. But it must be approached from the point of view of opting in so that you can truly own your own behavior and consequences. Without that, the violence will just continue on because accountability is lacking at the highest levels.
BTW, I wouldn't necessarily trust those stats, not that it makes a difference if true. There's still no excusing the violence of government because "it would be worse if I'm not allowed to have my nukes". Statistically, allowing psychopaths to hold nukes is certain death. The question isn't if, but when. Then your numbers will be in the billions of deaths.
I suppose China, ISIS and American leftists are all strong proponents of civilian gun control and opposed to free speech.
So far only the US has used nukes in war and we only did it twice and they were little. Psychopaths generally like to be alive themselves. It's not a good tactical weapon either, you can't easily occupy the area after and the fallout can blow back on you. It's sort of a fools errand to try to suppress a 70+ year old technology. A lot of people go and join ISIS, in effect opting in, and people are trying to run into America even illegally, they seem to be opting in too right?
I think it would be great if I had enough slave labor that I could afford a few nukes to secure my plantation. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuclear weapon is a good guy with a nuclear weapon.
Meh, all this concern about nukes will seem silly after some college student engineers a z virus.
The reason extermination is certain is based upon the fact that perfection is mathematically impossible. So if you allow control they will eventually blow themselves up by miscalculation. It most likely won't end intentionally, but a political miscalculation is all it will take and given enough time, probability of extermination approaches certainty.
This principle of opting in is about legitimizing the control of government because it is through the consent of the governed that government has any legitimacy at all. However, nothing negates natural law (a concept you seem to be unfamiliar with). If I opt into ISIS, and do harm to another, then indeed because there is a victim, I'm liable for damages and am morally and ethically obligated to make the victim whole. Opting into something doesn't absolve personal responsibility. It in fact increases it.
But when one is forced in, then government cannot even hope to achieve legitimacy. Individual responsibility is therefore negated by the state and people eventually surrender all their rights, don’t know right from wrong, etc. That is a bad situation for government because eventually the corruption that inevitably results will just eat everyone alive. This is because it’s no longer possible to completely confront one’s own actions because they have lost sovereign control.
BTW, the above situation is related to the insanity defense; that one was out of their mind or does not have capacity to control their own actions. If one is not sovereign, then one’s capacity to act is diminished. Without it, full accountability cannot be accomplished and the end result is corruption.
The nuke example is just one of many that I used to show the potential abuse of state power. Take your pick. The only time any violence is excusable is in the interest of self defense. Every time an aggressor initiates violence for control, they not only do wrong, but they demonstrate the bankruptcy of their ideas. This goes for terrorists in all their various forms, whether they wear government costumes or not.