9 ms·

Governments yield too much power, meanwhile citizens keep funding said governments with ridiculously high taxes. Trying to fix governments is counterproductive

Governments yield too much power, meanwhile citizens keep funding said governments with ridiculously high taxes. Trying to fix governments is counterproductive, just need to decentralize things imho.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
What do you mean by "decentralise"? Smaller-scope government at a local level? Anarcho-syndicalism? I suspect many of the same issues would appear.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cies 9y ago
  > What do you mean by "decentralise"? Smaller-scope government at a local level? Anarcho-syndicalism? Yes. > I suspect many of the same issues would appear. Nope. When democracy is small enough, the leaders are very close to their voters. This changes everything. See small democratic countries, they do much better at being democratic! I think we can make it smaller, and have the democratic process at neighbourhood/village level. Then go up from there with committees filled with delegates from the local-democracies that are for a specific topic (hospitals in the region, roads, schools -- anything local-democracies want to collaborate with others upon). All taxation and voting should happen on the lowest level.
  - someguu 9y ago
    But, eventually those "leaders" you seem to trust will find an enemy and unite to "fight" it. I personally don't see why people even vote, I think the solution is to make sure the internet is protected from "leaders", not by voting and making temporary "rules" with the government, but by making sure it's global and decentralized. Also, keep in mind that your idea of government won't protect the internet forever.
    - cies 9y ago
      > But, eventually those "leaders" you seem to trust will find an enemy and unite to "fight" it. Hopefully the enemy within. > Also, keep in mind that your idea of government won't protect the internet forever. First, do most Turks want free or protected access? Lets assume they want free access. If they cannot have it it shows the system of gov't is not democratic enough (or they have "traded" their request in some way, but that's not the case now).
  - gkya 9y ago
    > All taxation and voting should happen on the lowest level. While I too am tinkering with these ideas, the trouble with this is that we need massive infrastucture work even outside the context of totalitarian self-promotion; and this is not achievable with small-scale local governments. Nowadays nobody is self-sufficient, as even the most simple things we use require material and labour from all over the world [1] that needs to be excavated, processed, produced, moved, bought and sold. I think that if we were to limit all governments to city-state like beings, economical macro-structures that will be more powerful than those states would form in no time. Also, as today the term worker has so less to do with the worker of the past two centuries, most of the theories become more and more irrelevant. If we want a better today, we need newer theories. That's exactly what the totalitarians are doing, they're using new methods and theories of marketing to succeed their way to domination of economical systems. Many utopias are possible, but at the end of the day, if it's not utopia everywhere, it's utopia nowhere. A country cannot isolate itself from the outer world in their excess of happines because that last one depends on global welfare today. It's not the ages that you could stay safe when there's conflict thousands of kilometres away anymore. [1] a nice illustration of this is the famous I, pencil: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
    - zanny 9y ago
      Nothing stops city states from collaborating to build a highway between themselves, where the participants divest the costs amongt all participants (preferably in order of whom benefits the most). It is a negotiation. It is how underseas fiber cables are laid, how canals are navigated, how the seas and skies are shared.
    - cies 9y ago
      > the trouble with this is that we need massive infrastucture work Sure. :) But there are two options. Small steps in the right direction (need a lot of work), or revolution (needs even more work). > I think that if we were to limit all governments to city-state like beings, economical macro-structures that will be more powerful than those states would form in no time. Ok. In some cases these structures maybe beneficient, even started on behalf of the small-scale super autonomous self-governments. If not those small-scale govts can just ban (or not give them money anymore) them; they are autonomous. > Also, as today the term worker has so less to do with the worker of the past two centuries True in the west. Workers here are now "priviledged workers", our economies in the west in need of cheap labor in other places. There the "worker" still exists in its classical form. Here we have a new form, but if you look closely you still see many. To me it is simple, I see capitalists (defined as never "have to" work to survive a fancy life time), and non-capitalists (used to have been referred to as "workers"). > Many utopias are possible, but at the end of the day, if it's not utopia everywhere, it's utopia nowhere. That raises the bar very high. I look more at it as a one village/neighbourhood at the time kind of thing. Do you know "I pencil" from Corbett? He's an agorist I believe, dunno. I'm more towards mutualism/anarchism/market-socialism; as I think private property should have limits (otherwise those ideologies are quite similar).
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    So what was that you were saying about "trying to fix governments being pointless"? Or is this proposal not "a government" in your eyes. > Then go up from there with committees filled with delegates from the local-democracies This is sounding pretty much like a parliamentary or congressional system. (yes, congresses do exist that differ from the US')
    - cies 9y ago
      > So what was that you were saying about "trying to fix governments being pointless"? We should not dress up authoritarianism as something good. But some form of governing needs (and will anyway) to take place. I believe the best place for the center of this to happen in "close by", local, or small-scope. > Or is this proposal not "a government" in your eyes. It proposes a collection of most authorative governments, with layers above that are less authoritative and on-topic. This is the opposite of a nation state, that tends to cluster power/tax-revenue at the top.
  - xg15 9y ago
    That sounds susceptible to a lot of "tragedy of the commons" problems. It's hard enough to make the top-10 nations collaborate against climate change - good luck with hundreds or thousands of small communities. Similarly, this looks like a world in which few rights or standards could be taken for granted, because everything is decided in local committees or "multilateral" deals between some groups of communities: Whether you'll be allowed to trade with or travel into another community will depend on the specific rules and agreements your and the other community decided to take part in. In those negotiations, communities with natural advantages will likely be able to make better deals and increase their advantage, which may lead to a growing inequality between communities. Finally, who is going to run large-scale infrastructure like roads, water, the electric grid, the internet, etc? If history is any indication, some gib private actors or a small number of powerful communities. Other communities will have to negotiate with them to be allowed access to the infrastructure - which is great for the private actors because this means there is absolutely no one who has any leverage over them...
    - wav-part 9y ago
      (Warning: opinions without citation) Collective will has never solved anything. As always it will be technology. Whether you'll be allowed to trade with or travel into another community will depend on the specific rules and agreements your and the other community decided to take part in. At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are. In those negotiations, communities with natural advantages will likely be able to make better deals and increase their advantage, which may lead to a growing inequality between communities. Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource. If history is any indication, some gib private actors or a small number of powerful communities. Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book. Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time.
      - xg15 9y ago
        > Collective will has never solved anything. As always it will be technology. Technology is a tool. There are always humans behind it. (If nothing else, the people designing the algorithms for the AI overlords) Technology may help us to reach our goals, but in my opinion, it's rather useless if we're not even clear what our goals are. > At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are. And then what? It's obvious today how important clean drinking water is. Still people use access to water as a bargaining power and you might not have access to it if you live in a shitty part of the world and have nothing to offer. I don't see why it would be different here. > Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource. Then I honestly don't understand the logic of anarcho-capitalists. So our current system is broken because, even though it has some checks, it still leads to too much accumulation of power. Therefore we should replace it with a completely unchecked system which will lead to even more accumulation of power - but that's ok because suddenly accumulation of power is actually fine and there is absolutely nothing we could do about it anyway. How does that make any sense? > Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book. In mine, it isn't. But even if it were, who is keeping the communities from using force? > Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time. Yes, dominant powers change over time. For most of human history, that timespan was roughly "every few centuries". If you're talking about human life spans, it's absolutely possible that some groups are winning all the time and everyone else is losing all the time. (Oh, and those events where power actually shifted? They usually weren't very pleasant to live in either) The whole idea of our current system is to prevent that by imposing restrictions on power.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  If the architecture of society is distributed, then these issues won't appear.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  Anybody reading this, I'd take any suggestion about such social organisation / (a)political structures.
  - gkya 9y ago
    Structures are political, politics rise naturally where human interactions (especially indirect interactions) exist. The question is how to make sure that politics are based upon and executed according to facts and principals like plurality, equal rights to human dignity and mutual respect. It's sort of obvious today that democracy as we have it is not workin like that, and that big structures like countries are hard to keep clean.
    - agumonkey 9y ago
      Exactly. On HN I expect people to guess that the current structures aren't "scalable" (sorry). So maybe a nice deep tweak to trim the fat, reduce height, simplify energy currents to avoid corruption, bureaucracy, endless bipolar swings .. We have the technology we can rebuild it. (actually I think the solution is lo-tech.. basically prolonged discussions, hard, but not impossible)
  - wav-part 9y ago
    In such discussions, its usually forgotten that how smooth modern travel and migration is. Just make it more smooth/quick then concept of libertarianism/socialism/etc becomes increasengly moot.
tmalsburg2 9y ago
> just need to decentralize things imho. Just -- you say this as if it was easy but no one knows how to do this and whether it is possible at all. Just see how long decentralization lasted in the case of Bitcoin.
- someguu 9y ago
  Where did I say it was an easy problem to solve? Lookup the definition of just.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  It's not possible. There will always be organization and hierarchy, whether or not it's under an egalitarian effort (gov't) or a libertarian one ("my gang has more guns than yours, give us money/food/your land") People who call for dissolution of power do so because they feel powerless against a unified whole. They forget that powerlessness exists in a much stronger form without organization. I suppose they're welcome to not learn their lesson and try and become the next Jim Jones, but the rest of us will just shrug and say "sad for them" as we continue the pursuit of better democracies and representative governments.
jgaa 9y ago
> Governments yield too much power, meanwhile citizens keep funding said governments with ridiculously high taxes. Good point. In my opinion, paying taxes is the most immoral thing a person can do.
nebabyte 9y ago
Decentralization just leads to non-agreed-upon authorities taking power. There will always be a monkey or monkeys with bigger or more sticks than you, and you'll always have something they can use more of. Until such a time that you have nothing left and are just a blight on the land they could be using for something else. There's a reason unorganized societies always collapse into trying to organize themselves.
- rumcajz 9y ago
  You are conflating term "decentralized" with term "unorganized". Switzerland is both highly decentralized and highly organized.

Governments yield too much power, meanwhile citizens keep funding said governments with ridiculously high taxes. Trying to fix governments is counterproductive, just need to decentralize things imho.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

What do you mean by "decentralise"? Smaller-scope government at a local level? Anarcho-syndicalism? I suspect many of the same issues would appear.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cies 9y ago
> What do you mean by "decentralise"? Smaller-scope government at a local level? Anarcho-syndicalism? Yes. > I suspect many of the same issues would appear. Nope. When democracy is small enough, the leaders are very close to their voters. This changes everything. See small democratic countries, they do much better at being democratic! I think we can make it smaller, and have the democratic process at neighbourhood/village level. Then go up from there with committees filled with delegates from the local-democracies that are for a specific topic (hospitals in the region, roads, schools -- anything local-democracies want to collaborate with others upon). All taxation and voting should happen on the lowest level.
- someguu 9y ago
  But, eventually those "leaders" you seem to trust will find an enemy and unite to "fight" it. I personally don't see why people even vote, I think the solution is to make sure the internet is protected from "leaders", not by voting and making temporary "rules" with the government, but by making sure it's global and decentralized. Also, keep in mind that your idea of government won't protect the internet forever.
  - cies 9y ago
    > But, eventually those "leaders" you seem to trust will find an enemy and unite to "fight" it. Hopefully the enemy within. > Also, keep in mind that your idea of government won't protect the internet forever. First, do most Turks want free or protected access? Lets assume they want free access. If they cannot have it it shows the system of gov't is not democratic enough (or they have "traded" their request in some way, but that's not the case now).
- gkya 9y ago
  > All taxation and voting should happen on the lowest level. While I too am tinkering with these ideas, the trouble with this is that we need massive infrastucture work even outside the context of totalitarian self-promotion; and this is not achievable with small-scale local governments. Nowadays nobody is self-sufficient, as even the most simple things we use require material and labour from all over the world [1] that needs to be excavated, processed, produced, moved, bought and sold. I think that if we were to limit all governments to city-state like beings, economical macro-structures that will be more powerful than those states would form in no time. Also, as today the term worker has so less to do with the worker of the past two centuries, most of the theories become more and more irrelevant. If we want a better today, we need newer theories. That's exactly what the totalitarians are doing, they're using new methods and theories of marketing to succeed their way to domination of economical systems. Many utopias are possible, but at the end of the day, if it's not utopia everywhere, it's utopia nowhere. A country cannot isolate itself from the outer world in their excess of happines because that last one depends on global welfare today. It's not the ages that you could stay safe when there's conflict thousands of kilometres away anymore. [1] a nice illustration of this is the famous I, pencil: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
  - zanny 9y ago
    Nothing stops city states from collaborating to build a highway between themselves, where the participants divest the costs amongt all participants (preferably in order of whom benefits the most). It is a negotiation. It is how underseas fiber cables are laid, how canals are navigated, how the seas and skies are shared.
  - cies 9y ago
    > the trouble with this is that we need massive infrastucture work Sure. :) But there are two options. Small steps in the right direction (need a lot of work), or revolution (needs even more work). > I think that if we were to limit all governments to city-state like beings, economical macro-structures that will be more powerful than those states would form in no time. Ok. In some cases these structures maybe beneficient, even started on behalf of the small-scale super autonomous self-governments. If not those small-scale govts can just ban (or not give them money anymore) them; they are autonomous. > Also, as today the term worker has so less to do with the worker of the past two centuries True in the west. Workers here are now "priviledged workers", our economies in the west in need of cheap labor in other places. There the "worker" still exists in its classical form. Here we have a new form, but if you look closely you still see many. To me it is simple, I see capitalists (defined as never "have to" work to survive a fancy life time), and non-capitalists (used to have been referred to as "workers"). > Many utopias are possible, but at the end of the day, if it's not utopia everywhere, it's utopia nowhere. That raises the bar very high. I look more at it as a one village/neighbourhood at the time kind of thing. Do you know "I pencil" from Corbett? He's an agorist I believe, dunno. I'm more towards mutualism/anarchism/market-socialism; as I think private property should have limits (otherwise those ideologies are quite similar).
- nebabyte 9y ago
  So what was that you were saying about "trying to fix governments being pointless"? Or is this proposal not "a government" in your eyes. > Then go up from there with committees filled with delegates from the local-democracies This is sounding pretty much like a parliamentary or congressional system. (yes, congresses do exist that differ from the US')
  - cies 9y ago
    > So what was that you were saying about "trying to fix governments being pointless"? We should not dress up authoritarianism as something good. But some form of governing needs (and will anyway) to take place. I believe the best place for the center of this to happen in "close by", local, or small-scope. > Or is this proposal not "a government" in your eyes. It proposes a collection of most authorative governments, with layers above that are less authoritative and on-topic. This is the opposite of a nation state, that tends to cluster power/tax-revenue at the top.
- xg15 9y ago
  That sounds susceptible to a lot of "tragedy of the commons" problems. It's hard enough to make the top-10 nations collaborate against climate change - good luck with hundreds or thousands of small communities. Similarly, this looks like a world in which few rights or standards could be taken for granted, because everything is decided in local committees or "multilateral" deals between some groups of communities: Whether you'll be allowed to trade with or travel into another community will depend on the specific rules and agreements your and the other community decided to take part in. In those negotiations, communities with natural advantages will likely be able to make better deals and increase their advantage, which may lead to a growing inequality between communities. Finally, who is going to run large-scale infrastructure like roads, water, the electric grid, the internet, etc? If history is any indication, some gib private actors or a small number of powerful communities. Other communities will have to negotiate with them to be allowed access to the infrastructure - which is great for the private actors because this means there is absolutely no one who has any leverage over them...
  - wav-part 9y ago
    (Warning: opinions without citation) Collective will has never solved anything. As always it will be technology. Whether you'll be allowed to trade with or travel into another community will depend on the specific rules and agreements your and the other community decided to take part in. At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are. In those negotiations, communities with natural advantages will likely be able to make better deals and increase their advantage, which may lead to a growing inequality between communities. Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource. If history is any indication, some gib private actors or a small number of powerful communities. Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book. Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time.
    - xg15 9y ago
      > Collective will has never solved anything. As always it will be technology. Technology is a tool. There are always humans behind it. (If nothing else, the people designing the algorithms for the AI overlords) Technology may help us to reach our goals, but in my opinion, it's rather useless if we're not even clear what our goals are. > At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are. And then what? It's obvious today how important clean drinking water is. Still people use access to water as a bargaining power and you might not have access to it if you live in a shitty part of the world and have nothing to offer. I don't see why it would be different here. > Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource. Then I honestly don't understand the logic of anarcho-capitalists. So our current system is broken because, even though it has some checks, it still leads to too much accumulation of power. Therefore we should replace it with a completely unchecked system which will lead to even more accumulation of power - but that's ok because suddenly accumulation of power is actually fine and there is absolutely nothing we could do about it anyway. How does that make any sense? > Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book. In mine, it isn't. But even if it were, who is keeping the communities from using force? > Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time. Yes, dominant powers change over time. For most of human history, that timespan was roughly "every few centuries". If you're talking about human life spans, it's absolutely possible that some groups are winning all the time and everyone else is losing all the time. (Oh, and those events where power actually shifted? They usually weren't very pleasant to live in either) The whole idea of our current system is to prevent that by imposing restrictions on power.
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
If the architecture of society is distributed, then these issues won't appear.
agumonkey 9y ago
Anybody reading this, I'd take any suggestion about such social organisation / (a)political structures.
- gkya 9y ago
  Structures are political, politics rise naturally where human interactions (especially indirect interactions) exist. The question is how to make sure that politics are based upon and executed according to facts and principals like plurality, equal rights to human dignity and mutual respect. It's sort of obvious today that democracy as we have it is not workin like that, and that big structures like countries are hard to keep clean.
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    Exactly. On HN I expect people to guess that the current structures aren't "scalable" (sorry). So maybe a nice deep tweak to trim the fat, reduce height, simplify energy currents to avoid corruption, bureaucracy, endless bipolar swings .. We have the technology we can rebuild it. (actually I think the solution is lo-tech.. basically prolonged discussions, hard, but not impossible)
- wav-part 9y ago
  In such discussions, its usually forgotten that how smooth modern travel and migration is. Just make it more smooth/quick then concept of libertarianism/socialism/etc becomes increasengly moot.

tmalsburg2 9y ago

> just need to decentralize things imho. Just -- you say this as if it was easy but no one knows how to do this and whether it is possible at all. Just see how long decentralization lasted in the case of Bitcoin.

someguu 9y ago
Where did I say it was an easy problem to solve? Lookup the definition of just.
nebabyte 9y ago
It's not possible. There will always be organization and hierarchy, whether or not it's under an egalitarian effort (gov't) or a libertarian one ("my gang has more guns than yours, give us money/food/your land") People who call for dissolution of power do so because they feel powerless against a unified whole. They forget that powerlessness exists in a much stronger form without organization. I suppose they're welcome to not learn their lesson and try and become the next Jim Jones, but the rest of us will just shrug and say "sad for them" as we continue the pursuit of better democracies and representative governments.

jgaa 9y ago

> Governments yield too much power, meanwhile citizens keep funding said governments with ridiculously high taxes. Good point. In my opinion, paying taxes is the most immoral thing a person can do.

nebabyte 9y ago

Decentralization just leads to non-agreed-upon authorities taking power. There will always be a monkey or monkeys with bigger or more sticks than you, and you'll always have something they can use more of. Until such a time that you have nothing left and are just a blight on the land they could be using for something else. There's a reason unorganized societies always collapse into trying to organize themselves.

rumcajz 9y ago
You are conflating term "decentralized" with term "unorganized". Switzerland is both highly decentralized and highly organized.