4 ms·

> These concepts (especially Ethereum) are the digital manifestations of the theory of democracy - unhindered by loopholes, corruption, indecision, and private-

by strgrd 9y ago

> These concepts (especially Ethereum) are the digital manifestations of the theory of democracy - unhindered by loopholes, corruption, indecision, and private-interests. LOL https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereumfraud/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereumfraud/

ue_ 9y ago
>These concepts (especially Ethereum) are the digital manifestations of the theory of democracy - unhindered by loopholes, corruption, indecision, and private-interests. The kind of democracy where having more money means you get more votes, which is the kind of democracy almost nobody would want to live in lest someone has more money than them. I don't know the word for such a thing, but it sounds barbaric, yet I've seen it seriously proposed. Taking "vote with your wallet" to the extreme.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
- vippy 9y ago
  Feudalism. The King is King because he owns more property than you. Get back to work, serf!
- elif 9y ago
  If you concede that PACs, lobbyists, bribes, or simply paying to make yourself a politician are overwhelmingly more effective than form letters to congressmen, ethereum-distribution of power looks downright egalitarian. ether whales have nothing on USD whales. 8 people control 50% of wealth[0]. There is also income disparity and monetary controls making that dilution of individual power inescapable. And that's just personal wealth. There is also corporate wealth and government reserve currency. I don't think it's taking "vote with your wallet" to the extreme. It's already there. On the contrary, I think it's making it tenable. [0] https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/economy-99 https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/economy-99
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    Why not just abolish voting altogether? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition One of the many advantages of selecting representatives randomly from the citizenry is that it eliminates the position of professional politician.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      Can you explain to me how this works, please? If it's just selecting a random person, this seems as though it would be liable to all sorts of problems such as the person not even having to demonstrate to anyone that he is capable of holding such a position. If it's selecting a random person from a smaller group of people, how is it decided who gets to be in the group? You're pushing the problem of professional politician one step back, so the solution has no explanatory power.
      - duncan_bayne 9y ago
        The standard is I think the same as the standard for voting; if you're enfranchised, you would be eligible for selection by sortition. If you're arguing that this may lead to the selection of unqualified representatives, yes, that's certainly a risk. But the very same people are already voting in the current system. They may not become representatives themselves, but they're certainly choosing them. If your society can't safely select their representatives at random from the voting population, you already have a civic problem, regardless of which approach you take.
        kortex 9y ago
        There is a profound amount of stuff in our political system which is necessary to the everyday running of the country, and yet is profoundly boring. There are a huge number of people for which having to participate in reading and debating law is untenable for one or more reasons. Hell, the politicians PAID to do this don't read all the things they are supposed to. Hell, half of Americans can't be bothered to vote. How are they going to contribute to the political process in any meaningful way when harboring that much apathy?

by strgrd 9y ago

ue_ 9y ago

>These concepts (especially Ethereum) are the digital manifestations of the theory of democracy - unhindered by loopholes, corruption, indecision, and private-interests. The kind of democracy where having more money means you get more votes, which is the kind of democracy almost nobody would want to live in lest someone has more money than them. I don't know the word for such a thing, but it sounds barbaric, yet I've seen it seriously proposed. Taking "vote with your wallet" to the extreme.

loup-vaillant 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
vippy 9y ago
Feudalism. The King is King because he owns more property than you. Get back to work, serf!
elif 9y ago
If you concede that PACs, lobbyists, bribes, or simply paying to make yourself a politician are overwhelmingly more effective than form letters to congressmen, ethereum-distribution of power looks downright egalitarian. ether whales have nothing on USD whales. 8 people control 50% of wealth[0]. There is also income disparity and monetary controls making that dilution of individual power inescapable. And that's just personal wealth. There is also corporate wealth and government reserve currency. I don't think it's taking "vote with your wallet" to the extreme. It's already there. On the contrary, I think it's making it tenable. [0] https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/economy-99 https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/economy-99
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  Why not just abolish voting altogether? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition One of the many advantages of selecting representatives randomly from the citizenry is that it eliminates the position of professional politician.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Can you explain to me how this works, please? If it's just selecting a random person, this seems as though it would be liable to all sorts of problems such as the person not even having to demonstrate to anyone that he is capable of holding such a position. If it's selecting a random person from a smaller group of people, how is it decided who gets to be in the group? You're pushing the problem of professional politician one step back, so the solution has no explanatory power.
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      The standard is I think the same as the standard for voting; if you're enfranchised, you would be eligible for selection by sortition. If you're arguing that this may lead to the selection of unqualified representatives, yes, that's certainly a risk. But the very same people are already voting in the current system. They may not become representatives themselves, but they're certainly choosing them. If your society can't safely select their representatives at random from the voting population, you already have a civic problem, regardless of which approach you take.
      - kortex 9y ago
        There is a profound amount of stuff in our political system which is necessary to the everyday running of the country, and yet is profoundly boring. There are a huge number of people for which having to participate in reading and debating law is untenable for one or more reasons. Hell, the politicians PAID to do this don't read all the things they are supposed to. Hell, half of Americans can't be bothered to vote. How are they going to contribute to the political process in any meaningful way when harboring that much apathy?