5 ms·

It seems to me that that is exactly what this has the potential to do. It's only being framed in the language of centralized government because people might no

• beatpanda 15y ago
  Not if anyone is still bound by the decisions of the majority.
  • mwhite 15y ago
    Just because people are bound by the decisions of the majority doesn't mean it's centralized. They may decide that the cost of sometimes having to abide by group decisions that conflict with their individual preferences is outweighed by the benefit of being part of a group with an optimal decision-making process that (presumably) provides benefits to its members that they would not get if they chose to remain unaffiliated. All the while remaining decentralized. Reading http://nickbostrom.com/fut/singleton.html http://nickbostrom.com/fut/singleton.html totally altered the way I look at this.
    • slowpoke 15y ago
      >Just because people are bound by the decisions of the majority doesn't mean it's centralized. That wasn't the point my grandparent was making. The first and foremost critical flaw of democracy is (and always will be) that the majority can dictate over the minority. That has nothing to do with centralization. Also, it's not about "personal preferences". It's about minorities effectively being dominated by the majority, without them having any way to fight back. While there might be some basic rights to protect minorities, they are essentially always stripped of the most important and fundamental right in such a society: influence on decisions that concern themselves. That is - factually - a tyranny for everyone who is not part of the majority.