5 ms·

> liberation of people from massively powerful banks and governments The difference between business and governments is that in business every dollar has a vot

> liberation of people from massively powerful banks and governments The difference between business and governments is that in business every dollar has a vote, whereas in a democracy every adult has a vote. "liberation of people" can only happen by having a working democracy. And a working democracy can only exist when there is (democratically elected) government. So it's not like people should be liberated from government, people should be the government. Therefore I think the best situation is where government controls the money, and we the people control the government.

oblio 4y ago
To add to your comment, we want a *powerful* and accountable government. Weak governments make for failed states, because corporations and other interest groups such as gangs, warlords, control things instead.
- notch656a 4y ago
  I want a weak government. I'd rather have warlords compete for my allegiance than be subject to one all powerful warlord who has no powerful enemies to worry about. A capitalism of polycentric governance, if you will.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Warlords typically 'compete' for your allegiance by conscripting you to fight for them, and killing you and your family when you refuse. Or, if you and nobody in your family is of 'military age', they 'compete' for it, by rolling into your town, and stealing half of what you own. The 'competing' warlord that rolls in next week will, of course, steal the other half. If you're lucky, they won't make an example out of your town for 'supporting' the first warlord. I'll take a strong, stable government over that horror-show any day of the week, but if you'd like to give it a try, much of Mexico has quite a bit of that sort of thing going on right now. Anyone who moves to the right parts of it can enjoy life amid 'competing' cartels.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Meh I fought alongside the YPG in Syria, under a rather weak government. They let me come in or leave as I pleased. They didn't steal from me. We fought against the other 'warlord' ISIS and all in all it was nice having a pretty diverse pick of militias to choose from. All in all it was definitely a more freeing environment than a lot of life in the US. ------------ >Why do you live in the US, then? That should make you think a bit harder about failed states. If the government wants to leave the territory I'm in, I'm all good with that. I've never demanded the government stay here.
      - oblio 4y ago
        This is such an edgy teen attitude type of comment. Why do you live in the US, then? That should make you think a bit harder about failed states.
        notch656a 4y ago
        >Why do you live in the US, then? Why does anyone live somewhere under a government they're not happy with? Why do women live in states with abortion laws they disagree with, is it because they're edgy teens? Why don't you personally live somewhere else that is closer to your goals of governance, surely US is not the most ideal for what you seek? I don't really think you want to go down the road that presumes someone isn't thinking hard enough if they don't run away from where they're currently living. Personally when I did leave the US I did it to help the Kurds, not to abandon my own family, and without the permission of the mother of my child to expatriate it isn't exactly proof I'm not thinking 'harder' because I live here right now. Regardless of how fucked up the US government is I have certain obligations to my family who happen to be here more for logistical reasons than political reasons. If it were just about me, or if I had permission from the mother to expatriate our child, sure I'd likely not be where I am right now.
        x-complexity 4y ago
        > This is such an edgy teen attitude type of comment. This ad-hominem attack on another person's beliefs is non-productive at its very core & doesn't help in the examination & introspection of ideas.
- psychlops 4y ago
  That's a tough combination. If it's powerful, how does it remain accountable. Sure, maybe a few election cycles are fine, but eventually it will degrade.
- MrMan 4y ago
  Failed states are good for VC up to a point
ibeckermayer 4y ago
> "liberation of people" can only happen by having a working democracy If 51% democratically voted to enslave the other 49%, that would be a working democracy but far from "liberation of people".
- fcantournet 4y ago
  No it wouldn't. There is no definition of democracy where 51% of the people enslaving the 49% would constitute a democracy. Except the one you just imagined for the purposes of "winning" an argument on the internet. This is why people who give a shit about Democracy talk about minority rights, and free media, and non-discrimination. These are the core tenets of democracy.
  - colinsane 4y ago
    replace “enslave” with gradually weaker words until you find the statement you, personally, agree with. 51% decide that 49% shouldn’t be allowed to drink alcohol. that’s a comparatively minor example of “tyranny of the majority” (which happened within living memory). now explore all battles you’ve been on the losing side of. abortion access? funding of overseas wars? legality of drugs? i find it incomprehensible that if you look at things honestly you won’t find at least some instance when you’ve felt repressed by the democratic rule of the majority. “enslavement” is simply that repression exaggerated for the purpose of making you see it. > This is why people who give a shit about Democracy talk about minority rights, and free media, and non-discrimination. These are the core tenets of democracy. no, these are the core tenets of egalitarianism. democracy is merely one process by which we may approximate egalitarian ends. if you care about egalitarian ideals (or above, “liberation of the people”), you should be open to other processes which achieve them — not just the one you were raised to know.
    - MikeTheRocker 4y ago
      This comment made me think a lot about what really is true and what I just take for granted. Thank you.
    - 4y ago
dogcomplex 4y ago
This is correct. Look towards "proof-of-personhood" protocols and other crypto projects that ensure one-person-one-vote voting - popping up now. Online democracy is coming and has only in the last couple years been doable safely, anonymously (and frankly, I'd like a few more years/decades of that being proven out in the wild before I'd trust it). We needed zero knowledge proofs to do it anonymously. We still need a somewhat-better proof-of-identity system but just passports and networks of people vouching for each other should carry us pretty far to start.

oblio 4y ago

To add to your comment, we want a *powerful* and accountable government. Weak governments make for failed states, because corporations and other interest groups such as gangs, warlords, control things instead.

notch656a 4y ago
I want a weak government. I'd rather have warlords compete for my allegiance than be subject to one all powerful warlord who has no powerful enemies to worry about. A capitalism of polycentric governance, if you will.
- vkou 4y ago
  Warlords typically 'compete' for your allegiance by conscripting you to fight for them, and killing you and your family when you refuse. Or, if you and nobody in your family is of 'military age', they 'compete' for it, by rolling into your town, and stealing half of what you own. The 'competing' warlord that rolls in next week will, of course, steal the other half. If you're lucky, they won't make an example out of your town for 'supporting' the first warlord. I'll take a strong, stable government over that horror-show any day of the week, but if you'd like to give it a try, much of Mexico has quite a bit of that sort of thing going on right now. Anyone who moves to the right parts of it can enjoy life amid 'competing' cartels.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Meh I fought alongside the YPG in Syria, under a rather weak government. They let me come in or leave as I pleased. They didn't steal from me. We fought against the other 'warlord' ISIS and all in all it was nice having a pretty diverse pick of militias to choose from. All in all it was definitely a more freeing environment than a lot of life in the US. ------------ >Why do you live in the US, then? That should make you think a bit harder about failed states. If the government wants to leave the territory I'm in, I'm all good with that. I've never demanded the government stay here.
    - oblio 4y ago
      This is such an edgy teen attitude type of comment. Why do you live in the US, then? That should make you think a bit harder about failed states.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        >Why do you live in the US, then? Why does anyone live somewhere under a government they're not happy with? Why do women live in states with abortion laws they disagree with, is it because they're edgy teens? Why don't you personally live somewhere else that is closer to your goals of governance, surely US is not the most ideal for what you seek? I don't really think you want to go down the road that presumes someone isn't thinking hard enough if they don't run away from where they're currently living. Personally when I did leave the US I did it to help the Kurds, not to abandon my own family, and without the permission of the mother of my child to expatriate it isn't exactly proof I'm not thinking 'harder' because I live here right now. Regardless of how fucked up the US government is I have certain obligations to my family who happen to be here more for logistical reasons than political reasons. If it were just about me, or if I had permission from the mother to expatriate our child, sure I'd likely not be where I am right now.
      - x-complexity 4y ago
        > This is such an edgy teen attitude type of comment. This ad-hominem attack on another person's beliefs is non-productive at its very core & doesn't help in the examination & introspection of ideas.
psychlops 4y ago
That's a tough combination. If it's powerful, how does it remain accountable. Sure, maybe a few election cycles are fine, but eventually it will degrade.
MrMan 4y ago
Failed states are good for VC up to a point

ibeckermayer 4y ago

> "liberation of people" can only happen by having a working democracy If 51% democratically voted to enslave the other 49%, that would be a working democracy but far from "liberation of people".

fcantournet 4y ago
No it wouldn't. There is no definition of democracy where 51% of the people enslaving the 49% would constitute a democracy. Except the one you just imagined for the purposes of "winning" an argument on the internet. This is why people who give a shit about Democracy talk about minority rights, and free media, and non-discrimination. These are the core tenets of democracy.
- colinsane 4y ago
  replace “enslave” with gradually weaker words until you find the statement you, personally, agree with. 51% decide that 49% shouldn’t be allowed to drink alcohol. that’s a comparatively minor example of “tyranny of the majority” (which happened within living memory). now explore all battles you’ve been on the losing side of. abortion access? funding of overseas wars? legality of drugs? i find it incomprehensible that if you look at things honestly you won’t find at least some instance when you’ve felt repressed by the democratic rule of the majority. “enslavement” is simply that repression exaggerated for the purpose of making you see it. > This is why people who give a shit about Democracy talk about minority rights, and free media, and non-discrimination. These are the core tenets of democracy. no, these are the core tenets of egalitarianism. democracy is merely one process by which we may approximate egalitarian ends. if you care about egalitarian ideals (or above, “liberation of the people”), you should be open to other processes which achieve them — not just the one you were raised to know.
  - MikeTheRocker 4y ago
    This comment made me think a lot about what really is true and what I just take for granted. Thank you.
  - 4y ago

dogcomplex 4y ago

This is correct. Look towards "proof-of-personhood" protocols and other crypto projects that ensure one-person-one-vote voting - popping up now. Online democracy is coming and has only in the last couple years been doable safely, anonymously (and frankly, I'd like a few more years/decades of that being proven out in the wild before I'd trust it). We needed zero knowledge proofs to do it anonymously. We still need a somewhat-better proof-of-identity system but just passports and networks of people vouching for each other should carry us pretty far to start.