We still haven't a worldwide electricity plug and measurement system, communities and people are stupid. Reaching a consensus without government is the hardest part
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
We still haven't a worldwide electricity plug and measurement system, communities and people are stupid. Reaching a consensus without government is the hardest part
Even though government is controlling things like that, they still haven't got a worldwide electricity plug :)
Because communities and government do not want to lose their power. It's easier to build an adaptor than reach the consensus, sit everybody at a table and say: "this is the worldwide standard, if you don't invent something really innovative please stick with it". Maybe DPOS is the most efficient form of governance :D
yet we have government all around the globe and they can't manage to do it. So this is an argument in favor on anarchy since it shows the incompetence of governments.
if people are stupid how they can be trusted to elected even stupider people to control them?
no need for consensus. it arises naturally with or without a government.
communities and people are stupid. Reaching a consensus without government is the hardest part
In anarchy it's even worse to reach the consensus.
I'd like to delegate my vote in certain areas to people smarter than me. the problem with democracy, dictatorship and anarchy is that somebody have to make decisions for others and most of the time he/she is incompentent
how do you know if it had never existed?
how do you know if they are smarter than you? Because average dumb people voted?
well, isn't that self contradicting..
Anarchy never scaled with big communities of people.
Also internet which started like a decentralized/anarchy system (a sorta) now the biggest part is controlled by a few companies.
If a person show to be compentent to a field I marginally know I would delegate my decision to him. If he isn't able to fix or manage the problem I'll revoke my vote.
Average dumb people vote for somebody which promise everything to everybody, if you could vote for somebody in a specific area it would be easier to understand and measure it's performances
that is an entirely different argument. In 1900 you could have said that slavery is ok because humans always had slaves. Arguments from nature/history are bound to be fallacious. Just because it didn't happen before it doesn't mean it can't happen in future.
it is not that old really. not even 100 years. give it time.
well yes..but people don't vote based on that but based on who can make their life better. more or less nepotism with extra steps.
true but that is not how things work and you know this very well.