It is a great problem in our world, the Pareto Principal.
Meaning, that it is inevitable that a few people/groups/accounts will have a majority of the money/power/control.
If we voted with money in The US, then almost all of the lower class has no vote. Even if they all voted together as a solid block.
With money, we will have to work out balances. Such things have been that the rich HAVE TO compete in spending their money on greater works projects. (it was a societal stipulation)
There are also the funnels… money flows a certain way, and so, those who get into certain positions have the money flow towards them. Until a major shift happens, the stream/funnel keeps flowing that way.
I can recognize the patterns, but can do very little to affect them, and haven't found a good way to deal with them.
This is how it works... right now.
Democratic republic is hacked beyond repair.
The lower class controls nothing.
1 person : 1 vote is not really a valid way to get consensus as most people are uneducated on the necessary material and can be easily manipulated... and then the people that "represent" them can do whatever they want once elected.
I could go on about what I think the fixes are here but it would turn into a book.
And it might be a great book. But, would it be a well read book?
Therein lies the rub.
I would really like to explore ideas about voting… being constrained to your area. (or something like that)
If it is about govern-cement finance, those with money should have the vote. Or, vote with your tax dollars.
About laws for punishing some action, each person should have one vote, and 90% of the people need to vote for it. If 90% aren't already doing it, it isn't really a law.
And then something about only voting for things that you know a good deal about AND have skin in the game… but, how easy does that fall into IQ tests administered, and graded by those in power to only allow their friends to vote?
If you do write a book, be sure to promote it at the bottom of each of your blog posts, or i am sure i will miss it.
Plutocracies inevitably end up ruled by psychopaths, and I do not want to be ruled by psychopaths, so I don't want to live under a plutocracy. Many values people have are far more important to them than money. Mike Tyson said that Don King would sell his momma for a dollar.
I don't want to be ruled by people that would sell their mothers for money.
I'd read it, if you offered to answer questions it raised that I could not answer without handholding.
Seems like projects will have to bring in lobbyists to join their staff to get the proposals funded by the whales. Too bad for the smaller projects, I guess. Are individual developers able to get proposals funded or has it already been gamified so that they really don't have a chance?
BlockTrades has such a huge vote, that unless other whales vote for everything else. The vote is decided.
Edicted was pointing this out, and trying to talk about the way things have worked out, and what we may need to do about it.
His vote counters others' votes? If that's the case then him reserving his influence is a good thing! Small proposals might have a better chance?
His vote skews things SO MUCH that it is as if others haven't voted.