Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Epicuros's avatar

So, to understand this:

You would hope that citizens develop an obsessive scrutiny over some family's life, every moment of the day, so that they completely understand the nuances of what their 'representative' said, to whom, why and what he meant, as well as what he did, and why didn't he do it differently. Then you would have people fight online over their opinions of what they saw, and split into 'believers' and 'non-believers' on social media.

That is your way of 'decentralizing governing' for optimal results?

Is all that, because you so strongly believe that, no matter what, people could never crowdsource information, listen to whostleblowers as well as experts, express all possible understandings of the ISSUE, discuss and prioritize solutions, then vote and decide on those issues?

Is that because people cannot, and should never make any decisions, without 'representatives'?

You have people running businesses.

You have parents making life-and-death decisions for their children.

Would you take that away from them, because 'they can't', or 'shouldn't, and have them watch the stream of someone else's life, instead of gathering and processing information and listening to experts and then deciding?

Expand full comment
Mike Moschos's avatar

The USA, from the 1840s until some point after WW2 was politically, economically, governmentally, and scientifically decentralized system with its analytical, deliberation, and decision making functions diffused with deliberate redundancy across a large and very dense network of semiautonomous nodes

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts