Divided socialism is not socialism, it is in a vacuum, but irl is not a vacuum. If your faith was in global socialism, its not socialism if aliens are real. And since we evolved from animals and therefore are not separate from them, you must include them in your social structure eventually.

I've been through the ins and outs of it, my understanding is what we want is the free flow of the efficiencies created by advances in this regard. The hoarding of wealth does nothing to this (mind you it depends on exactly how wealth is defined), but we want economy to flow. At a fundamental level economy just needs to flow, as I understand it, and wealth does not need to accumulate. It needs maybe we agree on, the option to create wealth, or the freedom to, but in a rational unrestricted market, why should wealth pool to certain people?


No they are not, that is not how the world works. Electoral processes are rigged, laws are bought, votes are marketed for.
This is NOT the society ANY of us live in, not nationally, and CERTAINLY not globally. We can call it current democracy, but current democracy is not democracy just because we call it that.

Well it sounds like it when you say it like that, you sound like Rob Ford, George bush, Harper whoever. "Part" democracy is not democracy, its broken and a broken democracy is the opposite of democracy. You say just not to 100%..now that can mean 1% or 99%. What % do you suggest it is? In my country the leading party rigged the election, was publicly outed for, and now they created a new act to change the election laws for the next election. 0% democracy.

In my 'state' area, the leader is an ex contracted lobbyist for the oil pipeline (she is jamming through the due diligence system) that the majority of the people want more discussion on.


No but the ramifications of a real democracy, IS something of the sort, as outlined in the op.

We agree people are ignorant and stupid, and I'm not free from that, I grew up ignorant and stupid, and definitely have not freed myself from that conditioning completely. But that stupidity is bred and supported by the CURRENT system, not by democracy. Its not democracy because we call it that.

The current system is the antithesis of freedom, what i am proposing is real democracy, real power in the power. This changes peoples perception on what daily life should be, instead of being apathetic and ignorant to world issues and unsolvable problems, people will start to realize at an accelerated rate, that they have a real outlet for change...not just a 'change' button to press thats not hooked up to anything.

We didn't have the technology to do this before bitcoin. Now we do (yes i realize we had it, but the public had no concept that bytes could be turned into secure gold).

No.


I don't agree to any of that.



Yeah, when you come up with a poorly thought out and developed idea people aren't gonna put in a ton of work to help you with it. Seems presumptuous to expect them to.

Sadly, this is all too true. And when this cryptocurrency thing flops, besides being wiped out, a lot of libertarians are gonna look like major fools. It seriously worries me.

However, notice that the OP is not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. So it's not just libertarians that are in this predicament.

Well if by wealth you mean paper money, then sure, the accumulation of colored pieces of paper with zeros on it makes no difference.

But when you define wealth more broadly, by just referring to stuff that has actual intrinsic value, be it corn, oil, textile machinery, or what have you, then without the accumulation of wealth (savings), there can be no investment. And without investment, there can be no economic growth, which means there can be no increases in productivity. What's more, productivity will tend to fall because you can't even keep up with maintenance costs.


No. 50% democracy is more democratic than 0% democracy. Cuba is more democratic than the United States, which is more democratic than China, which is more democratic than Liechtenstein. And the results are evident.

Actually, intelligence is mostly genetic.

What you're proposing is to decrease the levels of freedom to the point where everything that isn't illegal is mandatory (total communism). When a simple majority decides what everbody must do and must not do, there is no freedom.

We certainly don't have it. When I voted last I didn't even have to show idea. I just said I'm Jack Robinson and voted in an electronic vote box that I don't trust in the least. Gotta start somewhere. Start with certifiable elections.

No i mean the other thing that is not money.
You are saying we need to save these things to invest. Which is true in a certain sense, but in the application you use it, investment, is an expenditure, not a savings. To increase productivity, what is important, is that the savings flows, not accumulate. In the context of your application, wealth needs to flow, not accumulate.

In doing this, a different kind of wealth, in the terms of what money can buy increases, which in a true but round about way is the wealth you refer to that is not paper money.

0 of these countries are democratic, US has been rigging elections in Cuba.

What you mean to say is that since there is a random factor to poker, then poker is partially random. But just because you refuse to understand the concept of ev, does not make this true. A dictatorship with a ballot box is not part democracy, its pseudo democracy.


Which means there are parts we can control and parts we cannot, which means its controllable. You cannot then tell me we must accept the corollary as well, that intelligence is not controllable. I didn't make this rule up, its supposed to be intuitive.

Tell me what it is...in relation to freedom...to vote for the dissolution of real democracy. I mean... what does it mean to you, to have a system and a movement (for example my op), where society is allowed to, and does actually, decide to function and exist with no authority what so ever.

If "when a simple majority decides what everybody must do and must not do" is an indication of not freedom, then what is when society uses a system to end such the actually of such an observation as your point here.

The current system is the embodiment of what you point out as not freedom, my system leads us to a possible out, and the taking of this out, is the ending of the thing that you suggests and indicator of not being free.

And i specifically stated my system should be allowed to dissolve itself.

Gotta start somewhere, and what you point out is a flaw to be fixed, but we should be careful to assume from our current system to the ideal one, that we can pick a random order of execution.

I'm not shooting down what you propose should or might be first...but we should acknowledge that some things that are need, when applied too quickly before others that are needed, will be exploited in the current environment and produce not a favorable change/result.

"Flow" is just goods changing hands. Investment requires things that were previously saved. If they were not saved by the investor, they were saved by somebody else who provided a loan to the investor. Someone needs to do the saving in order for any investment to take place. If everything that is produced is consumed, there can be no investment.

All of these countries have democratic elements. That is every citizen gets a vote which represents an equal share in the State. I don't know anything about the US rigging elections in favor of Fidel Castro. In any case, if you poll people in Cuba at random you find that most still support him. Just like if you polled people in of the US right after the 2011 election, Obama came out ahead.

Well "dictatorship" doesn't mean anything. Was Hitler a "dictator"? He was democratically elected. You're just doing the whole communist thing of saying "but that wasn't real communism!"... you say "that's not real democracy!" without giving a proper explanation as to how and why.

You also fail to recognize that as countries became more and more democratic over the course of the last century, freedom diminished tremendously. You've stated that you have no interest in finding out how democracy is destroying and must necessarily destroy civilization. It seems to me that you're so sold on this idea of democracy, that to you it's like a religion. Only pure democracy will work, and the fact that democracy has been shown to be a tremendous failure and a huge threat to humanity as a whole only proves to you that we need perfect democracy, because "that's not real democracy"...

Twin studies show that as long as kids get proper nutrition and a somewhat decent upraising, intelligence as measured by IQ does not change based on environment (the differences are so small as to be statistically insignificant). Now you can claim that this is because all the society is equally corrupt and damaging to kid's minds. Alright, but then how do you know that you have the perfect solution that everyone must adhere to in order to raise intelligence levels and not just slightly, but drastically?

I don't know what you mean here. I will respond to what you said right after.

But it's not without authority. It's just that the authority becomes the mob. That is much more dangerous than having just one guy decide everything. At least he can be held accountable somewhat. But what are you going to do when the masses are the ones stealing, plundering, raping, torturing and murdering, all under the legal cover of democracy?

No, the current system is not entirely like that, although it's getting there fast, due to democracy. And your unrestricted total democracy would get us there much faster.

Allowed by who? The mob? Why would they give up that power? In order to truly have freedom, you must allow secession up to the invididual level, or as close to that as is possible.

That is, if I don't want to be a part of your democracy thing, then I should not be forced into it. And you shouldn't be able to just come and take my property either, just because you drew some lines on a map that say you own that territory.

There are caveats from assumptions you are using for your explanation. In this day yes investment requires things that were previously save and our economy needs investment to survive. This is no longer an accurate depiction of the fundamentals of economy since the invention of hyper currency. Saving is not investing, investors don't save by their fundamental nature, they spend. They are not the same thing today nor with the new currency technology. With the expedited and hyper efficient exchange of efficiency and goods we are not concerned with saving in the hoarding sense. The entire argument you are expressing is based on the bargaining problem which is only a setup for hyper-currency
democratic element + rigged element = rigged government. there is nothing more to say about that. The CIA's first task was to rig the election in italy, after Chomsky explains and sites this in profit over people, he goes on to list and cite country after to whom the CIA is known to have done this to. Cuba, has fallen victim again through a twitter rigging.



the was never a democracy be the free will to vote meaning. To call a rigged election democracy is not democracy, nor is it democracy if the corrupt powers determine the education system.

There is no more and more, a partially rigged election is not a partial democracy by any true intended meaning of the word.

The answer here lies in the question of mine you haven't yet understood below.

Is it freedom to you if we succeed in voting out government and democracy? You can't not understand this question because its simple. Democracy is not freedom to you because the masses can vote for things you don't want. What if they vote to end voting for what others want. Is that then something different, something you cannot complain to me about my idea in the same way you have.
Yes and once we have a fair, real, voting system that is efficient and quick, then people will start to care about real issues. The masses will only do these corrupt things when the masses spend their lives ignorant to the real issues of the world. That is the world today, ignorant to the world, because they know that caring is futile, since elections are rigged and politics is corrupt.

Firstly the masses do not do this and a free fair democratic process will not make this happen. But what you describe is not far from the world we live in today, adding the fact that the masses are indifferent to societies obvious corruption which makes it quite worse.



The fear is that you have been taught to accept that there can be partial freedom. That as long as you are allowed out of your sub cage and others are not, then you are free and feel free inside your real cage.

By who? the people of course, are free in my system to dissolve it through vote. That question you didn't understand. If you are against democracy, then you agree with me, because there is only one way to end democracy-to vote it out.

Doesn't my solution agree with you?

Eh, no. It doesn't matter how many debt settling methods you have, at the end of the day an investment still requires real resources that must first be produced and not consumed, but saved.

How is it rigged if all the polls still show the guy who won has the most supporters?

But if the mob determines the education system for everyone, then it's fine?

Well it's democratic, I agree, and it's horrible. You can't in one sentence say that most people are stupid and ignorant, and then go right on to say they should determine what everyone must and must not do, including how to educate all children.

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't feel free. But what you're suggesting would make my cage into a much, much smaller one.

Right, the mob.

Not in the slightest. I'm saying democracy is the worst possible system of government, and you're saying that I must accept that the only way to end it is to rely on the mob to vote themselves out of power? I don't think so. And, that would never ever happen anyway.

You missed my plea entirely. I don't want to be a part of your democracy. I don't want my life and my property to be subjected to be taken away or managed by the vote of the mob. Will your system allow me to opt out? It doesn't seem like you even considered the possibility that someone may not want to be a part of your perfect system.