> But that's literally human nature. We are not equal. I may be able to produce the finest of farts, but the fart market is terrible and nobody wants my farts. You, being a fine apple farmer, are in much higher demand. It's a natural process that you'll gain power by being in demand.
It's not human nature, it's a structural property. There has been societies all through the history of the world, and some are still in existence, as described by the book Anarchy Works that I linked earlier, that has also had fine fart makers and fine apple farmers, but the difference was that the foundation was, that even though what I do is more in demand than what you do, we share what we have, so no one falls behind, and then maybe discuss if I really should spend so much time perfecting my farts. There is no reason why society should "allow" someone to hoard stuff when it's not beneficial to society. Instead, society should try to deter hoarding and greed, and in the event that it's not possible, they should exile the person until they change their behaviours to match the wishes of society.
If you structure your society so that greed is rewarded, you get greedy inhabitants. If you structure society so that solidarity and compassion is rewarded, you get inhabitants accordingly.
> But do you want anti-vaxxers to have their voices heard?
They should be able to say what they wish. Anybody should. The reason why such things seem to have a hold is because information is not free, you have to fight to be educated, and your education is dictated by lobbyists, and you have news and politicians and social medias who manipulate information for profit. That's why stuff like flat earth and anti-vax seem to be growing. It's because of misinformation and a lack of education in the populace, at least that's what it seems like to me. The more knowledge and information is available to all in a population, the less we see of such things like flat-earth, anti-vax, extreme religious beliefs, nationalism, racism, speciesism and so on.
It's because people can make bucks from stuff like that - see for example Facebook - that such things are spreading. In a society where compassion and solidarity were rewarded, stuff like that would be much less.
> I know about liquid democracy. I've watched the pirate party with some anticipation before they spiralled out of control into yet another utopian far-left "reality is not relevant" hobby club. First of all, for it to be meaningful, it requires an informed public. We don't have that, and we won't get that. Ah, but they don't need to be informed, they can delegate their votes! Please take a look at Youtube or Twitch and who the most successful content creators are. That's who will command the votes in your liquid democracy. You're annoyed by Trump? Add more liquid democracy and Trump will seem like an elder statesman.
And that's why we cannot reform society to such things. We cannot try to have a bit of direct democracy here, and some cooperatives there, because it will always be in opposition to the rest of society, and in the end, as greshams law dictates, bad will win. We need to "tear it down" and built it up anew, on a better foundation.
> I do not believe that democracy should be the dictatorship of the majority that it is today. When you want to decide everything by majority rule, you're turning everything into a political battlefield. I do understand the allure and the hope for efficiency if we decide something once and then it's settled and everybody has to surrender to that decision. I also do understand that it's a road to hell, that it will lead to conflict and war.
I don't believe in the dictatorship of the many, and direct democracy doesn't. It's not inherent it in. There is lots of ways to structure direct democracy is not a dictatorship of the 51%. Right now though, we have a dictatorship of the 1%. That's far worse than a dictatorship of the 51%.
> 1) Acknowledge that people are different, have different preferences and aversions. 2) Acknowledge that your preferences and aversions are not the result of a quest for truth but simply that result of your genes and the experiences you made, so it's not that they are right, it's just that they are yours, which makes it feel like they are what everybody should have. 3) do not attempt to force yours on everyone, not by violence, not by vote. 4) Where the preferences conflict so that a (largely) unanimous direction can not be found, do not force a decision, but offer a split: if you and I cannot decide on a car and color, that's okay. We don't have to, we can get two bikes instead.
What you are describing is directly fitting with the anarchist playbook, and it's directly contradictory to our current society in the modern world. Yet, you are saying our current society is quite good.
I don't wish to continue this discussion, it's just too draining. I think you should try and read these following books, and if you do, I think you'll find that you actually agree with anarchism very much. I'm not sure where on the anarchist spectrum you lie, but at least it does sound like you align very much with anarchism in general, if you'd just give it a chance.
Here are three books:
* Anarchy Works: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-ana...
* Post-Scarcity Anarchism: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-post...
* The Democracy Project: https://b-ok.cc/md5/1BD930F7B17488F2F5BD28BE2AE4584C
And I do agree with some part of some anarchist concepts. The reason why I'm not eager to see them replace what's there today isn't because I'm a huge fan of today's society. It's because there are endless examples of it being much worse and arguably none of it being better, so the chance that a major change improves it are slim, the chances that it makes it (much) worse are plenty.
And much like a boulder that you're pushing over a cliff, once it's done there's no reset button, so you better make damn sure that that boulder will land where you want it to land.
> Do we need to produce 1000x, 10000x, 100000x before we start sharing it?
We buy rice, but that aside: we want diversity in foods and everything else, that's why we usually have too much of what we don't want and too little of what we do want. And be careful what you wish for: sharing is noble, but it will also create dependence.
> They don't have Netflix, but they also don't have this constant stress and so on.
I don't have Netflix either, and I also have less stress. Cut out Netflix, cut out the daily news, do more drugs, and you'll have a lot less stress also. Yes, living in a highly advanced civilization produces it's own challenges, and they are psychological more than physiological. But we also have a lot of ways to deal with them, and they look severe only because we are fortunate enough to lack a backdrop of the level of human suffering that was common throughout history. If you've only ever dealt with numbers below 10, your first encounter with 100 will stun you with awe. If you regularly deal with 10000, 100 barely registers.
> Danish culture is rotten
You may feel that way, and yet it is what has created Denmark of 2020. It's not that there was a paradise with an utopian society and then the Danish invaded it and their culture brought the slow but steady downfall. You may feel that much more is possible, but don't reject what gave you this with a shrug: it's also possible to have much less as is evident throughout the world, and I'm not talking about material wealth, I'm talking about peace, stability, solidarity and progress. Is anyone person or any culture perfect? Of course not. Can everything be improved? Of course. Is everything therefore rotten? Of course not. Good may not be perfect, but it's better than bad.
Inequality is a built-in issue of advancement, I believe. If you give people more tools, more leverage, that leverage will more strongly pronounce their differences and result in a more pronounced inequality. I do believe however that we've done a pretty good job at keeping it in check. Yes, I'm very aware that e.g. 40% of Germans have less than $10000 in personal wealth, but I'm also very aware that does not recognize pensions, health care and a social safety net into account. If you go to a bank and ask them how much you'd have to pay in a lump sum for them to provide you with a flat, health insurance and enough money to cloth and feed you for the rest of your life if you stop working, they will, after some calculations, come up with a number. That number is what everybody here has in wealth, it just doesn't sit on your bank account, and you can't pass it down.
I'm all with you if you want the poor to have more actual, material wealth. Having money grants independence, and I'd like to see them more independent. However, I do very much not believe that burning down our institutions would help with that, quite the opposite. Our institutions protect the poor and the simple from the harsh reality of limitless competition.
> We need something else, something new, and if we are wise, it will not be founded on inequality, greed, and hierarchies of power
But that's literally human nature. We are not equal. I may be able to produce the finest of farts, but the fart market is terrible and nobody wants my farts. You, being a fine apple farmer, are in much higher demand. It's a natural process that you'll gain power by being in demand.
> and it will allow everyone to have their voices heard and mean something
But do you want anti-vaxxers to have their voices heard?
I know about liquid democracy. I've watched the pirate party with some anticipation before they spiralled out of control into yet another utopian far-left "reality is not relevant" hobby club. First of all, for it to be meaningful, it requires an informed public. We don't have that, and we won't get that. Ah, but they don't need to be informed, they can delegate their votes! Please take a look at Youtube or Twitch and who the most successful content creators are. That's who will command the votes in your liquid democracy. You're annoyed by Trump? Add more liquid democracy and Trump will seem like an elder statesman.
I do not believe that democracy should be the dictatorship of the majority that it is today. When you want to decide everything by majority rule, you're turning everything into a political battlefield. I do understand the allure and the hope for efficiency if we decide something once and then it's settled and everybody has to surrender to that decision. I also do understand that it's a road to hell, that it will lead to conflict and war.
1) Acknowledge that people are different, have different preferences and aversions. 2) Acknowledge that your preferences and aversions are not the result of a quest for truth but simply that result of your genes and the experiences you made, so it's not that they are right, it's just that they are yours, which makes it feel like they are what everybody should have. 3) do not attempt to force yours on everyone, not by violence, not by vote. 4) Where the preferences conflict so that a (largely) unanimous direction can not be found, do not force a decision, but offer a split: if you and I cannot decide on a car and color, that's okay. We don't have to, we can get two bikes instead.
That's not thought out to any degree, but I believe that's a much better plan to get to a more peaceful society. It will remove a lot of the outrage though, and many people love the outrage, and hate compassion, because compassion doesn't give them adrenaline and excitement.