On a positive note:

It’s fairly probable that someone inside those companys doesn’t pay enough attention due to being overly confindent in the product… and we’ll see leaks of classified data decades before they would have been available to the piblic.

I get the point but honestly: Why does that matter?

If we only accept judgement or action by ‘perfect individuals’ aka. ‘heroes’ the world won’t ever get better as influential humans are still humans and often have, by design, flaws and mistakes build within them and their character. Does that mean we shouldn’t judge anyone for their actions? Obviously not.

But to claim that ones vision or ideas are outright wrong due to ad-hominem argumentation against their personal flaws is also bullshit. You’ll always find something to point out, especially with historical figures. Since, ironically due to their imperfect actionism, our social norms have improved and we often rightfully so critizise things deemed normal during their time.

I understand exactly what you mean.

But at the same time, I also believe that the inherent problem with our representative democracies is this: Voters are asked about EVERY issue all at once every four years and then vote for ONE representative party. So, in the end, everyone ends up voting on a whole bunch of issues that neither interest nor affect them. Worse still: when checks and balances are undermined, as is currently the case, the elected representatives can do whatever they want for four years.

In the best-case scenario, the majority of today’s voters inform themselves about the current campaign promises and forecasts a few weeks before the election and then lose interest again for four years. Or, to put it another way, the system actually provokes the “I don’t do politics” attitude among a majority of voters.

However, if the effects of their own decisions were transparent and immediate, I believe there would be a greater willingness to actually inform themselves.

And on the topic of demagoguery and populism: If people had the opportunity to vote against immigration (even if you don’t agree with that position) without undermining democracy through a corrupt bunch of politicians, we as a society would still be better off than in the current situation, where emotionally charged issues are used to make dictators and shitty politics palatable to people.

That’s a framework for a technocracy. The question here was for a blueprint for an anarchist society.

And if we take your line of thinking further: At what point do you stop denying people the right to vote?

Should only those in a particular industry have a say when it comes to regulating that industry? In that case, issues like environmental and consumer protection would become unenforceable… because why would a CEO or worker care about the impact their own actions have on the rest of society if regulation can be framed as a threat to their own job?

I would argue that neither you nor most other people like making bad decisions, right?

If, after the vote, there’s no representative—aka “those up there”—to blame for your own bad decision, that probably sets off a learning process where you either do better research next time or, if you’re too unsure or not interested in the topic, stay out of it and leave the choice to people who think they know more about it.

Without fixed terms, you can vote again in six months if you realize that your decision isn’t solving the problem and enough other people feel the same way… whereas now you have to rely on a representative to make decisions in your best interest (and not in the interest of their own wallet), and, if the decision turns out to be bad for you, hope that another government will revisit the law in 20 years.

You may as well just form government by having your largest 500 companies nominate a representative from their board.

That’s basically the case right now, so it wouldn’t even constitute a deterioration?

In the system I’ve proposed, however, this would only work until enough resistance to corporate practices builds up because the business model harms the majority. Since there are no legislative terms, such practices could be stopped more quickly than in today’s system, where industry simply buys off the newly elected representatives and can then carry on as before for another four years…

Thank you!

That’s my point.

I basically agree with you.

However, the slowness of paper-based administration is the reason why we’ve ended up with the (increasingly) poor solution of representative systems and the corruption that goes hand in hand with them.

In an age where fake news and propaganda spread in real time, I believe our democracies must also find a way to react more quickly… The internet allows anyone to communicate with anyone else in real time; in my opinion, it’s time to use this FOR rather than AGAINST our societies.

f that is the premise, then any form of anarchist society is obsolete.

I was responding here to a question about a blueprint for an anarchist social order. That presupposes a reasonably positive view of human nature… which, in my opinion, is actually the more realistic one.

Otherwise, we’ll always need an authoritarian system that patronizes “the stupid people” and looks after them… a narrative that is used to justify domination over others and is deeply rooted in our societies today.

Open source, direct internet democracy.

Let anyone vote on anything basically.

My hope is voters tend to vote on matters relevant to them providing initative to get/beeing informed on the matter they vote on.

I see representative systems as root of corruption so my solution calls for a system with direct decisions without political representatives.

Having the same thought.

If capitalism eats its own children it might force the world to use FOSS and non-proprietary company structures.

Doesn’t this boil down to self-censorship in public? Better not critizise the government in public becaus you never know whos waring smart glasses…

My argument would be that people definitely would make bad decisions in the beginning. But that wouldn’t be that far off of the status quo, would it?

My hope would be that this system gives an incentive to ACTUALLY get informed about the matter you vote on since you’re actively choosing to get involved instead of voting on every topic (also the ones you have 0.0 interest in) every 4 years. Another point, which may be a bit far fetched idk, could be that you theoretically could use LLMs to summarize the various proposed solutions and their justifications. In the system I have in mind, the experts you mentioned would also submit proposed solutions.

Based on your example:

Problem formulated for the petition: “Rents are too high.”

If the petition goes through, anyone could propose solutions. For example, “rent control” (proposed by someone on the left), “foreigners out” (proposed by someone on the right), “revise building standards and invest in public housing” (an expert).

The population might follow the populists at first… However, if the problem is not solved after 10 years, you can’t blame “those at the top” for the solution not working, and hopefully there will be a rethink.

Maybe this is just a utopian fantasy of mine. But I have the feeling that our democratic systems are not up to the challenges of the digitalized 21st century and growing inequality… this is the best solution I have come up with so far.

Create an open source platform where everyone can vote on every matter. Matter to be voted on are chosen by petitions. If a petition indicates societal need for change (x supporters in y time frame) anyone can propose a solution. Then a vote is taken. The solution with the most votes is implemented. If there is a new petition on the same topic, the fun starts all over again.

Advantages from my point of view:

1. No potentially corrupt representatives

2. No deflection of one’s own bad voting decisions (aka. it’s the fault of those at the top)

3. Citizens once again have a motivation to inform themselves about issues more than just once every four years.

Will everyone always be able to vote on everything? Certainly not, as individuals’ time and resources are limited. Therefore, those who vote on a decision are likely to be affected by it themselves, or at least feel that they are. In this way, people who have informed themselves beforehand, or at least would do so, tend to vote more.

We would use the real-time communication possibilities that the internet has given us for something positive instead of slop and brain rot.

My problem with anonymous leaders is that we’d completely lose track of who’s to be made responsible. It would basically create a shortcut for elites to rule without having to hide their corruption/influence.

A group/institution would probably also face the same problem as we have today with single persons: Big money would simply buy influence in these new organizations instead of bribing single individuals.

A direct democracy would mean you have to bribe a big part of the population to cover your ideas… the worse your idea is and the more support you need to buy for it the more translates from bribery to paying a majority to accept your idea. At some point the amount of bribes extends the gains to be made by your manipulation and it becomes uneconomical… we’d basically use capitalism against bribery.

Maybe by advancing our democracies in the same way the technology to divide and rule us is advancing.

Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.

II would put it the other way around: as long as representative systems exist, it will always be more likely that egoists and narcissists will establish themselves in leadership positions, even if they only make up a small part of the population. Today, this is encouraged by the fact that we reward these character traits, which are actually harmful to the community, with fame, money and prestige.

Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.

I get your point. But the question that comes to my mind: Is your experience with the world a reason to devalue his excitement for his ,old boring" quarry? Does one always need to chase the ,best and biggest" things in life to be content an ought to feel imperfect if he/she didn’t experience them? I’m fairly sure you didn’t mean it this way but to me it sounds like you belittle others due to the fact that you believe to know better… and that, frankly said, is also something not to be celebrated.

I don’t mean to attack you but I’m curious weather you thought about these aspects?