direct democracy == communism

[FellowTraveler]

Is this system able to protect rights in spite of the majority's vote?

For example, what if the majority votes to restrict free speech? Or to confiscate property from others? Or to persecute an ethnic minority. Etc.

Some things are wrong no matter how many people vote for them.

Just curious how the system will account for that.

[ChristopheCop]

I assume that there is a difference between facts and what needs to be voted. One can't vote on facts, or vote to ignore facts. So that already excludes quite some issues.

Furthermore, if there is such a thing as a constitution, it will take into account some a set of principles that may not be violated. Changing a constitution is harder (more % agreement, over a longer period of time) than changing a common law.

Of course, it doesn't solve the problem that people can en mass choose for a very bad option. It is always up to the individual to stand up for what he thinks is right, despite what the rest of the world thinks or does.

[afurmanczyk]

The will of the people or "mob rule" is democracy at its most pure. It's not perfect but it's the least bad option we have working in the real world at this point. Direct democracy just puts more power in the hands of each individual and makes their vote worth more. In the end democracy always depends upon the moral fiber of its citizens to influence the law and the nation. Destroy the moral fiber or the education of the citizens and you destroy the country's ability to think on a higher level, but no matter how bad or good the actions chosen democracy is always the will of the people instead of a government or ruler. Direct democracy is a more pure form of democracy and is actually a huge step away from communism.

The best example I heard to discribe the power of democracy is this: " Imagine a tribe of 20 people ruled by their own small democracy. There are 18 males and 2 females. One of the males proposes that they should all be able to have sex with the women whenever they want. There is support by other men in the democracy so it goes to a vote. The women don't want it so they vote no, a few males think it's wrong and vote no also, but the vote passes 15 - 5 in favor of the legal rape of the females. Now they males have sex with the females even if they don't want to do it." As sad as this example is, this is pure democracy. Democracy = mob rule. Can you see how important the values of the average citizen are now?

[BrnLng]

It could be part of the Constitution itself to first state what harm (and maybe even censoring) is in any case.

Then, if any harm is considered against any group or party (be it alien, big or minority) it would have to pass simple majority vote as always and if failed, then that's it (maybe there should be put a timeframe where it could not be considered for flood voting again) and if passing, instead of simply being considered law, it should create a state of open declared war or something similar against that group starting in some time and in another to being reconsidered in possibly quickly schedule.

If it is about ideological war (as in the case of abortion) it would be mostly the same, I'd guess, but a case for police enforcement instead of military. It should make things clear. While there's no state power (as was the case for previous tribal example) for the groups using the system, then it should just split the groups in a civil manner (if it's not an autonomous state and the tribe could not pass this law against a higher federated law for instance), thus forced-peacefully (in a police or military timeframe) to split: the 5 who voted yes going elsewhere, if the majority would clearly have preferred to stay.

[afurmanczyk]

The concept of any constitution is determined by the people. If 100% of people want to change the laws, under direct democracy they will be able to. Trying to figure out how a certain abstracted thing should be done is actually anti democratic since the people should decide how things should or shouldn't be done. I generally think there would be a lot less war since the average person is usually war averse as it doesn't benefit the average person unless there is an absolutely huge threat.

[BrnLng]

yes, but with a Constitution as the very first Contract/Law for a group, maybe it should be discussed as if in a task list of sorts. Eg. 'No Constitution until harm and censorship to different groups are defined'. The rest (changing laws etc) will always apply.

[SeloSlav]

Democracy is also highly sensitive to contagion. The Ancients knew this well, and so established Senates, which while highly corruptible in and of themselves at least avoid the much greater problems associated with Demagoguery. Perhaps we can apply technology to tease out the bias from the Wisdom of the Crowds?

Neuro-biologists Gabriel Madirolas and Gonzalo De Polavieja at the Cajal Institute in Madrid, Spain, came up with a way to correct for bias in “ Wisdom-of-crowds“-like estimations by quantifying just how much people are influenced by certain key decision-makers in their vicinity.

MIT Technology Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528941/forget-the-wisdom-of-crowds-neurobiologists-reveal-the-wisdom-of-the-confident/

My Summary: https://medium.com/@Santafebound/teasing-out-the-wisdom-from-the-crowd-52e13e47d57

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Furmanczyk notifications@github.com wrote:

The will of the people or "mob rule" is democracy at its most pure. It's not perfect but it's the least bad option we have working in the real world at this point. Direct democracy just puts more power in the hands of each individual and makes their vote worth more. In the end democracy always depends upon the moral fiber of its citizens to influence the law and the nation. Destroy the moral fiber or the education of the citizens and you destroy the country's ability to think on a higher level, but no matter how bad or good the actions chosen democracy is always the will of the people instead of a government or ruler. Direct democracy is a more pure form of democracy and is actually a huge step away from communism.

The best example I heard to discribe the power of democracy is this: " Imagine a tribe of 20 people ruled by their own small democracy. There are 18 males and 2 females. One of the males proposes that they should all be able to have sex with the women whenever they want. There is support by other men in the democracy so it goes to a vote. The women don't want it so they vote no, a few males think it's wrong and vote no also, but the vote passes 15 - 5 in favor of the legal rape of the females. Now they males have sex with the females even if they don't want to do it." As sad as this example is, this is pure democracy. Democracy = mob rule. Can you see how important the values of the average citizen are now?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/the-laughing-monkey/cicada-platform/issues/7#issuecomment-320946329, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIa4FOhJLmvjeuMx8TDTcpoZMtq96-beks5sWFnGgaJpZM4OpBj1 .

-- Best Regards, Martin Erlic

Hypercycle http://www.hypercycle.cois a social marketplace for custom product design. It is a fun, easy way to create t-shirts and more. Hypercycle users can upload their art, share their designs with their friends, and open their own storefronts to sell their creations to the world.Learn more about how you can open your own social e-commerce solution with Hypercycle. http://www.hypercycle.co

Subscribe to our Newsletter for contests, promotions, and more! http://hypercycle.us8.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=d793ae062926c63262e96e99c&id=c21a8138fd

[SeloSlav]

By applying the Madirolas/De Polavieja method, the majority vote would be weighed down in such a way that only the "confident" (unbiased) preferences would be counted. What would have been a 15-5 vote to legalize tribal rape would be recalculated and submitted as a 5-3 vote in favor of protecting the women from mob rule.

My summary is here: https://medium.com/@Santafebound/teasing-out-the-wisdom-from-the-crowd-52e13e47d57

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Bruno Longo notifications@github.com wrote:

It could be part of the Constitution itself to first state what harm is any case.

Then, if any harm is considered against any group or party (be it alien, big or minority) it would have to pass simple majority vote as always and if failed, then that's it (maybe there should be put a timeframe where it could not be considered for flood voting again) and if passing, instead of simply being considered law, it should create a state of open declared war or something similar against that group starting in some time and in another to being reconsidered in possibly quickly schedule.

If it is about ideological war (as in the case of abortion) it would be mostly the same, I'd guess, but a case for police enforcement instead of military. It should make things clear. While there's no state power (as was the case for previous tribal example) for the groups using the system, then it should just split the groups in a civil manner (if it's not an autonomous state and the tribe could not pass this law against a higher federated law for instance), thus forced-peacefully (in a police or military timeframe) to split: the 5 who voted yes going elsewhere, if the majority would clearly have preferred to stay.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/the-laughing-monkey/cicada-platform/issues/7#issuecomment-320972418, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIa4FHFcIg8_8qynjoAEV0J1p5n_rqcsks5sWHAHgaJpZM4OpBj1 .

-- Best Regards, Martin Erlic

Hypercycle http://www.hypercycle.cois a social marketplace for custom product design. It is a fun, easy way to create t-shirts and more. Hypercycle users can upload their art, share their designs with their friends, and open their own storefronts to sell their creations to the world.Learn more about how you can open your own social e-commerce solution with Hypercycle. http://www.hypercycle.co

Subscribe to our Newsletter for contests, promotions, and more! http://hypercycle.us8.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=d793ae062926c63262e96e99c&id=c21a8138fd

[BrnLng]

@santafebound these articles ideas are very promising, but they may arise feelings against the system in that it hurts the "one man, one vote (OMOV)" idea -- which I don't take as so sacred myself. Maybe there could be always alternate voting schemes considered as with some random vote(s) being chosen as elected, which ultimately does both extremes of OMOV.

[mitar]

Why is the title mentioning communism? What has form of government with economic model? Maybe the tile should be "direct democracy == dictatorship? Or "direct democracy == totalitarianism"? Or are you saying that if we allow people to have direct democracy, they will choose to enable socialistic and communistic changes? So you are saying that majority wants those?

Or is this more like "direct democracy == some bad sounding and scary concept"?

[j4v1ng]

Communism does not understand about minorities or majorities I think the title is a bit misleading.

The thing i want to comment on is direct democracy it's self. I think there are people in this world that cannot represent or better, defend themselves easily.

I am more for a self managed system than for a directed democracy. A self managed system does not have the anarchist chaotic and individualistic nature of direct democracy. Direct democracy would be as individualistic as our current neoliberalism if not more, it will be just matter of time until a little group abuses it.

As opposed to direct democracy a governed but at the same time self managed system aims to bring ethics and what is most important it provides an equal opportunity. I think direct democracy(JUST by itself) fails at this, but nonetheless direct democracy can successfully be used at a tool for smaller scale consensus seeking and also workplace management.

[ghost]

I would like to point to the White Paper of Avalanche Consensus Protocol It describes a new set of Algorithms and Protocols that could maybe solve the short comings of direct democracy and other forms to find consensus, etc.

[objectorange]

Direct democracy is not communism, it's tyrrany by majority. The only way to have an ethical 'democracy' would be to require all decisions among members to require a unanimous vote, and that is incredibly impossible even among two people over a length of time and a number of issues. Democracy is a failed idea. Voluntary organizations using the NAP as a primary principle providing services competing with others is the only ethical means of organization that I can see at this time.

[dkent600]

NAP?

[objectorange]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

[serousoma]

This is entirely outside of the scope of the project, no matter how you slice it. The idea is to facilitate spin-up governments, not to force the whole idea into an inaccessible fantasy. There is no need to design society, only systems.

[serousoma]

Direct democracy is not communism, it's tyrrany by majority. The only way to have an ethical 'democracy' would be to require all decisions among members to require a unanimous vote, and that is incredibly impossible even among two people over a length of time and a number of issues. Democracy is a failed idea. Voluntary organizations using the NAP as a primary principle providing services competing with others is the only ethical means of organization that I can see at this time.

You're injecting a personal ideal of Ethics. An impossible one, at that. Human beings disagree, and when enough of them agree to accomplish something they tend to do it. There's absolutely no reason, nor helpful result, in total agreement. Though Cicada may be able to make a mountain shatter, it will be of no help without the illumination of what is True of the human species.

Your species does not appreciate complete and total peace. Beyond that, without struggle it dies. By extension, the few world leaders who have been foolhardy enough to attempt the removal of the dissident element have fallen -- as well they should.

Remember; there's absolutely no way to force anyone to follow any form of law, system, or belief. Not one human being has lived more than once. It is as a Mother giving advice to a Mother; neither having any ability to advise the other genuinely. A life-coach, who has lived less than one life, and has no place to coach it. So it is with believing that you can solve the Original problem, by an extreme absurdism.

The effect of an oppositional network such as Humanity being in total agreement is best represented by the human's brain. In total harmony, there is a grand-mal seizure. Let us not attempt at perfection, nor be concerned with the ways of the people. Only pave the path, and offer the tools.

It is time to Emerge.

[SeloSlav]

I'd encourage you all to research Fractal Localism.

It appears that different systems are optimal at different scales.

Typically, those with the least degrees of freedom and fewest direct responsibilities to citizens do best at the largest scales (Federalism at the nation state level), and vice versa at the smallest scales (Communism in the family, and democracy at the level of the city state—but higher than that they invariably break down and fail).

Cicada should incorporate different governance structures depending on scale of the choices it is presented.

Direct democracy is certainly not optimal at the national level, regardless of what one presupposes of the ethical consequences of having fewer referenda on matters of national security, for instance.

On Thu., Sep. 3, 2020, 9:12 p.m. Casey Joel, notifications@github.com wrote:

Direct democracy is not communism, it's tyrrany by majority. The only way to have an ethical 'democracy' would be to require all decisions among members to require a unanimous vote, and that is incredibly impossible even among two people over a length of time and a number of issues. Democracy is a failed idea. Voluntary organizations using the NAP as a primary principle providing services competing with others is the only ethical means of organization that I can see at this time.

You're injecting a personal ideal of Ethics. An impossible one, at that. Human beings disagree, and when enough of them agree to accomplish something they tend to do it. There's absolutely no reason, nor helpful result, in total agreement. Though Cicada may be able to make a mountain shatter, it will be of no help without the illumination of what is True of the human species.

Your species does not appreciate complete and total peace. Beyond that, without struggle it dies. By extension, the few world leaders who have been foolhardy enough to attempt the removal of the dissident element have fallen -- as well they should.

Remember; there's absolutely no way to force anyone to follow any form of law, system, or belief. Not one human being has lived more than once. It is as a Mother giving advice to a Mother; neither having any ability to advise the other genuinely. A life-coach, who has lived less than one life, and has no place to coach it. So it is with believing that you can solve the Original problem, by an extreme absurdism.

The effect of an oppositional network such as Humanity being in total agreement is best represented by the human's brain. In total harmony, there is a grand-mal seizure. Let us not attempt at perfection, nor be concerned with the ways of the people. Only pave the path, and offer the tools.

It is time to Emerge.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/the-laughing-monkey/cicada-platform/issues/7#issuecomment-686702768, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACDLQFEKSYXWRB55DTUAU63SD7TAZANCNFSM4DVEDD2Q .

[bastian-purrer]

All these discussions about Democracy and Communism will be important if, but only if, Cicada will ever get adoption. So many idealistic ideas have stayed an idea only. The ideas that bring the best final state are not those that win if they can’t get over the obstacles of initial adoption.

I have studied Cicada enthusiastically 3 years ago, and since then forces driving us to total submission and surveillance have made great progress. Time is running out. I believe Cicada’s ideas have to be implemented step wise to ever become the norm. And I believe the first step is a extremely low-friction, easy-to-adopt concept. Flawed from Cicada’s perspective, but in a position to then develop into Cicada. That’s why 3 years ago, I started humanID (https://github.com/bluenumberfoundation). An online identity, but based on phone numbers. Other than irises, their collection is possible today, users are comfortable doing it,  and just like irises, they’re basically one-per-human. Our technology deletes all numbers after verification, treats the number just like Cicada treats the iris scan. And we offer the technology as SSO & as CAPTCHA replacement. Implementation as easy as the Facebook SDK, making it much easier to convince companies to use the system.

If this gets adoption, it can be moved into a Cicada-like identity over time.

We have gotten support from Harvard & Mozilla. We have a team of 60 volunteers, but not enough experienced engineers to move faster. The architecture has been devices by Adar Arnon,  Harvard CS Master & former IDF lead engineer. If you believe this could be interesting, please reach out to me at bastian@human-id.org. There is no place where the help of one experienced engineer can make a bigger impact right now.