Morderator on Nostr: npub15th6y…a6nvx Well, neither of those answer my questions in any way. While some ...
npub15th6y0m8c79aq5qg2arvpw955jr4c5cvvvvkrxz70tnh4n282dzq2a6nvx (npub15th…6nvx) Well, neither of those answer my questions in any way.
While some can be rehabilitated is possible in most cases, not in every case. And what you described didn't answer the question, what is the replacement for the police, and how is that not the police? Methods to focus on the root cause is all good, do that, but what do you do, when there's a murder, and the murderer isn't obvious? Do you leave it be, and assume that the focus on the root cause will make it not happen again? How do you get the murderer into the rehab and counseling? The current answer to those questions is: the police investigates the murder and enforces the compliance with the community rules. Keeping the police doesn't in any way affect the severity or form of consequence for a crime. It's an organization, point of which is to investigate breaking of rules, and enforcing rules. If the non-centralized community agrees, that skateboarding on the pedestrian roads are against the rules, the job of the police would be guiding the skateboarders to the appropriate road, as per community rules. Not to punish the ones that skateboard on the pedestrian road.
And what you suggest with your decentralized communities doesn't rule out in any way the formation of hierarchies. I gave the example of a hierarchy of "us versus them," which is more than common with humans. That's what plain old racism and nationalism is based on. *We* are better than others. Furthermore, why is a power balance an inherently bad thing? I gave two examples of where they're a positive. Now, tell me where it would be better to not have one, and why.
Why does a decentralized community foster direct participation more than a direct democracy? In direct democracy people elect a spokesperson for their interest group. That spoke-persons job is to speak for them, and thus has a power imbalance, since the spokesperson has a direct say on laws and rules of the community. Now, why is this worse than a decentralized community? I'd argue it's better, since it leaves more time for the people who need it. Not giving them it, doesn't it discourage more abstract or theoretical work, for the benefit of practical work from which the community directly and visibly benefits from? For example, plumbing over theoretical physics? Plumbing is an important for a community, and it can be seen directly, where as theoretical physics is important for advancement and not directly seen by people who don't understand it. And if one does go for the less obvious work doesn't that then give the community reason to discriminate against them, on the basis that they're not helping the community?
While some can be rehabilitated is possible in most cases, not in every case. And what you described didn't answer the question, what is the replacement for the police, and how is that not the police? Methods to focus on the root cause is all good, do that, but what do you do, when there's a murder, and the murderer isn't obvious? Do you leave it be, and assume that the focus on the root cause will make it not happen again? How do you get the murderer into the rehab and counseling? The current answer to those questions is: the police investigates the murder and enforces the compliance with the community rules. Keeping the police doesn't in any way affect the severity or form of consequence for a crime. It's an organization, point of which is to investigate breaking of rules, and enforcing rules. If the non-centralized community agrees, that skateboarding on the pedestrian roads are against the rules, the job of the police would be guiding the skateboarders to the appropriate road, as per community rules. Not to punish the ones that skateboard on the pedestrian road.
And what you suggest with your decentralized communities doesn't rule out in any way the formation of hierarchies. I gave the example of a hierarchy of "us versus them," which is more than common with humans. That's what plain old racism and nationalism is based on. *We* are better than others. Furthermore, why is a power balance an inherently bad thing? I gave two examples of where they're a positive. Now, tell me where it would be better to not have one, and why.
Why does a decentralized community foster direct participation more than a direct democracy? In direct democracy people elect a spokesperson for their interest group. That spoke-persons job is to speak for them, and thus has a power imbalance, since the spokesperson has a direct say on laws and rules of the community. Now, why is this worse than a decentralized community? I'd argue it's better, since it leaves more time for the people who need it. Not giving them it, doesn't it discourage more abstract or theoretical work, for the benefit of practical work from which the community directly and visibly benefits from? For example, plumbing over theoretical physics? Plumbing is an important for a community, and it can be seen directly, where as theoretical physics is important for advancement and not directly seen by people who don't understand it. And if one does go for the less obvious work doesn't that then give the community reason to discriminate against them, on the basis that they're not helping the community?