Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 01:24:16 UTC No. 16579879

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futarchy
https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html

>inb4 futa

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 02:02:45 UTC No. 16579902

Democracy sucks because every electoral system can be rigged to subvert the actual will of the people and the skills required to win an election and the skills required to run shit are rarely present in the same person anyway.

Thankfully in the west we have vast armies of invisible unelected glowies, technocrats, and oligarchs to actually run things while elected officials do nothing but preen on cable news, grift off lobbyists, and vote how their masters tell them.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 02:33:55 UTC No. 16579923

Arrow's Theorem

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 02:59:19 UTC No. 16579937

>the quest for best voting system
Varies depending on what you're going for.
>Single member: least crazies put in power, no strategic voting
rcv/irv (overhated)
>Single member: least butthurt among voters, most simple
approval
>Single member: most "fair", but complicated
Tideman Alternative
>multi-member (fuck multi-member)
Shit's already fucked, just use CPO-STV

Reminder anyone advocating for score voting should be kicked in the dick or cunt and FPTP is obviously terrible and shouldn't be used by anyone for anything.

>>16579902
>Democracy sucks because every electoral system can be rigged to subvert the actual will of the people
Which you would know without polling the actual will of the people how? Even if you think democracy sucks, it sucks less than everything else.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 03:22:40 UTC No. 16579953

>>16579937
>Even if you think democracy sucks, it sucks less than everything else.
There are other systems that work better in the short term but they all suffer from the successor problem or scalability issues.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 03:29:51 UTC No. 16579954

>>16579588
You have to define best and not just do it with another turtle on the stack by saying "reflects the will of the people" because you have to define that too.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 03:44:22 UTC No. 16579960

>>16579937
>Which you would know without polling the actual will of the people how?
Polls and elections are different things. Polls can be rigged too of course but there are enough different ones out there that it's hard to fully hide the truth about public opinion.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 05:12:35 UTC No. 16579997

>>16579960
An election is literally a poll.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 06:26:42 UTC No. 16580026

>>16579588
transparent direct electronic republican democracy

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 06:40:21 UTC No. 16580033

>>16580026
"Republican democracy" can mean 10000 different things. Transparent is a recipe for voter intimidation

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 06:57:23 UTC No. 16580037

>>16580033
> "Republican democracy"
DIRECT republican democracy (which means that democratic process shouldn't violate the constitution (cannot vote to disarm the citizens, for example))
>voter intimidation
should be a criminal offense

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 06:58:24 UTC No. 16580038

>>16580037
> DIRECT
means that people vote not for the representatives, but directly decide on the issues.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 07:02:14 UTC No. 16580040

>>16579588
Bitcoin

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 10:42:46 UTC No. 16580167

>>16579588
Mathematics of voting systems have been solved, just lists the definition of best and it's fairly trivial to come up with a system that produces that.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 12:20:55 UTC No. 16580238

>>16580167
Assuming such a system exists, of course. I wonder if there'd be a Condorcet winner if we voted on how we should vote among the non-ass voting systems.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:32:53 UTC No. 16580462

>>16579588
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:47:47 UTC No. 16580471

>>16579902
electoral systems aren't democratic
democracy = demos kratos = people's power
how is it the people's power if they can only choose between two parties with nearly identical views, who have only theatrical unimportant "differences" in their world views?
like for instance, both democrats and republicans agree that they should print infinity money and create infinity debt forever, both agree to wage war in israel and ukraine, both agree that they should increase taxes somehow, one side wants infinity military money, the other wants infinity welfare money, etc. etc.
what do they debate about most of the time? fucking transgender toilets
how is it the people's power if a representative can simply not do what you voted him for with no consequences? he can just lie to you, kiss lobbyists asses and then pass a draconic law together with his friends, he gets money, you get fucked in the ass
>well maybe in 4 years we can get a guy in to repeal the law, but probably not
>ooh, actually guys, we made it illegal
>maybe in 8 years we ca-
>oh no it happened again
you see where I am going, right? over time the number of shit laws increases exponentially and your freedoms disappear
your tax code is something like 80.000 pages long
it's not democratic
your "representatives" can do whatever the fuck they want, you have to fucking pray they do what you voted them for and of course rich people get a megaphone to represent themselves a million times more effectively than you plebs
what you have is the roman system, the republic, renamed to "representative democracy", as a ploy and for logistical reasons, while democracy took the backseat and got renamed to "direct democracy"
but it's NOT
"representative democracy" is an oxymoron
it has some democratic elements, that's it!
only direct democracies are true democracies, the rest trend to nil over time and dissolve themselves, distill themselves into autocracies, oligarchies, corporatism, totalitarianism and fascism!

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 02:18:43 UTC No. 16580887

>>16580471
>electoral systems aren't democratic
They are if the elections are carried out democratically.
>how is it the people's power if they can only choose between two parties
You can write in whoever you want, dipshit. Democracy just means you get to vote. Doesn't mean you get to have a chance to win no matter the political conditions.
>how is it the people's power if a representative can simply not do what you voted him for with no consequences?
The people can replace them in the next election.
>oh no it happened again
Being able to vote on something does not mean the action voted on will produce an expected or desirable outcome. That is true whether or not you are dealing with direct democracy. See: Brexit (everyone hated that)
>you see where I am going, right?
Legitimately I don't. You just seem like a whiny baby.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:01:24 UTC No. 16580923

>>16580887
>They are if the elections are carried out democratically.
it's not democratic if lobbyists can just influence politicians to ignore the voters using large sums of money
>Democracy just means you get to vote
that's not what it means, maybe you should try reading up on it before you spread nonsense
by that standard the DPRK is "democratic", Russia is "democratic", the GDR was "democratic", yet in practice none of them are
>The people can replace them in the next election.
yet draconical legislation still gets passed and what are the chances it's ever removed?
just vote a different guy next time bro!! he totally won't betray you like every single politician before him! truuuust meh!
>Being able to vote on something does not mean the action voted on will produce an expected or desirable outcome. That is true whether or not you are dealing with direct democracy. See: Brexit (everyone hated that)
yet when I vote on a law directly I get a choice, when I vote for a politicians who can then vote for whatever he wants, I have no actual participation, I simply have to PRAY that he does what I want, all I can do is cry on social media and not vote him anymore (once the poor legislation has been introduced and he has his money and is retired with no chance of removing it)
that's an entirely different issue from a law or the absence of that law having a desired effect
Brexit happened because UK citizens were tired of mass immigration, and what happened as a result of it? the UK's politicians ramped up mass immigration even more because of less oversight. Who profits from mass immigration? Large corporations who want to reduce wages
why? because lobbyism is possible and viable. why? because you do not hold any power over the legislative process in practice, politicians do
you can vote for 500 different people who will all fuck you in the same way
>Legitimately I don't. You just seem like a whiny baby.
you're the worst kind of fascist faggot, kill yourself immediately

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:24:44 UTC No. 16580937

>>16580923
>it's not democratic if lobbyists can just influence politicians to ignore the voters using large sums of money
It is actually. Vote for people that won't be influenced. Skill issue.
>by that standard the DPRK is "democratic", Russia is "democratic", the GDR was "democratic"
Pretending to vote and voting aren't the same thing. Whatever the fuck people write in in those countries doesn't go toward determining the outcome of jack or shit. It's definitionally not a vote on the outcome.
>whining, more whining, and pretending people hate Brexit cause it increased immigration rates
lol

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 10:07:33 UTC No. 16581135

>>16580937
>Vote for people that won't be influenced
because basing your entire government on trust alone instead of constitution and legislation is such a great fucking idea, right?
you're just pretending I can vote for people who will never be corrupt or betray me, please enlighten me as to how to see into the future
>Pretending to vote and voting aren't the same thing. Whatever the fuck people write in in those countries doesn't go toward determining the outcome of jack or shit. It's definitionally not a vote on the outcome.
ah ok, so if it doesn't change the outcome it doesn't count as a vote? so logically if you have a two party system and both parties want to print infinity money it is not a democracy? or is that different because there is some theater about unimportant cosmetical issues?
it's really nothing more than le enemies are bad and my government le good
>whining, more whining, and pretending people hate Brexit cause it increased immigration rates
your argument boils down to "cry lol"
again, actually kill yourself in real life, do it now

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:57:55 UTC No. 16581636

>>16581135
>because basing your entire government on trust alone instead of constitution and legislation
Constitutions and legislation are only upheld when people act in good faith. Government cannot exist without trust. Stopped reading there cause you're a fucking idiot.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:52:28 UTC No. 16582380

>>16579588
>the quest for best voting system
https://autopia.neocities.org/pppexposition
/thread

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:16:01 UTC No. 16582387

>>16582380
>score voting
Literally just approval voting but worse. Please punch yourself in the dick or cunt.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:44:18 UTC No. 16582405

>>16581636
You will be kissing Elon Musk's feet soon, retard.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 13:09:35 UTC No. 16582429

>>16582387
>but worse
How?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 13:52:42 UTC No. 16582479

>>16579588
A rational voter doesn't vote. Even if we assume voting is actually fair and every vote is counted, there's no scenario in which one individual vote can decide the outcome. It is such an impossibly small chance given then amount of voters in modern societies that even if it did happen (it never did) it would result in a recount. The amount of time spend voting isn't worth the impossibility of affecting the outcome. My vote doesn't matter, so there's no reason to cast it.
>inb4 well if everyone thought like that...
If my mother had wheels she would have been a bike, but she doesn't, and not everyone thinks like that. My individual decision not to cast a vote doesn't compel other voters to not do the same.

This also affects how serious people are about voting. Most are strongly conditioned to vote anyways because of social stigma, but they know their vote doesn't actually matter, even if won't admit it, and so they put zero to minimal effort in researching politics. It's not like their lack of research will change anything, after all.

I've been thiking about this sometimes and concluded we need some kind of a system that limits the amount of voters to a sufficently small number where every vote actually has a decent chance of changing the outcome. This could be accomplished through random selection of x amount of voters from all citizens, lets say 10 in the whole country. These 10 would then feel compelled to cast their vote and actually do their research, because they will have a realistic chance of affecting the outcome. This system isn't without issues of course, we would need a way to actually gurantee random selection without tampering, make sure the chosen voters are anonymous to the public and vice versa as to prevent corruption, etc.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 14:21:50 UTC No. 16582502

>>16579588
>he still thinks letting the mental patients choose the asylum's chief schizos actually works

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 14:58:25 UTC No. 16582533

>>16582429
>How?
You get to opt into having less of a vote for some candidates. The system literally only differs from approval voting for voters that don't know how elections work. If everyone votes strategically, it just becomes approval voting 1:1. Make it make sense.

Fuck's sake, at least when other classes of voting systems differ within themselves, you'll at least usually see relevant shit like different tie-breaking instead of one system just being a straight downgrade vs another.

>>16582479
>A rational voter doesn't vote. Even if we assume voting is actually fair and every vote is counted, there's no scenario in which one individual vote can decide the outcome. It is such an impossibly small chance
It took you less than 3 sentences to contradict yourself. Also a rational voter would not leave public policy to be dictated solely by irrational people, even before you get into the material benefits of voting, eg you can actually argue from the position of a voter for someone else to match your vote within your social circles to potentially increase your impact assuming you have neither the time nor energy to become a political operative, candidate, or propagandist.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:07:14 UTC No. 16582544

>>16582405
>You will be kissing Elon Musk's feet soon, retard.
Kinda proving my point there, dipshit. Last I checked we still have a Constitution and legislation. Doesn't do jack or shit if someone breaks your trust and governs in bad faith.

There is no human system that can survive bad actors. All the guard rails really do is socially signify that such behavior is unwanted and provide a warning before territory where it becomes increasingly less likely a system will be repaired and increasingly more likely it will be replaced (assuming those guard rails weren't themselves moved by dipshits that forgot their purpose).

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:25:15 UTC No. 16582564

>>16582533
>If everyone votes strategically, it just becomes approval voting 1:1.
No it doesn't because you can't be sure how other people vote, so if you artificially floor your less-favorite options in order to ceil your favorite ones, in case of loss you risk ending up with an even worse option than what could've been if you were sincere.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:28:15 UTC No. 16582570

>>16582564
>No it doesn't because you can't be sure how other people vote, so if you artificially floor your less-favorite options in order to ceil your favorite ones, in case of loss you risk ending up with an even worse option than what could've been if you were sincere.
Which is why you should just artificially ceiling anyone you could live with, ie it's approval voting. But worse.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:39:51 UTC No. 16582582

>>16582564
Giving any amount of vote to someone you wouldn't want to win with score voting literally decreases the net benefit of any votes cast for people you would want to win. Optimal score voting is just to draw a line and max everything on one side and min everything on the other. And if you could live with every viable candidate, you just minimize your vote for your least favorite and max the rest. There is no point in trying to get cute with it.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:46:54 UTC No. 16582588

>>16582533
>It took you less than 3 sentences to contradict yourself.
It didn't. A single vote has never and will never an effect on any major election. I bet all of my life savings on it. Want to take that bet?
>Also a rational voter would not leave public policy to be dictated solely by irrational people
You going to vote does not affect who the policy is dictated by. It doesn't affect anything but your own mood, at best.
> you can actually argue from the position of a voter for someone else to match your vote within your social circles to potentially increase your impact
You can convince your entire building to vote as you did, it still won't change the outcome, and I'm still betting my life savings on it.
>assuming you have neither the time nor energy to become a political operative, candidate, or propagandist
See, these can actually realistically have an impact, if you can affect enough people to matter. You can also do terrorism, that's probably the most effective way in which individual can affect politics. But that is just a sign of broken system.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:12:21 UTC No. 16583456

>>16582588
>A single vote has never and will never an effect on any major election
>major election
>major
I accept your concession.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:30:00 UTC No. 16583461

>>16583456
No one cares about the Miss Faggot pageant traditionally held at your favorite gay club, major elections are what matters. Still, congratulations on winning last year.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:51:37 UTC No. 16583467

>>16583461
I was unaware you followed gay pageantry that closely, but regretfully I've won no such honor.

Also, dipshit, you were framing your position as representing the rational voter. Why the fuck anyone care what elections you personally care about? You aren't rational or a voter.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:16:53 UTC No. 16583484

>>16583467
>I was unaware you followed gay pageantry that closely, but regretfully I've won no such honor.
There's no need to be embarassed, your mom told me about it last night, she's very proud of you.
>Why the fuck anyone care what elections you personally care about?
Because major elections are what is being discussed. Again, no one cares about your small minor elections, because they don't matter.

I argue that a rational voter doesn't vote in elections because the costs of voting (a few minutes of their time) will exceed the expected benefits (none). I then argue elections need a system that scales them down to a level where every vote does have a potential to change the outcome.

You argue that this isn't rational because you won Miss Faggot by one vote (your mom came in at the last second to support you with her vote, don't tell her i told you).

You're quite stupid, must have gotten it from your dad's side. Whoever he was.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:09:26 UTC No. 16583551

>>16583484
>Because major elections are what is being discussed
Actually that was never stated. Anywhere. Ever. Learn to read.

>I then argue elections need a system that scales them down to a level where every vote does have a potential to change the outcome
So...like local politics...a thing you didn't even consider and are claiming to not care about? Fuck off.

Btw, if someone is voting in local politics, which they should be, it literally costs them nothing to vote in state and federal elections. In fact, if they're voting straight ticket (which they should be), they would often have to go out of their way not to. Zero opportunity cost. This is basic shit you'd know if you voted instead of talked out of your ass.

>your mom told me about it last night
My mom is working part time as a babysitter, so that would track, but sounds like you've got the wrong person unless you still shit in diapers. No judgment if you do, though. I don't kinkshame.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:13:52 UTC No. 16583556

>>16582570
>Which is why you should just artificially ceiling anyone you could live with
Which is the same, but in reverse: you decrease the chances of your most-hated choice winning, but also decrease that of your favorite one, practically making your vote useless. So again, nope.

>>16582582
>Giving any amount of vote to someone you wouldn't want to win with score voting literally decreases the net benefit of any votes cast for people you would want to win.
But it also decreases it for those you would NEVER want to win, and increases it for those you could live with.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:25:20 UTC No. 16583599

>>16579588
The best voting system is... wait for it... no voting system, democracy is mob rule at best and dictatorship of 'representatives' in practice.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:27:50 UTC No. 16583605

>>16582502
Don't you realize you're trying to convince a schizo to not do crazy things?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:44:16 UTC No. 16583621

>>16583551
>Actually that was never stated. Anywhere. Ever. Learn to read.
It's implied if your IQ is triple digit.
>So...like local politics
No, that is still major enough for an individual vote to not matter, unless you live in a village with a population of a few hundred tops.

You seem very resistant to the simple truth that the individual vote doesn't affect the outcome of any relevant election. Does it hurt your ego to be reminded that you don't have any political influence? Or is it just plain old cognitive dissonance?
>My mom is working part time as a babysitter
That's what she tells you she does.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:40:30 UTC No. 16583904

>>16583556
>but also decrease that of your favorite one
Irrelevant. If your goal is to "not lose" the election, then withholding any of your vote from any candidate you could support vs a genuine threat from a candidate you don't support only hurts your chances of meeting that goal. So you go all in on every candidate you like. Why the fuck would you be worried more about getting someone else you like than losing the election entirely?

>But it also decreases it for those you would NEVER want to win
No. It doesn't. Holding back part of a vote literally cannot decrease the odds of another candidate winning. It only hurts the candidate you hold back from. FFS that's the entire fucking selling point of approval style voting systems.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:56:53 UTC No. 16583921

>>16583621
>It's implied if your IQ is triple digit
More like triple bit.

>No, that is still major enough for an individual vote to not matter, unless you live in a village with a population of a few hundred tops.
No. You're just factually wrong on this. Municipal elections come down to single votes all the fucking time. Hell, you'll even occasionally see fucking ties. Not to mention even fucking cities have internal subdivisions like school board districts.

>You seem very resistant to the simple truth that the individual vote doesn't affect the outcome of any relevant election
There you go adding qualifiers again. Also, you're literally arguing for irrelevant elections and not voting. Also also, even in tidal wave elections, the tidal wave is made up of individual votes.
>Does it hurt your ego to be reminded that you don't have any political influence?
If I wanted more political influence, I'd just phone bank or something.

You seem oddly afraid of having any political responsibility. I'd talk to a therapist if I were you. That's not healthy. To say nothing of your inane concern with getting others to abandon their political responsibility.

>That's what she tells you she does.
I've literally seen the dirty diapers. If that was you, you need to see an MD after a visit with the therapist. Shitting that much can't be healthy.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:57:54 UTC No. 16583924

>>16583599
>dictatorship-lite sucks
>we should have full dictatorship instead

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:46:47 UTC No. 16584068

>>16583904
>Irrelevant. If your goal is to "not lose" the election, then withholding any of your vote from any candidate you could support vs a genuine threat from a candidate you don't support only hurts your chances of meeting that goal. So you go all in on every candidate you like. Why the fuck would you be worried more about getting someone else you like than losing the election entirely?
Your entire reasoning rests on the assumption that *everyone* has at least 1 candidate they hate so much their entire reason for voting is to make sure he'll lose, even at risk of ending up with mediocre ones. Some might think/vote like that, but others won't, which automatically makes it different from approval voting

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 07:53:00 UTC No. 16584423

>>16583924
>democracy is dictatorship lite
Pure ideology
>we should have full dictatorship instead
Strawman

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:39:00 UTC No. 16584837

>>16584068
>Your entire reasoning rests on the assumption that *everyone* has at least 1 candidate they hate so much their entire reason for voting is to make sure he'll lose
Actually it doesn't. I presented the case where if no such candidate exists, you just maximize all your votes except for your worst candidate instead. If there's some even more wishy-washy position, the technically optimum voting strategy is

>Give any candidate you like but that can't win a full vote
>Sort the remaining viable candidates by most to least preferable
>Starting from most preferable, give each candidate a full vote until you reach a candidate to whom you would prefer not increasing the chance of winning at the cost of decreasing the chance of any prior candidate
>Give that candidate and every remaining candidate no vote
>If you reach the last candidate without having found such a candidate, simply give the last candidate no vote

You don't need a candidate that you are voting exclusively to defeat. You simply need a candidate or candidates whom you would prefer not enabling at the cost of risking the election of other candidates. You need an electoral line you won't cross. Or failing that simply a least favorite. If you like all the candidates pretty much equally then there isn't even a point in voting.

>>16584423
>Pure ideology
You literally called it mob rule and dictatorship of representatives. I'm using your fucking words.
>Strawman
Government without representation or democracy is definitionally dictatorship. You are advocating for dictatorship. Or anarchy, but that's just dictatorship with more steps.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:13:21 UTC No. 16584898

Simple:

"Please score your approval of each candidate from 0 to 10.

If you do not know about, or do not have an opinion on a candidate, leave it empty or put 0."

Just add up the scores at the end. Candidate with the highest score wins.

The requirement to vote '0' on candidates you don't know prevents situations where major candidates get a lot of '0' votes, and an unknown candidate gets a lot of '5's because people think it's neutral, thereby resulting in the unknown candidate winning.

Also, you can take the final score of a candidate and divide it by 10 multiplied by the number of voters to get an approval rating at the time of the election.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:23:02 UTC No. 16584904

>>16579588
The problem with democracy is that it violates consent by default. Its just another form of tyranny.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:32:31 UTC No. 16584908

>>16584904
>The problem with democracy is that it violates consent by default.
Society violates consent by default. Democracy is just the method for organizing society which violates consent the least.

Any attack on democracy for violations unavoidable from societal interactions is made in bad faith. Now if you've got some consent-friendly alternative to human existence aside from living in a society or suicide, I am all ears.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:41:39 UTC No. 16584916

>>16584908
Well, you already named the solution: A consent based society, binding only through the nonagression principle and the right to selfdefense. Imagine each individual person having the rights and full souvereignity of a state.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 01:26:51 UTC No. 16586225

>>16584916
The most important part is making sure the laws don't get too complex. Judges literally can't understand which law is supposed to apply and how to read it in a large minority of cases.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 01:37:08 UTC No. 16586229

>>16586225
"default jurisdiction"

Kill this, win a domain.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 02:18:46 UTC No. 16586243

>>16584916
>A consent based society
Lmao. And for people that don't consent to being a part of that society?
>binding only through the nonagression principle
The non-aggression principle isn't binding. It's a method of operation, basically just tit-for-tat. And it literally only serves people that have the martial or social resources to exploit it, much like any other organization of society. Since if you don't have those resources, your tit won't do shit if you get tatted.

Any method for organizing society that does not promote the distribution of social resources (ie enshrine basic rights as a collective interest) and back up that up with martial support (ie have cops) is worthless.
>Imagine each individual person having the rights and full sovereignity of a state.
I imagine a lot of war. And rape. An ungodly amount of rape.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 02:25:02 UTC No. 16586246

>>16579588
Empire. This minimizes chaotic input from retards.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 07:23:29 UTC No. 16586424

>>16580167
Which fixed points of voting for an electoral process are stable?