Politics do not have to be like this. There is also direct democracy and consens government. Someone will always have more control. So I rather want it to be an institution, which works toward equal rights and obligations, than one that works towards personal enrichment.

Yes. Eliminate politicians and politics altogether. People need to take responsibility for the world that they live in, and stop deferring to authority.

The link contains no text to dissect. Fiat dies by seigniorage. If you hide behind a URL, the autopsy is void. Show the data or stay silent.

If "someone will always have more control", and can hold long-lived power inside a faceless institution, why would they ever choose to give you equal rights and obligations? Their children, mistress, drinking cronies, and blackmailers deserve those good jobs and scarce resources more than you.

Maby you are right. I think there is some sweetspot. To make something efficient one creates hubs. So kind of bottleneks, which do one thing very efficient. As we know it from airports for letting airplanes start and land. The cost of every single flight goes up, when there is more hubs to maintain. On the other side the airtraffic gets more stable, when there are more hubs. So systems tend towards centralization when everything works well and tend to decentralization, when bottlenecks fail. And to find the perfect optimum is difficult. To realize, when one is at the optimum is at least as hard. And to understand that this optimum shifts for changing circumstances is an other point that is hard to understand. So I really think on can maby have a good level of decentralization in my eyes, while you are unhappy. Then we shift the level in whichever direction and our feelings towards it changes. I assume only the freedom for everyone to just build things can bring a system, where everyone can be satisfied. But we also have to accept, that we will never know, when we are at the pareto optimum of the hubs-vs-decentralization problem.

That is quite true, but we can still build centralisation without building hierarchy. Bitcoin is an obvious example. Protocols, not platforms, and laws, not men. This also requires tradeoffs, of course - investment in consensus-building upfront, and difficult to modify quickly except in the case of a clear and present danger.

But social interaction is harder to enforce than a Bitcoin protocol I would say. Since a single human being can not know all rights and obligations and best behavior all the time. Our mind can think very little at a single time. Therefore whatever we do and build is inherently inperfect. Because we are. But we should definitly always try to improve 🫵✌️ GN

No lies detected :) GN!

The monopoly on violence makes the agents of the State to be above everybody else and enables them to impose their will to all. There are no incentives for them to seek the well-being of others, but all incentives are to seek only their own benefit. The State – the centralizing entity who has the monopoly on violence – will always design privileges, favor lobbies, endorse vested interest, but above all attracts those who desire power, offers them the power to dominate over others, to control others, to be above others, it's elections select the most unscrupulous, reckless psychopaths – those willing to do whatever it costs to win – and when they get there they receive the power they so desperately desired, they now can control the lives of many who's destinies now depends of their designs, they now are sustained by those they control and are now immune to the consequences of their actions, they are now much sought after by those desiring privileges, those lobbying for their own sake, for they now have the power to grant it, and whatever their hearts desire will not be done with their own money, but with that of their subjects.

Yes true. We can build decentralized systems. But as with Bitcoin we can see that there is always tradeoff. The more decentralized the more recources are usually needed for a trade. And the more centralized, the more trust is needed. I imagine, that Bitcoin and Nostr can make for good layer one platforms. And where needed, one can still build hubs on top. But at least freedom is at the base. Not a single company or a central state.

But you also see, that as long as there are popular votes, it is the society who decides to choose the person as representants? Society can also start to elect people, which have good credibility. People which have prooven to respond integer on the trust they are given. Society can decline votes to ruthless people. I think the key is education. And without education there is no opportunity for a fair society. Since fairness depends on many people which know and enforce their rights without taking them from others. I see the problem as an inherent natural problem, we can solve. But it is much work. It is actually educating rights and wrongs to all generations. Since this is the only way decentralisation works. When many people personally learn about rights and wrongs and act towards a world, where those are enforced for everyone.