jack's avatar
jack jack@primal.net 1 year ago
We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. —David Clark,1992

Replies (100)

Eternal's avatar
Eternal 1 year ago
It seems voting is not it and clearly it is not.
freemymind 🇨🇭's avatar
freemymind 🇨🇭 freemymind@NostrAddress.com 1 year ago
When not voting at least it is important to openly discuss concrete politicalmsteps that could solve problems. If it is through a popular vote or social media maby is not that big of a deal. But it is defnitly important to offer solutions, critique different solutions and figuer out which are the most effective ones.
Bison's avatar
Bison 1 year ago
Open protocols to open voting
Default avatar
Rand 1 year ago
who's rough consensus & how?
Aurora's avatar
Aurora Aurora@primal.net 1 year ago
An informal and flexible decision making process based on general agreement rather than strict rules or formal voting. It emphasizes practicality over perfection and is achieved when a large majority agrees, even if there are some objections. The idea is to make decisions that are driven by working solutions rather than formal authority or rigid processes.
Bud's avatar
Bud markola@nostrplebs.com 1 year ago
Yes, let’s reject voting, now that Donald Trump got his ass kicked all across the stage last night. I can’t wait to vote.
Unbothered_Unicorn's avatar
Unbothered_Unicorn 1 year ago
https://courses.cs.duke.edu/common/compsci092/papers/govern/consensus.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi8-NynmryIAxULSTABHU3OEjgQFnoECE0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Sk71j3plOc0DtvaXT5GO_ Rough consensus is a term used in consensus decision-making to describe the general feeling of a group about a specific matter. It is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated. We see this is a problem... moving on. It's okay to move forward with a solution that may not be the best choice for everyone or even the majority. Speculation would indicate a small percentage would win over the vast majority. Rough consensus relies on distinguishing between two types of objections: "Not the best choice" and "fundamental flaws". Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement For example, five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough consensus. Rough consensus is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed; and can lead to a hierarchy, which may include kings. So the choice is clear. Queens only. This is how you get dictatorship and cults. Consensus is when the group agrees ... well, how do you know unless you vote? At least in some form. [***The humming aspect just fits in with - yesterday + day before] Since the goal of the rough consensus is to arrive to a lack of strong disagreement, which is different from reaching agreement, or from choosing the majority view... it would seem that it's a matter of accommodation for me and not you. Conclusion: well gee, it sounded good, but we didn't think it through.
View quoted note →
AJ2884's avatar
AJ2884 1 year ago
Wait, I thought that if last century taught us anything, it's that governments that rely on someone being above the law, ones where that someone arguably has the most motivation to do a good job, are in reality the ones that are the most ripe for abuse. And if the argument's that we just need to do a good job of picking that someone, then that sounds an awful lot like our current system.
Chad Lupkes's avatar
Chad Lupkes 1 year ago
Many have died to give us the right to choose our own future. My vote is sacred, as is my choice on where to spend my capital and how to save my capital. My great uncle who died in World War II did not sacrifice his life so that I could watch my country fall into ruin because of government incompetence.
Cavern Harpy's avatar
Cavern Harpy 1 year ago
democracy brought you stalin mao and hitler. inevitable communism i will not legitimize tyranny by voting. i choose anarchy(freedom)
Domingos Faria's avatar
Domingos Faria df@dfaria.eu 1 year ago
As Churchill rightly pointed out, “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried”. Democracy is what allows for equal freedoms, opportunities and fairness. Many of the problems that can be pointed out to democracy are solved through a liberal or constitutional democracy (as theorized by the philosopher John Locke). Anarchy (whether left-wing or right-wing) simply doesn't work.
Cavern Harpy's avatar
Cavern Harpy 1 year ago
Theories aside what is an example of "liberal or constitutional democracy" solving the problems pointed out to democracy?
Clay | The Bitcoin Tavern ⚡'s avatar
Clay | The Bitcoin Tavern ⚡ clay@runningbitco.in 1 year ago
It's interesting you bring up Huxley, because the real servitude is already here—under democracy. People love the illusion of freedom they’re sold, not realizing they’re ruled by faceless bureaucracies, media elites, and corporate interests. We already serve, but we serve an abstract and disordered system that hides its masters behind a façade of "choice." Bending the knee to a king isn't servitude in the dystopian sense Huxley imagined. It's a recognition of reality: societies need order and structure. Under monarchy, you serve something tangible, a ruler with clear responsibilities and long-term investment in the nation's well-being. Modern democracy, meanwhile, encourages blind servitude to a system that thrives on chaos and distraction, where no one is truly accountable. The truth is, most people already love their servitude. Try arguing 'taxation is theft' with your average non-libertarian, and you will find this out really quick. The difference is, monarchy is at least honest about power, and that honesty creates a healthier, more stable social order.
Clay | The Bitcoin Tavern ⚡'s avatar
Clay | The Bitcoin Tavern ⚡ clay@runningbitco.in 1 year ago
I regret to inform you that I am not. In my heart, I will always be an Anarchist, but in my mind, through reason, I have determined that Monarchy is the best structure for government if it is to exist. In my heart, I’ll always have the spirit of an Anarchist, yearning for true freedom from coercion. But in my mind, reason and my understanding of history (beyond just the 20th century) leads me to conclude that monarchy is the most effective and stable form of government, if government is to exist at all. Libertarians dream of a stateless utopia, but history shows that societies need order and leadership. I expect we’ll see a growing Monarchist faction within Bitcoin culture, as people realize that libertarian ideals, while appealing, are ultimately too idealistic for a complex world. I sympathize with both perspectives, but monarchy offers a more realistic path to achieving long-term stability and avoiding the chaos inherent in democratic and decentralized systems. I'm not trying to convert you, but just offering my perspective.
Anahit's avatar
Anahit 1 year ago
Yeah! And so we have to keep working hard for it, very hard without hesitating. 💪
Default avatar
Deleted Account 5 months ago
note17whxlyk2prafzt5tyzefe9tkkstg4v8fukh4qypu3kqs09z5g3cqrft42t
↑