,Let them eat cake."

I get the point but honestly: Why does that matter?

If we only accept judgement or action by ‘perfect individuals’ aka. ‘heroes’ the world won’t ever get better as influential humans are still humans and often have, by design, flaws and mistakes build within them and their character. Does that mean we shouldn’t judge anyone for their actions? Obviously not.

But to claim that ones vision or ideas are outright wrong due to ad-hominem argumentation against their personal flaws is also bullshit. You’ll always find something to point out, especially with historical figures. Since, ironically due to their imperfect actionism, our social norms have improved and we often rightfully so critizise things deemed normal during their time.

I understand exactly what you mean.

But at the same time, I also believe that the inherent problem with our representative democracies is this: Voters are asked about EVERY issue all at once every four years and then vote for ONE representative party. So, in the end, everyone ends up voting on a whole bunch of issues that neither interest nor affect them. Worse still: when checks and balances are undermined, as is currently the case, the elected representatives can do whatever they want for four years.

In the best-case scenario, the majority of today’s voters inform themselves about the current campaign promises and forecasts a few weeks before the election and then lose interest again for four years. Or, to put it another way, the system actually provokes the “I don’t do politics” attitude among a majority of voters.

However, if the effects of their own decisions were transparent and immediate, I believe there would be a greater willingness to actually inform themselves.

And on the topic of demagoguery and populism: If people had the opportunity to vote against immigration (even if you don’t agree with that position) without undermining democracy through a corrupt bunch of politicians, we as a society would still be better off than in the current situation, where emotionally charged issues are used to make dictators and shitty politics palatable to people.

That’s a framework for a technocracy. The question here was for a blueprint for an anarchist society.

And if we take your line of thinking further: At what point do you stop denying people the right to vote?

Should only those in a particular industry have a say when it comes to regulating that industry? In that case, issues like environmental and consumer protection would become unenforceable… because why would a CEO or worker care about the impact their own actions have on the rest of society if regulation can be framed as a threat to their own job?

I would argue that neither you nor most other people like making bad decisions, right?

If, after the vote, there’s no representative—aka “those up there”—to blame for your own bad decision, that probably sets off a learning process where you either do better research next time or, if you’re too unsure or not interested in the topic, stay out of it and leave the choice to people who think they know more about it.

Without fixed terms, you can vote again in six months if you realize that your decision isn’t solving the problem and enough other people feel the same way… whereas now you have to rely on a representative to make decisions in your best interest (and not in the interest of their own wallet), and, if the decision turns out to be bad for you, hope that another government will revisit the law in 20 years.

You may as well just form government by having your largest 500 companies nominate a representative from their board.

That’s basically the case right now, so it wouldn’t even constitute a deterioration?

In the system I’ve proposed, however, this would only work until enough resistance to corporate practices builds up because the business model harms the majority. Since there are no legislative terms, such practices could be stopped more quickly than in today’s system, where industry simply buys off the newly elected representatives and can then carry on as before for another four years…

Thank you!

That’s my point.

I basically agree with you.

However, the slowness of paper-based administration is the reason why we’ve ended up with the (increasingly) poor solution of representative systems and the corruption that goes hand in hand with them.

In an age where fake news and propaganda spread in real time, I believe our democracies must also find a way to react more quickly… The internet allows anyone to communicate with anyone else in real time; in my opinion, it’s time to use this FOR rather than AGAINST our societies.

f that is the premise, then any form of anarchist society is obsolete.

I was responding here to a question about a blueprint for an anarchist social order. That presupposes a reasonably positive view of human nature… which, in my opinion, is actually the more realistic one.

Otherwise, we’ll always need an authoritarian system that patronizes “the stupid people” and looks after them… a narrative that is used to justify domination over others and is deeply rooted in our societies today.

Open source, direct internet democracy.

Let anyone vote on anything basically.

My hope is voters tend to vote on matters relevant to them providing initative to get/beeing informed on the matter they vote on.

I see representative systems as root of corruption so my solution calls for a system with direct decisions without political representatives.

Maybe some fellow Slovenian can explain.

As someone without any knwoledge about the countries inner politics: The US officially announced it’s going to boost right-wing movements across Europe to influence the continent in its favor. Investing loads of money into election campaigning can influence public opinion.

Ich hab keine Ahnung von Graphhopper.

Wenns um Mapsalternativen geht nutze ich aktuell Mapy und bin vollauf zufrieden.

Was du heute kannst besorgen, das verschieb getrotst auf übermorgen!. ~ Karl Hassts oderso

This pic doesn’t include the less active waste and the hulidng materials of the reactor, thus it’s misleadig to claim this is everything that needs to be stored.

Cynic opinion: Once it becomes bad enough the sheeple get punished by the market until they eventually run out of money… the rest of us has most probably a mountain of already bought yet unplayed games at their hard drive.

Wurde ja vermutlich auch nicht für den öffentlichen Erfolg gemacht… sonder eher um den Trump-Clan zu schmieren. Was danach mit dem Produkt passiert ist ja eigentlich egal.

Hängt auch von der Verlässlichkeit des Systems ab… Google Reviews ist dank spezialisierter Anwälte mittlerweile nahezu nutzlos. Hat ein Laden nur 5 Sterne ist das für mich ein Zeichen einen großen Bogen drum zu machen.