Quote from: ErisDiscordia on March 11, 2014, 10:05:30 AM

Quote from: octaft on March 11, 2014, 09:40:22 AM

Many would consider what we have to be working, isolated echo chambers aside. For those people, the burden of proof is on YOU on why we should change, and the burden of proof is on YOU on as to why we're wrong, and why we should go through a huge upheaval to meet the desires of a small minority of people.

Please tell me more about how I would go about producing this kind of proof? I hope you don't mean "talk about it"?

Eh, take the word proof out, then. The burden is on you to explain why we should change, and how. I'm seeing a lot of why's. Some I disagree with, some are okay, but absolutely no how's. You can change this by telling us how you envision us making this change as painlessly as possible. How do we get there? These are questions you should be able to answer, being a strong supporter of this idea. It's definitely something you should have put time to thinking about. I'm not asking what works best, because that is information neither of us can provide. What I want to know is what you think will work, but specifically in terms of getting there.

Quote from: ErisDiscordia

Look, guys - octaft and JayJuanGee. I have done this many times and I can see where this is going. You'll be asking me to provide proof that some other system would be better. You will ask me how this other system would work, how it would achieve this or that. And I'll be replying that I do not know, after which you will probably feel like you "won the debate" because I can't produce any counter arguments. When in fact my argument is precisely that I do not know. Neither do you. And that is the reason why none of us should be in charge of all of us. The point is that having one single system is a bad idea. Multiple choices are needed.

You can't provide proof, only opinions. I know that. Just don't try to present them as undeniable, ironclad facts, and we're cool. My contrasts regarding current society and your ideal society are similarly opinions. Why would I want to shut you out, when I want your opinion and ideas (if nothing else out of curiosity and to strengthen my own arguments next time I have this debate). Winning the debate is overrated, all the fun is in the debate, since that's when you learn about how other people think.

Quote from: ErisDiscordia

If I knew how a free and decentralized society would organize itself it would cease being the superior option, because we could just go ahead and do exactly that, right now.[/b] Do you see what I mean? The superior alternative quite obviously is something you and I on our own can't think of, that is why it is superior. You are familiar with the concept of synergy, I presume?

Do what the rest of us are doing, speculate and explain how you think we should go about getting to this point of decentralized society. Pretend we're completely oblivious. How do we get rid of government, and once that happens, what steps do we take to get functioning again? Humans are animals, and like to form tribes. How do you ensure that there's not a bunch of local leaders, or is that sort of thing acceptable? I originally asked where you draw the line, and you never really clarified. Is a sheriff okay? How about a treasurer? Is a leader okay? At what point does this become the government you're trying so hard to oust?