Let's start with the chaos part. You say that "when there are no rules, chaos will arise". However, my dear 1miau, let's first remember what chaos is. And the simplest definition of chaos is that it represents "the perfect disorder". It's a disorder so well organized that you can see an order inside it. Does that make any sense? So, if chaos is a perfectly ordered disorder, what is the order? It is the cause of disorder. For example, we can say that the Universe, in its continuous expansion, it's just a combination of progressive disorder. But this disorder, as it expands itself, creates new orders and each of these orders can be identified with the initial order. So even inside chaos, which is disorder in its pure form, order is created. Therefore why would it be so bad for chaos to arise? All disorders will lead to new orders, in the future...
What our Universe looked like in the most early days is a very great analogy. From what science knows, it has been extremely chaotic. But could we have lived in such an environment? Very unlikely
As most of the dust had settleted down, galaxies emerged, it still took a very long time until our solar system came into existance.
And after a long time, our planet finally got habitable. To reach that point, most of the chaos needed to be settled.
Its similar to Bitcoin as a great example how to settle a space formerly known for chaos (or at least failed (but still important attempts or researches) like from Chaum) or we can also take our DT system to a lesser degree. It settled down chaos (scammers) and theres a set of rules and these rules / DT1 members can be changed by the community if theres consensus to do so.
Let's imagine an overcrowded shop before Christmas, where no employees are available to lead customers to the section they seek for buying whatever gifts they want to buy. Now let's imagine all those people storming the shop, like ants. What will happen?
As someone living in a capitalist country, I believe we should arrange the shop like that, to make them buy the most expensive products and more than they wanted to buy. Its called product placement.
Just a joke, sorry.
What do you think would happen to Elon Musk if such a society would actually exist? Wouldn't it be full of negative feedbacks and excluded by most people from their web of trust?
It's not unlikely that Elon Musk would end up as pirateat40 or be someone who's running 1xbit. Regarding governs / governing mechanisms:
As franky 1 has explained already very well, we should try to get an understanding of governs / governing mechanisms / government / governance and consensus.
Im more used to it to understand "govern" as a verb ("to govern"). At least for our article, Im referring to "governance" from lat gubernare, which can be applied to a nation state, a community, a sports club, a company, a protocol and so many more. Governance can be achieved in many ways and one important part of governance is to act accoring a consensus.
This consensus should be as fair as possible and involving everyone whos affected by it. Its not easy to do it and some people might consider authoritarian governances more efficient but efficient is not everything: Its efficient vs. fair.
Im in favor of a fair governance instead of an efficient one. Yes, an efficient one might have advantages but also disadvantages.
Bitcoin is efficient and fair, so its already a very special form of governance and I would of course agree to it to call it a fair governance.
Maybe Im just too focussed on Bitcoins tech but thats what so fascinating about Bitcoin. Its a special form of governance itself.
To extend this a bit, maybe we can elaborate our current DT system. As youve explained, creating trust is essential here on Bitcointalk because (almost) everyone here is an anonymous actor. Scamming is quite easy because scammers can run away easily. So, we need to evaluate, whos trustworthy to avoid getting scammed. Very early in Bitcointalks history, the community agreed to follow a member-based reputation system.
That worked well many years but it was very centralized because DT1 members were picked by theymos.
Some trolls compained that DT is just beneficial "for the elites of the forum" and that some DT members would abuse governance.
But still, DT has been very centralized and in 2019, theymos decided to improve DT by making changes, to make it more fair. Each Bitcointalk member could vote DT1 members in or out via their own trust list.
DT got much more decentralized which also enabled more scammers to get into DT because a vaccum of power always gets abused but overally, making DT more decentralized has been a success in my opinion because changes were evaluated diligently.
So, any opinions on what DT system you would favor?
- DT before 2019 changes
- DT after 2019 changes
I would go for a DT after 2019 changes because its more fair, more inclusive. More members can participate and be part of DT decisions.
So, yes, we should try analyze whats a good (fair) governance and whats a bad (closed) governance and we should try to support and improve the good (fair) governance. We should not oppose a governance itself because it will be replaced by someone powerful trying to seize any vacuum of power.
So, we need to make any system resistant against abuse itself and Bitcoin is achieving that, Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.
A similar issue will come up if we look at PoW vs. PoS. We can take Polkadot, for example, where dPoS (delegated PoS) is used. Polkadots inflation is 10% per year and these inflation coins will go to stakers, which are already rich and will make them even richer. In dPoS such rich stakers will be able to consolidate their power, which will lead to a massive centralization over time. Rich stakers will be able to abuse it. I'm sure we'll get a big discussion around it some time later, maybe in 2 - 5 years.
So what happens in the end, to those people which are not led by any employee (obviously, they represent the society without a govern)?
I'm not quite sure of your understanding of govern. Sure, the customers don't need an employee to lead them, or push them onto his suggestions; they know to walk around the shop, and they should have the freedom to do so... as long as they don't intervene into their nearby fellows. If you don't have governing, you can't effectively discourage someone from breaking the law likewise.