Quote from: billyjoeallen on April 16, 2014, 02:11:26 AM

Quote from: Mervyn_Pumpkinhead on April 16, 2014, 01:19:12 AM

If Greenspan gave the power to the private sector, then it's logical that those who are at the top of the private sector have the the most important vote on things.

They have the most important vote on things now. Who do you think vets the candidates for high office? Who do you think funds campaigns? A State is by it's very nature a monopoly on aggressive force. Governments always and everywhere serve to concentrate power in the hands of the already powerful. Even democracy by it's very nature is the dominance of the minority by the majority.

There can be no stable distribution of power with the existence of a monopoly of initiatory violence. Everybody struggles for control of the monopoly and the people with the most resources and power almost always win. Even when they lose, the loss is only temporary or new oligarchs move in.

They only stable long term viable solution is to distribute governance. Decentralize. Concentrated power is bad no matter who has it. It corrupts when it it not possessed by the already corrupt.

I think that it's very hard to decentralize power because of human nature. If you put 10 people together to do a task, then soon nature will do it's thing and some will automaticly lead and some will follow. I think that the main key here would be to block options, where people could obtain power not by natural selection, but by deception. Violence is also strongly rooted in human nature and it takes a good violent person to be able to take down a bad violent person. I think that the main key here is to root out general corruption and to nurture virtues.
I have had an idea that it would be great if there would be a system where academic accomplishes would actualy give different people different rights to vote on different choices, that the government has to make. The internet could actually enable this method to be efficient enough. You needed more centralization before the age of internet, because you can imagine the inefficiency when an interviewer would have to visit people door to door, just to get their votes on different everyday subjects. But with the internet this could actually work. It would be great if you could concentrate the smartest people on every subject and let them make the best informed decisions possible on the subject they know best.