Re: A mathematical, non-corruptable, algorithmic, democratic and free system of government and society

[Jean Louis]

* Andrew Yu via libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> 
[2022-01-21 18:18]:
> Good idea.  I use the Guix package manager on my system.  I've tried
> Guix System, but there was a problem---Guix is still heavily integrated
> with UNIX-like operating systems (GNU/Linux), where everything is
> supposed to be a file in specific locations.  How /gnu/store and Guix
> profiles work causes insane compatibility and maintainance issues in
> UNIX-like systems.

My impression on Guix is quite contrary as /gnu/store is installed on
any compatible hardware such as x86_64, i686, armhf, aarch64, and
powerpc64le, see: https://guix.gnu.org/en/download/

Guix as package manager may be run as separate system on the host
system. So as long as hardware is compatible, your Guix as guest
system will be compatible.

Maintenance issues are actually minimized, I cannot see what you
see. Guix is everything but not causing insane compatibility and
maintenance issues.

If you have any real issue, report it to Guix bug trucker.

> As far as I know, Guix is written in Scheme, a dialect of Lisp.  It may
> be a good idea to implement a fork of it in
> http://metamodular.com/Common-Lisp/lispos.html.

I would like to see that for reason that I know Common Lisp so much
better than Scheme, though there are technical advantages for scheme
and GNU Guile in particular. If you ask me I would like GNU Emacs to
run as PID 1 hanling all other processes.

> We might use Lisp machines instead of poorly designed modern
> processor architecture, utilizing functional programming to a great
> extent.  (Or Haskell, but that's not the point lol)

Yes, please. Show us. Though so much work has been put in Guix, why
simple not improve the existing OS?

> > The way I look at the issue, though, is that the problem is with Statist
> > society in general. Hierarchical societies are not natural for humans,
> > so I maintain. I like GNU for its American sort of approach to this. I
> > don't share a lot of American culture, but GNU reminds me of Henry David
> > Thoreau's famous epithet: "the best government is that which governs
> > least of all, that is to say: not at all".
> 
> What a government should do is a crucial question to be discussed in
> this project.  I believe that the government must keep some control over
> people.  Life is a sacrifice between (protection and liberty) => freedom.
> Please take a look at my notes below.

Oh my. Of course, we are all either individualists or collectivists. 

https://opinionfront.com/individualism-vs-collectivism

But OK, I don't mind, as I am aware that society is full of robots,
prisoners who wish to become prisoners' ward. And so it goes. 

> > I come from an anarcho-communist approach. Perhaps we should have a
> > discussion about attracting attention to the radical elements of GNU--we
> > could convince people to join on that basis?
> 
> I live in China, with communism.  Not going to comment here.  I'd be
> willing to discuss that in private, though.  My OpenPGP key is
> https://www.andrewyu.org/andrew.asc.

Ahahaha you see, government is keeping control over you.

> Definitely understandable, but consider two simple problems:
> 
> 1.  What if, in an anarchy, people get murdered?  Is that okay?

It is not okay.

Freedom is easy, do whatever you wish but don't force other people to
do it. If we all follow that simple principle, we would not have any
troubles. Create agreements and do it with people in agreement.

> 2.  Are people in the anarchy free to setup a dictatorship, with guns
>     and cannons?  Is this power limited?  If it is, how is this an
>     anarchy?

I find anarchy represents freedom. Anarchy means that above, do what
you wish, but don't force others.

As soon as you start forcing others to do anything, that is
government.

We don't need governments, we need consciousness.

> > Society should be, so we say, directly democratic. That is, the people
> > who are affected by decisions should be the ones making them. People
> > in houses should be the ones controlling them. People who work should
> > should be the ones who decide how and why that work is done.

That does not work, as that is manipulated and controlled by few. 

In companies people don't accept any staff members, right? So they ask
for qualifications of staff members, as such people have to have
specific skills, knowledge, experience, analytical capabilities.

In direct democracy, which never truly existed in history by the way,
people are asked to decide about things they have no adequate
knowledge.

> Another problem:  it's hard to keep up educating people on things that
> affect them.  Few people are good at all of: economics, environmental
> protection, mathematics, political science, psychology, and all other
> things that must be considered while running a country.  We may be able
> to work out this education, not in the forseeable future, but a good
> idea nevertheless.  Ancient Greece (especially Athens) is
> democratic,

That is one way of looking at it, but when you look into facts it was
never truly democratic. For example women were not allowed to
vote. How is that democracy? Were women not "demos" or volk, people?!

> but people who can't make good military/diplomatic decisions
> partially caused its war with Sparta and subsequently its fall.

Which proves we shall learn from animals.  It also proves insanity in
humanity.

> We have representative democracy,

We have illusions under which we live with purpose to keep being
controlled by those in charge. There is no such thing as
"representative democracy", the term itself is fully corrupted. But
let us live the illusion.

> not only because direct democracy doesn't scale (this could be
> overcome with blockchains and decentralized networking), it's also

It could scale. I don't vouch for democracy. But it is easy to
scale. Give me example of decision to be made and I will let you know
how. If you wish to make a road in specific village, so ask
villagers. Why it would not scale? It is quite easy to do that.

> because the people don't make the best decisions in the long term.

Because majority want to live a life and are not qualified to improve
humanity. Teaching them is worth.

> Of course, modern decisions require knowledge from multiple "fields".
> As much as we are trying to understand everything in the world, we
> cannot (proof needed, intuition used).  Currently, people just work
> together (or fight with each other, allowed by bugs in political
> systems).

Currently? Or always was so?

> For reasons not to be discussed in this brief email, humans
> communicate with each other much less efficiently than when we are
> thinking by ourselves, assuming the combined set of knowledge is the
> same.  Rethinking collaboration is needed.

That is right, with more communication we would be such better greater
civilization.

> However, as a result of elections in representative democracy,
> politicians' goal in mind is to win the next election to get sweet
> money.  Elected?  Sure, just do everything promised, then sit in wage
> and bribes and relax doing nothing at all for the people.  Just make
> sure the people who elected you are pleased and get reelected and get
> money.  This must be overcome.

Yes, by raising awareness.

> Before we get rid of money entirely, the easiest way to do that
> would be to pay politicians by their performance (which would be
> hard to measure), not to give them a fixed/slightly-variable wage.

Money is not bad. But you have to get rid of banks, not money. Banks
which create money out of thing air are controlling the planet. But
money as such, like gold or silver, platinum, use it, it is not
bad. Just tell to world not to lie that money is there while it is
not.

> Maybe a system where everybody voices their opinion would work.

That is always good idea.

But as of 2021 we live in system where we can voice our opinion so
much less than in 2020, and so much less than in 2019. So I don't know
where this leads.

> We create a distributed network (e.g. a blockchain) (assuming people
> have computers, and that RSA hasn't been cracked yet or there's an
> alternative algorithm) that stores the reputation of each person's
> thoughts in a specific field, and their voices are taken more with a
> higher reputation, kind of like how Stack Exchange/Stack Overflow
> works, but distributed (avoiding a central authority which may
> become corrupt).

It will never work. 

Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/