Both are good.
Both serve it's function.
Democracy and Ethereum network is very decentralized. In ethereum network we have software copies to many people. In democracy, we also have similar software.
In ethereum network the clients software vote for the longest chain. In democracy, we may disagree with others' voter, but we sort of agree, or programmed, or indoctrinated, to give legitimacy to those with the most number of votes.
Ethereum network, like democracy, is BULKY. Try running an overwatch game in ethereum network and the whole network would crash.
Hell, someone try to run simple kitty games and the whole network crash.
Not so with Overwatch game. Blizzard, a centralized authority, is nimble. Recently they add new characters. Just like that. No voting. No campaign asking if all customers want that new character. Blizzard can choose to be entertaining, and still have to be entertaining. To be competitive, Blizzard, the "king" of overwatch, have to make smart quick decisions.
Customers and fans can protest, but ultimately the interest of customers are protected by competing products, not by blizzard.
Overwatch aim to be "good" for "some people". Ethereum network aim to be "not bad for anyone"
Blizzard doesn't have to make everyone happy. Most people are not Blizzard customers.
Ethereum, however, have to ensure that no body is treated too unfairly. It has to prevent double spend.
Something as politically significant, like our financial system, should consider being decentralized, like Bitcoin, ethreum, and democracy. Always?
Singapore, Dubai, and Qatar are not democracies. They have centralized government. Yet, they're doing fine. Even big country like China is doing fine. Ethiopian. That country with black people? Now have 10% economic growth. Not sure if it's democracy or not.
However, a centralized government like "a king" also poses it's own problem. We have too many de facto kings, called dictators, making the people suffer.
Why not combine the best of both.
Imagine a few regions governed by centralized corporation like overwatch, while the rest can be decentralized democracy like ethereum network.
The small few regions being centralized will not hurt many people. It's small region. If you don't like that you simply don't go there. What about those already there? There are ways to solve that.
The majority of the states can be decentralized like democracy.
Actually it's not too far off from what we have right now. We got successful democracies. We got successful authoritarian states like Singapore. And you know what. We just need to study and continue the process.
Imagine a small state or provinces turning itself into corporations. Every citizen of that province have 1 share of the corporation. Simple. Now, the corporate province can be more nimble.
It can make decisions fast because it doesn't have to make everyone happy. Any original citizen that doesn't like where the state is going can just leave and keep the share. If it turns out the state is run well, he got dividend.
If you are in France, and you want your country to ban burqha, you don't have to worry about those who don't like it. They probably won't mind. They can just leave and still keep the share. If it turns out it's a good decision, their share price will go up. Then you can invite immigrants that don't like burqha.
It works the other way around. If a country wants to be more islamic, the christians can just leave and keep the share.
The state can go IPO. Get investors. Wanna build a road? Get investors that will now also have power over the state. The investors can build road and now have more voting power to put his own people. Ideal for poor states.
The interest of the people, now called customers, are not protected by voting. It's protected by competition among states. Surely whoever govern the states want the states to be visited by useful immigrants. People that will bring money to the states. People that share value to the state. People that are willing to pay some money to be citizen/share holders for the state.
That people doesn't have to be the same with the shareholder of the state. Not all KFC share holders like chicken. But they know KFC's customers like chicken and can vote based on whether KFC can sell more chicken or not.
Say after that you want to go back to democracy. Fine. Just make a rule that within 5 years, each person can have a maximum 1 share. Large share holders will then invite immigrants that are interested to pay for the share/citizenship. After 5 years, convert each share to citizenship.
Democracy again.
The greatest benefit of this temporary arrangement is that you do not have to make everyone happy for a while.
Think about it. Can people that support islam leave peacefully with people that support freedom of speech? Tough. Support freedom of speech all the way, and they bomb you out. Support respect or religion and you can say goodbye to Charlie Hebdo.
Somebody will always be unhappy. Those people shouldn't live near one another.
A state has to make a choice. It can go secular all the way. It can respect some religions. Or it can compromise. At the end, no body is really happy.
Now turn a province or two into corporation and the problem is solved. A corporation can either go secular all the way, or religious all the way. The one that doesn't like it can just be a consumer of another corporation. That's it. Emigrate out.
This is not a big issue for poor states. Everybody wants to emigrate out of that shithole.
What about a not so poor state or rich state? You can't just tell your fellow citizen to get out if they don't like it. Why should he be the one that gets out? Why not you? He kind of own the state too right?
If we change the citizenship to shares, those who gets out will not feel too bad. He still owns the state and can benefit from it by selling his shares.
See?
Simple ideas.
Both serve it's function.
Democracy and Ethereum network is very decentralized. In ethereum network we have software copies to many people. In democracy, we also have similar software.
In ethereum network the clients software vote for the longest chain. In democracy, we may disagree with others' voter, but we sort of agree, or programmed, or indoctrinated, to give legitimacy to those with the most number of votes.
Ethereum network, like democracy, is BULKY. Try running an overwatch game in ethereum network and the whole network would crash.
Hell, someone try to run simple kitty games and the whole network crash.
Not so with Overwatch game. Blizzard, a centralized authority, is nimble. Recently they add new characters. Just like that. No voting. No campaign asking if all customers want that new character. Blizzard can choose to be entertaining, and still have to be entertaining. To be competitive, Blizzard, the "king" of overwatch, have to make smart quick decisions.
Customers and fans can protest, but ultimately the interest of customers are protected by competing products, not by blizzard.
Overwatch aim to be "good" for "some people". Ethereum network aim to be "not bad for anyone"
Blizzard doesn't have to make everyone happy. Most people are not Blizzard customers.
Ethereum, however, have to ensure that no body is treated too unfairly. It has to prevent double spend.
Something as politically significant, like our financial system, should consider being decentralized, like Bitcoin, ethreum, and democracy. Always?
Singapore, Dubai, and Qatar are not democracies. They have centralized government. Yet, they're doing fine. Even big country like China is doing fine. Ethiopian. That country with black people? Now have 10% economic growth. Not sure if it's democracy or not.
However, a centralized government like "a king" also poses it's own problem. We have too many de facto kings, called dictators, making the people suffer.
Why not combine the best of both.
Imagine a few regions governed by centralized corporation like overwatch, while the rest can be decentralized democracy like ethereum network.
The small few regions being centralized will not hurt many people. It's small region. If you don't like that you simply don't go there. What about those already there? There are ways to solve that.
The majority of the states can be decentralized like democracy.
Actually it's not too far off from what we have right now. We got successful democracies. We got successful authoritarian states like Singapore. And you know what. We just need to study and continue the process.
Imagine a small state or provinces turning itself into corporations. Every citizen of that province have 1 share of the corporation. Simple. Now, the corporate province can be more nimble.
It can make decisions fast because it doesn't have to make everyone happy. Any original citizen that doesn't like where the state is going can just leave and keep the share. If it turns out the state is run well, he got dividend.
If you are in France, and you want your country to ban burqha, you don't have to worry about those who don't like it. They probably won't mind. They can just leave and still keep the share. If it turns out it's a good decision, their share price will go up. Then you can invite immigrants that don't like burqha.
It works the other way around. If a country wants to be more islamic, the christians can just leave and keep the share.
The state can go IPO. Get investors. Wanna build a road? Get investors that will now also have power over the state. The investors can build road and now have more voting power to put his own people. Ideal for poor states.
The interest of the people, now called customers, are not protected by voting. It's protected by competition among states. Surely whoever govern the states want the states to be visited by useful immigrants. People that will bring money to the states. People that share value to the state. People that are willing to pay some money to be citizen/share holders for the state.
That people doesn't have to be the same with the shareholder of the state. Not all KFC share holders like chicken. But they know KFC's customers like chicken and can vote based on whether KFC can sell more chicken or not.
Say after that you want to go back to democracy. Fine. Just make a rule that within 5 years, each person can have a maximum 1 share. Large share holders will then invite immigrants that are interested to pay for the share/citizenship. After 5 years, convert each share to citizenship.
Democracy again.
The greatest benefit of this temporary arrangement is that you do not have to make everyone happy for a while.
Think about it. Can people that support islam leave peacefully with people that support freedom of speech? Tough. Support freedom of speech all the way, and they bomb you out. Support respect or religion and you can say goodbye to Charlie Hebdo.
Somebody will always be unhappy. Those people shouldn't live near one another.
A state has to make a choice. It can go secular all the way. It can respect some religions. Or it can compromise. At the end, no body is really happy.
Now turn a province or two into corporation and the problem is solved. A corporation can either go secular all the way, or religious all the way. The one that doesn't like it can just be a consumer of another corporation. That's it. Emigrate out.
This is not a big issue for poor states. Everybody wants to emigrate out of that shithole.
What about a not so poor state or rich state? You can't just tell your fellow citizen to get out if they don't like it. Why should he be the one that gets out? Why not you? He kind of own the state too right?
If we change the citizenship to shares, those who gets out will not feel too bad. He still owns the state and can benefit from it by selling his shares.
See?
Simple ideas.
