@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 7 months agoSteve Balmer quotesinfosec.pubimagemessage-square262fedilinkarrow-up11.39Karrow-down138
arrow-up11.36Karrow-down1imageSteve Balmer quotesinfosec.pub@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 7 months agomessage-square262fedilink
minus-squareoce 🐆linkfedilink25•7 months agoAnarchy is not absence of rules, it’s absence of hierarchy. So you could still collectively agree to certain rules for merges.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish0•7 months agoBut then one person disagree with those rules and we’re back to no rules
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink0•7 months agoWhich is not a collective agreement and not anarchism, if it imposes rules on those who voted against.
minus-squareoce 🐆linkfedilink1•7 months agoIs it not possible for the people to all agree to respect the result of the majority vote even if they voted against the motion?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•7 months agoWhich can be broken at any moment, and no infant is bound by it until they accept it, and they have the choice of not accepting it. Expecting some aliens to bring us the end of scarcity is similar to this in terms of probabilities.
Anarchy is not absence of rules, it’s absence of hierarchy. So you could still collectively agree to certain rules for merges.
Basicaly democracy on steroids
So we could use a blockchain… (/s)
But then one person disagree with those rules and we’re back to no rules
You can have a majority vote system.
Which is not a collective agreement and not anarchism, if it imposes rules on those who voted against.
Is it not possible for the people to all agree to respect the result of the majority vote even if they voted against the motion?
Which requires a consensus.
An initial one.
Which can be broken at any moment, and no infant is bound by it until they accept it, and they have the choice of not accepting it.
Expecting some aliens to bring us the end of scarcity is similar to this in terms of probabilities.