@freemo can we get everybody in qoto together to build a country with rationalism, logic, freedom and stem as a foundation?
I came across a Nigerian dude a while back complaining about his government and talking about a possible way to create a new country with a government system from scratch. His idea was to start as an online movement which would attract people of similar values and ideas about how to make governing structures. Then, you put them in a truly anonymous block chain where they can have a "passport" from this digital country and a platform where ideas and plans are made from ground up (using something like ADA/cardano or ICP/dfinity). For example, people can work on the legal infrastructure and other aspects of the country where everybody gets to vote and decisions are settled with smart contracts. All out in the open. Eventually, when sufficient people have joined the system, make a colony in a suitable piece of land (or multiple even in different geographical locations), either on earth or else where. So, you'd build all the values and digital infrastructure first and the actual physical system last.
What do you say?
@zpartacoos @freemo I think a key issue with respect to countries, or collectives of any sort, is the idea of shared values and incentives: from my perspective, a large reason for the seemingly tenuous nature of western countries at the moment is due to the lack of shared beliefs/a value structure for people to align themselves toward.
While you wish to build a country or community on the idea of rationalism and logic, fundamentally there are going to be some values we must accept (and agree on) that may or may not have a provable foundation in a strictly logical sense; thus, they may contradict other rational beliefs (see Godel's incompleteness theorem and its implications). E.g. the current debate over pronouns and the idea of the gender spectrum vs the gender binary. Some would say the spectrum is the only answer and those who disagree are unwelcome in their social circles, and vice-versa. These are both values that can be supported rationally and with sound logic, and either view is ultimately reasonable depending on the axioms you use to justify your position. (Whether or not the axioms are reasonable is a different question, but assuming they are the point as it is stands.) So how would we handle this politically charged, philosophical schism?
I would argue the strict, explicit definition of these values and axioms would be step 1, so individuals could reasonably evaluate if they want to take part in such a system. If this is going to be done democratically, it further stands to reason that people cannot (and should not) be held to standards of offense either at all, or until the standards are finalized. Perhaps an anonymous discussion is in order up front. This allows potential members to hash out difficult topics without fear of retribution for their input, which is critically important for good ideas to gestate.
After this initial process is ironed out (and maybe repeated in the future as things change), I would argue the rest is easy, at least philosophically, though probably not so much in the implementation.
If you don't mind @zpartacoos, I would enjoy helping you put "pen-to-paper" and formalizing some of these ideas. I think this would be at the very least, a fun exercise, regardless of whether or not it bears fruit eventually :)
🇳🇱
I would disagree. Shared values and cultures tend to lead to fewer people being abused, but those people are abused to a much greater extent. The larger the mob the more violent they tend to get. Lots of little mobs may result in more turmoil as they all come up against each other but having smaller numbers means the damage is much less for any one incident.
@freemo @zpartacoos I'd contend it depends on the values. (I agree with your point on mob size though).
If the values are "we respect each individuals right to do what they want with themselves, and whoever they interact with consensually". That is a value that is hard to abuse.
However, there are values which can be abused, and there are behaviors that we may not want happening that fall into that previously mentioned value. Thus the need for debate and determination of what values are reasonable, and which contradictory values need to be in place as exceptions to the general rule.
Example: "don't kill people":
Exception: "unless in self-defense"
And so forth.
Ultimately it may even be a difference between whether the values are affirmative or prohibitory:
"We affirm your right to x,y,z, and anything outside that will be handled on a case-by-case basis."
Or
"Here's what's prohibited, the rest is allowed on a case-by-case basis."
Or some combination thereof.
So ultimately I think it depends on how it's implemented as to whether or not it is easier or harder to abuse, but ultimately any system of authority can be abused. So we either reduce the scope of the authority so the abuse is less damaging, or we hang the abusers without fixing anything like the French lmao.
Yes but those values are generally relative tot he uniformity of the group.
Groups that are highly uniform all sharing the same culture and values tend towards greater xenophobia due to lack of exposure to other cultures. So by their very nature their values will tend more towards xenophobia than mixed groups.
Maybe if you go back to times before society sure... not so much in the modern era.
doing what already works will continue to work until overpopulation occurs. doing anything else is spooky.
reasonable... like I said pre-civilization (which is what your civilization represented) it is a good trait for survival. Post civilization not so much but tends to stick around from our pre-civilization days.
