Stupid Is, Stupid Votes
Apr 30, 2020
I volunteer that the unmitigated Dunning-Kruger effect is the probably most devastating force acting upon humanity, ever; and I mean ever. The damage wrought by the typical simple-minded self-vindicating troglodytes as they fumble through life, stomping out their entitlement tantrums, and blindly assembling into veritable armies fulcrumed on fake-news/passion-based Schelling points, leads the rest of humanity into ever more peril.
It is because of the troglodytes' overwhelming majority, and our unwillingness to confront their negative influence because of some perpetual misguided PC-placation mantra, that we find civilization slipping further away from the ideal of the pursuit of knowledge and quality of life for everyone, into this massive slavery machine we can't escape from. Troglodytes break EVERYTHING that's good about humanity and reduces it to tribal Lord of the Flies village politics. Primitive. Stifling human progress. And I've had enough of passively getting steamrolled by their ignorance.
That's not to say we don't all start as troglodytes, but those that have surpassed this phase of maturing understand the irony and depth of:
"The more you know, the more you know you don't know." - not Aristotle
It's human nature that we all start off believing we know everything and believe we are smarter than most everyone, but like backing into your own fart, you eventually realize that maybe, just maybe, your shit stinks too.
Disclosure: Most of you will pretty much hate me after this read, which is fine, because I pretty much hate most of humanity anyways. But if you're going to read this, at least do me the service of reading it to the end before you finalize your reaction and lose your shit on me. I try to cover most people's interpretations that are usually based on very bad assumptions they've made.
How many of you have the talent to work for SpaceX as a rocket engineer? Could you imagine picking 100 random people off the street, have them apply for a SpaceX engineering role, and someone would be hired because they wore red shoes?
How about getting into a reputable college? Would you think it makes sense to only accept a subset of high school grads based on their height?
How about even choosing a babysitter? Just grab the first vagrant off the street?
Even more primordial, imagine if marriage was just random. Two names picked out of a hat, go, make babies.
Things like this are never going to happen.
Virtually everything we do involves some sort of 'judgement' of a person's fitness for a given scenario. This is rational, because if everyone was treated equally for everything, nothing would work! Would you get in a jet designed by high school students? Would you get in an Uber driven by a convicted serial killer? Would you go to a doctor that works out of their hair salon? Of course not. It's societal Darwinism to a T.
Sure, there's the obvious scourge of corruption that heavily skews all examples of supposedly 'fair' judgement. It's human nature to lie, cheat, steal, nepotism, etc. Yes, it's an imperfect world, and all of us deal with these injustices every day, but you have to agree that you can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. In other words:
No amount of corruption is going to justify removing all criteria for evaluating people for whatever purpose is being pursued.
The degree in which someone is judged is usually related to how important/complex the purpose being pursued is. For example, ditch digging isn't necessarily complicated so it can be pretty forgiving in requirements, but still, you need to be able to dig, right? Not everyone in the world can dig for any number of reasons. On the other end of the spectrum, being a neurosurgeon has some of the most demanding requirements imaginable, requiring many years of specialized training, and the intelligence to even have this capacity, much less the motivation to be a positive force for humanity. Very few people could ever accomplish this prestigious role. This all means:
The more important/complex a role is, the more qualifications it requires to be done right.
I challenge anyone to logically dismiss the above statement. I'll fucking wait not really.
Qualifications are the centerpiece of one's ability to navigate this world. It's particularly humbling at times, and infuriating to those that can't see the justifications behind the need for qualifications, but there's very few things worth having in life that doesn't involve 'earning' the privilege for it.
How many times have you crossed paths with someone that appears to be a full-grown adult, and yet the gibberish that comes out of their mouth would suggest the mental age of someone much younger/immature? For me, every goddam day, a ceaseless train of lizard-brain 5G-mast-burning anti-vaxx Gates-chipped Bilderberg-oppressed alien-anally-probed immortality-seeking flat-Earther Covid-denying fake-news-regurgitating lunatics talking out of their asses. Their primal entitlement instincts erupting in a blasphemy of pseudo-logic and mindless dot-connecting, mixed with tribal taunting and smarmy shame manipulation tactics should you question their firm grip on reality. They perceive their world 'facts' as verified by popularity, and defending of those facts as their mission at all costs, particularly integrity.
Chronological (birthday) age is NOT a reliable indicator of maturity or capacity for knowledge. Many people hit a premature maturity peak and never move beyond, perpetually stuck at a stunted mental age not reflective of their physical age. Some are perpetual children, some perpetual teenagers, etc. On the other side, some gifted individuals are much wiser than their age would suggest.
The misguided notion that someone has the right to vote, THE MOST IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY WE'LL EVER HAVE, simply because of some absurd black/white qualification that they reach a specific age, ignores just how meaningless age is as a measure of voting fitness, and is an insult to our capacity to justly evaluate a person's quality of vote, even though for EVERY OTHER ASPECT IN LIFE WE SEE FIT TO MEASURE PEOPLE!
Imagine a room with 30 very respectable intelligent caring people; doctors, scientists, professors, etc. Also there's 70 children that look like adults in the room, and finally a huge pile of gold that belongs to everyone. Everyone's chatting, doing their thing, happy that their gold is safe, but they want to make sure it stays that way so they decide to elect a guardian. One member from the adults steps up as a candidate, as does one of the man-children (who has been fantasizing about all the toys they could buy with that gold). The adult candidate promises to study the problem and provide the best solution possible, the child candidate promises ice cream for everyone. Who will win?
Even-weight democracy is nothing more than ego-placating horseshit. It's not 'fairer' when the smart vote is outweighed by a bunch of dumb kids in adults bodies, it's not a human 'right' (even though it's been pitched to you as such), it's certainly not effective in determining the best candidate (though I do love ice cream), and most importantly, it does nothing to evenly represent the true best interests of many of the voters that would rather stuff their faces with ice cream than perhaps having great education opportunities for their children.
This even-weight vote perversion is a clear violation of the way an efficient system is supposed to work. It's a story told to you to make you feel important so that you'll 'fight' to keep your vote, and nothing makes the con artist candidate leaders happier than to know that the majority of voters are easily-mindfucked idiots, thus the best con artists are elected every time and they exploit their roles to enrich/empower themselves and their already-rich cronies, while you continue to go to work every day in a pointless existence just so you can buy your fucking ice cream. That's your precious even-weight garbage democracy at work; well done.
As usual, I totally agree with you Galgitron, but what are we to do??
Few things are more important than having intelligent, educated, empathic leaders. The decisions made by leaders influence every single person's life. In a perfect world, all voters would have the ability to 'judge' a great leader by these merits and Darwinism would fulfill its function to surface the best candidates. But that doesn't exist in reality, does it?
What I present is a thought experiment on a weighted-vote democracy. This is NOT a social structure like capitalism, socialism, communism, dictatorship, etc. This is just a system to elect the best leaders possible, so THEY can create the NEXT social structure from scratch. Much more than a meritocracy, because it's not just about the credentials of leaders, it's also about the credentials of the voters; a "meritdemocracy". It LEADS to a social system of the likes we've never seen before because it so intentionally focuses on addressing corruption, unlike every other 'ideal' society that's ever been conceived yet never succeeded in purity because they always deny the reality of the inevitable corruption that plagues all known forms of government. So take a step back from insta-labeling like everyone loves to do, and pay attention to what I'm trying to accomplish. Ready?
What I'm trying to accomplish
All systems of human governance are rife with corruption and cronyism. I don't have the answer to this problem; I really don't. Let me say it another way, I have no idea what system of human governance would be best for us. Many people myopically try to shoehorn potential fixes into capitalism, socialism, communism, etc., believing that these are the only options, but there may be some system we haven't been able to implement yet because the technology didn't exist to make it work, or that we're still too primitive overall to conceive. For now, let's just call such an ideal civilization "Blahblahblah".
I won't even attempt to try to define the social structure Blahblahblah because really, it's just too complex! There's a billion parameters to consider, and it's a constantly moving target that needs to evolve with our growing knowledge and technology. No, I'm not trying to create a new capitalism. I'm not trying to create a new socialism. I'm not trying to create a new communism. I am not trying to define any social structure at all. Please get that through your head. These 'labels' impose preconceived notions that render you incapable of seeing the whole picture, keeping you limited and hostile.
I am trying to put the right trustworthy people in leadership roles so THEY can develop and lead us into Blahblahblah
If these people are in control, then they and their teams will guide the evolution of civilization in a manner that's best for all. I can't remotely predict what Blahblahblah would be like. Would there still be free markets? Would there still be welfare? I don't have these answers because logically I am not omnipotent even though I'm convinced I am.
We have a few things to sort out:
- What makes someone the right person to be in control?
I'll repeat what I believe that the core elements of a great leader:
The Leadership Quality Trifecta
Pillar of Intelligence: Easily measured by standardized IQ testing, but can be augmented with non-contemporary intelligence measures such as physical/creative abilities, etc. Also, what's the caliber of what they've produced in their lives?
Pillar of Education: What level of formal education they've accomplished, life skills they've acquired, roles they've filled, diversity of their past, their travels, their research, etc. Anything that contributes to their knowledge-base so they have the wisdom to rule effectively.
Pillar of Empathy: How have they treated their fellow humans? Are they charitable? Do they recognize all people to be of equal worth, or do they subscribe to 'only the fittest shall survive?' Is every act of generosity just for show?
By far, the Pillar of Empathy is the most important aspect of a leader. Empathy is the substrate upon which compassion, integrity, dignity, all originate. Without empathy, there are only psychotics. This is the anti-corruption element that stands between benevolent leadership, and the tyrannical greed/corruption that we endlessly suffer today. Evaluation of a candidate leader's level of empathy will require incredible wisdom and the ability to understand what makes people tick, which is a rare skill that most people can't begin to formulate.
- How do we measure the success of whatever system they create?
Honestly, that's the biggest challenge of all. You could say happiness of the masses, but a population of heroin addicts would spoil that test. You could say the productivity of the masses, but is simple productivity the greatest that humanity can be? You could say the degree of equal opportunity for the masses, but staging that possibility for everyone when maybe only a fraction capitalize on it may be a massive burden. You could say the rate of discovery of new sciences, technologies, space exploration, etc, but that would only address a small fraction of the population's needs. Maybe all of these are the answer. Maybe none of them.
So what could possibly be the means by which to measure the success of whatever civilization emerges from a meritdemocracy? Frankly, I'd want the leaders to define that, because that's essentially why we're empowering them to lead in the first place; to define our purpose.
- How do we make sure that they get elected?
This is the meat and potatoes of this entire model. The very same Leadership Quality Trifecta is applied to everyone that wishes to vote. Yes, you need to develop your scores in all three categories, over the course of your lifetime. To exemplify, let's say you get a score from 0 to 10 on each pillar. Your scores are multiplied together to get your overall voting weight up to a maximum of 1000 points. The idea being that the people with the best ability to determine the best candidates for the Leadership Quality Trifecta, should themselves exhibit those traits.
Some examples with completely fabricated and very loosely chosen numbers for demonstration purposes so don't ride my ass if you don't like the numbers:
Highly-intelligent RICHIE-RICH Harvard-educated Winklevoss psychopath: 8 for Intelligence, 9 for Education, 1 for Empathy = 8 x 9 x 1 = 72 voting weight
College-educated tradesman that coaches little league: 6 for Intelligence, 7 for education, 8 for empathy = 6 x 7 x 8 = 336 voting weight (eat shit Winklevoss)
High-school dropout successful businesswoman all about money: 8 for Intelligence, 7 for education (world experience counts), 4 for empathy = 8 x 7 x 4 = 224 (eat shit Winklevoss)
Dog-beating alcoholic perpetually on welfare, massive gun collection: 2 for intelligence, 3 for education, 0 for empathy = not even on the radar and has ZERO impact on the future of humanity. Perfect.
Groundbreaking Neurosurgeon, Cambridge-educated cum laude, spent 10 years in Congo treating child combatant injuries. Perfect 10s across the board; 1000 voting weight. Even I would fuck this guy, and I'm straight.
Mad Scientist Mensa Introvert: 10 for Intelligence, 10 for Education, 1 for Empathy. 100 voting weight. Don't think for a second that anyone escapes the empathy requirement, no matter how smart they are, so keep your Simpsons Mensa GIFs to yourself.
Man-child with world's largest photo collection of ancient Martian architecture, has been to the original Atlantis, photoshops horns on every Bill Gates picture, Illuminati tattoos, would burn a 5G mast tower if they knew what one was. zero. zero. zero.
See where I'm going with this? There's never been anything like this ever.
Surely your head is spinning with all the complexities involved. the privacy issues, the potential for abuses, etc., and it just seems impossible to have such a fair measurement system that still gives people control of their lives right? How could we possibly not only assemble all the datapoints necessary to create a scoring system, but to verify and calibrate all this information into something homogeneous and practical? It's insane!!
How insane though? How extensive was your background check the last time you applied for a job? Full-on resume verification. References check. Criminal background check. Credit check even. As crazy and insane as it might sound for all I'm proposing for qualifying you for your voting weight, WE ALREADY DO IT!! I'm not inventing anything new.
But truthfully, the scale of data involved in such a non-aristocratic weighted-vote system is the reason it has never emerged. The technology to make such a fantasy-like meritdemocracy feasible has never existed..
- How would we implement this system?
Blockchain (I know, FINALLY) is the goto tech today, but just something decentralized that can keep immutable records of people's pillar scores is one possibility. DeFi and other decentralized computing paradigms are most critical to the realization of corruption amelioration, at least to the degree technology can help. Cryptocurrencies have revealed their promise, but also their shortcomings as we clearly see many scams on the backs of crypto, so it itself isn't the corruption panacea, but decentralized oracles and contracts could very well pave the way to this opportunity.
Imagine it's your civic duty to evaluate people you know on this blockchain. Imagine all educational institutions and employers also evaluating you. It could all be done in a manner that you may choose to conceal or reveal your rating of others, or your own rating, much like how you can choose who sees your resume or not, so it won't be something sitting visible on public record that everyone can hold against you. But when it comes time to vote, you'll have your weight assessed.
In case you're wondering, you can't for example just pay a bunch of people to give you a high empathy score because the people that can give you a meaningful empathy rating must 'also' have a meaningful empathy rating, and they're obviously not going to sell their integrity to the likes of you. You can't expect to get through life without revealing your true character to those around you, and the second you start showing your slippery snakiness, those with true high empathy scores are going to mark you up like a monster; and no amount of paying other corrupt people to help your score is going to outweigh the legitimately empathic people's evaluation of you.
- How do we transition to this system?
The first reaction most people have is, it will be impossible to change the way things are done today. Absolutely true, but that's not the approach. What I propose is one small town be created anywhere in the world, and people that want to try out this weighted vote system are welcome to give it a shot. Over time, the kinks can be worked out, the technology optimized, and the benefits/pitfalls will be revealed. If it becomes obvious that a weighted-vote democracy produces a better social structure that at some level could be measured by the willingness of its citizens to remain there, then it can be expanded, and over time with continued expansion, potentially supplant our ancient and corrupt feudal systems of governance. If it fails, then we abandon it. Can't hurt to try it out, right?
And now from the peanut gallery:
So you're taking the vote away from the poor and uneducated?
So dramatic and full of assumptions.. First off, there's nothing about poor that affects their score, unless of course you're trying to claim poor people are uneducated, which may have a strong correlation in existing systems, but this isn't about FIXING an EXISTING system! It's about starting over and creating Blahblahblah. If you start a small town with a weighted vote, and the leaders see people struggling with finances or education, there'll be a response to it. I don't know what it could be, but the point is, the best humanist minds will be making those decisions. It's doubtful that the poor and uneducated would EVER be unrepresented simply because the empathic parameter will be very high in elected leaders. This is the entire point of the weighted vote, to put the right people in power for everyone.
Who decided that you could be leader?
Huh? Whut? What part of any of this puts me in a leadership role? I'm an architect, not a leader. I don't want to be a leader, like zero interest. I'm WAAAAAAY too much of an asshole for that kind of role. You might think I'm such an egomaniac that I'd want to rule the world, but it's precisely BECAUSE I'm such an egomaniac that I don't need to. Oh sure, I could be a nicer person and actually be respectful once in a while, but I don't, and won't, because I'd be lying, so obviously my empathy score would be quite abysmal, making my voting strength rather weak, and also making my chances of ever being elected a leader virtually impossible. Even I wouldn't vote for me. See, this weighted-vote system works!
Weighted votes can be gamed!
And I expect it to be, but as I stated earlier, and with which you can't logically disagree,
No amount of corruption is going to justify removing all criteria for evaluating people for whatever purpose is being pursued.
Yes, it will be sloppy at first, probably taking many generations to become optimal, but it's an inevitable progression, so rather than let the likes of Facebook dictate your self-worth, let's crowdsource an approach to measuring someone's voting fitness, which is again, the single most important responsibility we have, and shouldn't be left to the monkeys to destroy the point of.
Ironically, the even-weight voting system is the most gamed of them all, capitalizing on the ignorance of the masses to appeal to their ice cream quick-fixes while the larger agenda of intelligently running a country doesn't factor into their decision-making process. In fact, the US is already moderately a weighted vote with the collegiate vote attempting to offset the 'dumb' vote, so don't think I'm introducing anything new here.
Your a communist!!!
You're the reason I'm writing this.
This is just a reversion to the old aristocratic system where the rich rule while the poor have no representation!
Absolutely 100% incorrect; it's the EXACT opposite. Read from the top, you missed everything after Stupid
This system only represents those with high-weight voting scores
Yes, yes it does; that's the point. This is why the 'empathy' element is the most important aspect, because this will prevent a concentration on greed and exploitation. If anything, the children in adults' bodies will be better represented for, than if they voted for ice cream.
You expect all these people with limited voting rights to trust this system?
Do these people not have to trust someone in all types of social systems? What's the difference? Do you really trust them to know what's best for humanity? Or even themselves? Do we give them a sympathy vote so they don't feel left out of the most important decision ever?
Tough fact: There are many people that are too stupid and ultimately reckless to have a meaningful vote, or to even know what's truly in their best interest, and their unqualified vote damages the efficacy of the democratic process. If the 'right' people get elected to power via a meritdemocracy, it will be because they are trustworthy, vetted by the best of our population that don't fall for ice-cream parlor tricks or smooth-talking. That's what this weighted-voting system accomplishes that primitive even-weight voting doesn't. Finally, ultimately, a system manifesting from a focus on determining trustworthy leaders, instead of unattainable ideals that pretend corruption doesn't exist.
How do you know what's best for humanity?
I don't. Not a clue. I could throw some ideas out there what Blahblahblah might be, but why? Anything I say would just be a fragment of a fragment of a problem much larger than me. That's why it's important that the right people get elected so THEY can determine what's best for humanity, and the only way to accomplish that is to give more influence to the right voters.
Who are you or anybody else to decide my voting rights?!
For the most part, YOU decide your voting rights. In a meritdemocracy, your choices, capabilities, and actions in life decide the measure of your voting rights; nobody does that for or to you. The only right we should have (and don't currently have today) is the right to a decent quality of life, without being exploited, without hurting others. Maybe step up and earn the 'privilege', nay DUTY, to meaningfully influence the future of humanity. In other words, if you don't have the qualifications to decide quality leadership, move out of the way for those that do.
I will fight for my right to vote!
Nobody gives a shit about your right to own an AK-47 penis-compensator, jackass. And nobody's taking anything away from you; just like China's laws don't affect anyone in the USA. You don't have to visit our little town employing weighted votes. Nobody's kidnapping anyone and dragging them into it. I imagine the world will be full of diverse governments for you to choose from, so you stay in your system of choice, and we'll stay in ours. Feel free to call us Nazis, communists, or weirdos all you want; none of us will be listening.
We should all be treated equal when it comes to voting!
Why? What has that gotten us? Do you enjoy cyclical crashes in the markets that put millions through misery because of the bad gambles of the rich? Do you enjoy massive inflation because the government is handing out trillions in free money? Do you honestly believe that a wife-beating alcoholic should have the same influence as a pediatrician? Do you enjoy being a slave to your job, perpetuating in a scarcity OCD mindset? Do you enjoy the hopelessness of empty purposeless lives that leads to fantastical mass delusions just to give people a reason to get out of bed every day?
These are the consequences of a mindless ego-placating even-weight vote that results in system that doesn't care about you, and corrals you to extricate your wealth of time for the benefit of those in power. It all starts with the vote. A better voting system would give the best people the most influence, to put the right people in power that can tackle these issues, giving life meaning for all of us, rather than endlessly putting ruthless people in power that just exploit the weak-minded masses.
How to you expect capitalism or socialism to fit in this system
You don't get it. Whatever the meritdemocracy's elected leaders build, it will be entirely new. This isn't an attempt to shoehorn new concepts into existing bags of shit, it's starting over. The meritdemocracy's inherent mechanism of systematically maximizing the keen scrutiny required to reliably discern 'trustworthy' leadership, will be the singular difference that shapes the emergent future social structure. It may not look anything like capitalism or socialism, and I'm not remotely smart enough (lies) to predict the outcome of thousands of the greatest minds being empowered to decide who leads. That's the promise of the weighted vote.
You're so patronizing and disrespectful to those that are less capable!
Guilty. Working on it in my spare time. Until then, let's focus on fixing the goddam rigged indentured-servitude pyramid scheme we call civilization, that empowering dumb people enables. I'm not a politician trying to be popular, I'm actually trying to fix shit.
This will never work because it will never be popular
I'm not trying to convert anyone. I simply promote the idea of creating a small town somewhere that they'll be allowed maximum liberty to experiment, based on a weighted vote with voluntary residents, and see how it plays out. I don't have to sell a thing; if it works, it'll sell itself.
So someone that isn't smart, or isn't educated is worthless??
If you don't get a job because someone more qualified than you gets it, does that make you worthless? No, you find a job you're qualified for. If the love of your life breaks up with you, are you worthless? No, you find the right match for you.
This isn't about defining someone's 'worth', it's about measuring someone's character as a qualification to vote. Qualifying for things is how life works for everything, always has been, and you know that. Everyone has 'some' value in other contexts, even if they aren't high-ranking voters.
This information can be used against you for purposes other than voting! What if employers start demanding you reveal your pillar scores??
Perfect! Also, how nice would it be if you're asked out on a date and you tell them that you'd like to see their pillar scores first? Wow, 749! You're amazing! Or how about if you need a babysitter for your kids, but the sitter only has a 94.. dodged that bullet.
I would absolutely fucking LOVE to be able to judge someone by their lifetime of accumulated pillar scores (possibly time-healing, so the fact that you kicked a dog in grade school doesn't hurt you too much as an adult). How much time and heartache would that save you from having to go through this discovery process yourself to find out someone is a piece of shit? I have to believe the only people that would protest this judgement system, are pieces of shit.
It just feels like this creepy system that turns people against each other. Who wants to be judged all the time?
Do you live in the forest or something? You are already being constantly judged by everyone around you. For them to put this data into a mechanism that helps to determine quality leadership, is a great use of this crowdsourced data. The notion that we have any privacy left is a dream. Facebook knows more about you than you do, so don't think I'm creating some deep state spying system; we're already there. That said, this isn't your personal data, it's other people's opinions of 'you'. Very distinct difference, and for which you already have no control over.
Here's a benefit you should consider: we constantly endure trolls in life, wouldn't it be nice that if someone was trolling you hard, at the exact same time everyone could see what a worthless troll they were? Think about that. It will put everything into context, and would inoculate smear campaigns instantly.
I don't like being judged all the time!
Then stop being a fucking asshole.
Beep Bloop...You will be assimilated..
Is that a phone in your hand? We've been assimilated for a long long time. Millennials don't even know what it means to not be assimilated.
This is just more eugenics you Nazi!!
Fine, let's kill the weak. I only want the best of humanity to exist.
I don't really mean that, obviously, but you fucking insane assholes will twist it this way no matter what I write, so go ahead and quote mine that all you want and enjoy this decoy honeypot while the rest of us have a rational conversation. This isn't about 'excluding' people that are perceived to be weaker. It's about recognizing their needs that they don't have the ability to recognize for themselves.
I don't subscribe to the notion that genetics is the only thing that matters. In the contest of nature versus nurture for determining the outcome of someone's potential, I firmly believe that nurture is by FAR the most significant factor. There was nothing exceptional about Hermann and Pauline, and yet they produced my idol Albert Einstein; so the suggestion that I'm promoting genetic purification by some mechanical means, is just more proof you're too stupid to vote.
The reality is, the required empathy aspect is what makes this work for the disadvantaged. We are not all born with equal potential, but for the most part, genetic potential tends to be randomized due to the homogenizing effects of sexual reproduction over time, so there is no justification for the concept of 'genetic purification' when any couple could produce the next Einstein, or Mozart, or Comaneci.
We inadvertently respect our inequalities in every single other qualification scenario (jobs, marriage, intelligence, opportunities, etc.), and yet we're going to allow ice-cream eating children to decide our leadership?? Enough with the PC bullshit. I'm done with accepting the status quo just because it makes children feel special. Go get your participation trophies from somewhere else so you don't fuck everything up for everyone that's really trying to make a difference.
Most of us are not happy with the current system, or at least we know it's a long way from perfect. Those of us seeking a 'revolution' or 'reset', often reach for the ludicrous options of armed coups or hacking Evil Corp and wiping everyone's debt to zero. This isn't a fucking movie. Fixing THE WORLD, takes a lot more intelligent and empathic collaboration than most people are capable of understanding. Trusting the right people, is necessary, if we're ever to evolve in a positive direction.
And the timing has never been better. With our incredible new technologies and rapidly-expanding sciences, we have the ability to put the right people in control. Let's put aside our primitive meddlesome egos, consider the fallacy of false virtues like equal voting rights, and give new concepts for social orders their opportunity to surface; because only this path will break the centuries-long despot-esque style of governance we remain embroiled in.
Not only to get tyrants out of the way to allow us to undergo the greatest technology-buoyed evolution humanity has ever known, but also to set the stage for the holy grail of complete disintermediation of governments altogether; everything running trustlessly, transparently, in bodies of smart contract logic where everyone contributes with their ideas and weights to accomplish the net effect of governance. I think we can all agree, the only thing better than a bunch of even the best, yet-still-fallible humans ideally running a minimalist government...is not needing a government at all. And we'll never get there by letting imbeciles decide our fate.
I'll be watching from my warm bench-seat in the dugout. Unwanted.
Comments welcome on Twitter