Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Spread your treasure over multiple watchman, each holding only a part. Keep a public reputation system for each watchman. Make the loss of reputation more costly than the total of treasure they could steal.
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
1 points (51.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44119 readers
915 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
More than one group of custodians, ideally with conflicting interests, watching one another? Essentially some system of checks and balances?
Anarchism.
Can you give a link or description how anarchy counts be implement in a easy there is resilient to a subverted centralization of power that does not truly on an active majority?
Because we don't have that, sadly. And I've never seen a concept that takes a silent and passive majority into consideration.
Dual-power structures, consensus-based democracy, and federated communes. Between those three are most of your answers.
And obviously we don't have the conditions necessary for anarchism at present, or we'd already be living it.
Yay a rabbit hole! Thanks for the key words :)
No problem!
Honestly, one of the best introductions to anarchism is The Conquest of Bread by Petr Kropotkin. It's a century old and still very relevant and approachable. You can find it for free on The Anarchist Library.
And one thing to understand about anarchism is that itβs very much a goal oriented philosophy more than most other political philosophies. What that means is that you get a lot of different approaches and concepts from people trying different things to attempt to achieve similar goals. And this often involves practical differences between different situations. Rojava is necessarily going to do things differently from how the maknovists did things and theyβre both very different from how some punks who bought some land for a commune in the American Midwest will handle it.
Group with most weapons takes all, then infighting begins?
Tell me you don't know anything about anarchism without saying it
Found some definition:
the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government
So, what makes me or anyone else voluntarily cooperate? What happens if I don't?
Then you don't get to participate? If you don't want to play along with the commune then don't. Have fun growing all your own food, mending all your own clothes, repairing your own structures, teaching your own kids...
Yeah, such a system is only possible in theory and can never really work.
Such a system has worked fine in plenty of places, you're just conditioned to ignore them.
We're not making shit up, there have been anarchic societies for as long as humans have existed.
it has worked until a centralized invader comes along.
No, usually it was the Soviets turning back on deals they made. If it wasn't for an important ally suddenly stabbing them in the back, the anarchists in Ukraine and Spain likely would've had much more success.
Regardless, the ability to defend the commune is top priority for us, obviously. I'd point to the Kurds in Syria currently as a decent approximation of an anarchic society that's been defending itself every step of the way.
I'd also point to the tribes of Madagascar as described by David Graeber (RIP) in Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, certain Taoist cultures, and numerous indigenous societies that worked just fine, thank you.
Whatβs your definition of anarchism? How do you see it playing out?
The same as everyone else's - a society without hierarchy.
I see it playing out perfectly fine, just like it has throughout human existence in numerous societies across the globe. But it takes a lot of work to get there.
Dr. Manhattan, obviously.
Smoke weed everyday
Nakamoto Consensus, the mechanism by which Bitcoin is protected, is the original digital solution to this problem. Several others exist in modern cryptocurrency chains/ledgers.
With regards to protecting digital treasure, I think this fits the bill.
full accounting transparency helps.. according to the blockchain believers.