Blockchain is designed to decentralize money. I like that. It takes part of the human out of the game and gives you honest organization of where your money actually is.

I like the idea of doing the same with government somehow, at least I think removing much of the centralization could help if there is more accountability to honest distribution of information, voting or otherwise?

Like I said, this is an idea and I don't really know what I mean by it. Basically what I am trying to do is limit human fallibility in the system that is in play by implementing something new into the mix.

yeah I dont know anything about that, I have just always been skeptical of the electoral college system

Ok so maybe it's a voting system, but instead of electoral college, it's built like a blockchain.

A blockchain is basically a transfer of money from one person, to a public list of every transaction, and then to another person.

What if it wasn't a transfer of money to a public list, but a transfer of information?

What if you cast your vote from your phone, it uploads to a public list that you can verify your vote is yours with your registered number, and you can also verify anyone in your community if they give you their number? Then it is transparent to the degree that you can prove your individual vote and the votes of others. And then instead of the electoral college making the decisions it can actually be the people.

what do you mean by cooperate as little as possible always?

Isolation?
Or do you mean defiance?

yeah I have thought of that too and the best I have come up with is blockchain law, with ledgers and records. I dont even know how to conceptualize it.

If communities came together on this, there would be a higher chance of increased survival rates. It wouldn't be glamorous living, but possible.

Can humanity curve climate change? In my opinion yes.
Will they? No, I doubt it. The majority is too focused on bullshit to actually see it through until it's too late.
Can humanity survive climate change? In my opinion yes, but survivability will become more and more difficult for the common person because eventually it's going to take bunkers with high tech air filtration systems and stockpiles of supplies.

Also I'm looking to rent a room in a bunker of this sorts in the event of this incident if anyone knows anyone.

Glaciers the size of Alaska that melt and provide water for the community.

Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

glaciers

Of course I don't really know exactly what I mean and I was hoping one of you would but I digress

I made a post about it and it disappeared into the nether

well I'm not opposed to revolution, but I am opposed to a non governed, lawless state or community. So take it as you will.

That's not anarchy, that's revolution.

you think just because I am trying to consider means of decentralization that all of the sudden I think anarchy is viable? Nah. I still want law to be in motion, I'm just trying to think of ways to do it while removing human fallibility.

I had this thought of decentralization of law and perhaps a blockchain representation of legality that can be voted on and documented on a ledger like bitcoin. I feel like it has a lot of refinement to it but that's just an idea.

ok so how do I do that and keep my day job? Now I'm all of the sudden a cop and so are my buddies under what guidelines? Our own? Someone robbed us and now we go fight them? Then we are all gonna pitch in and build a prison on the weekends. I don't see it. There's no structure to that. It results in gang wars. Instead we agree upon a set of principles. Principles that have the ability to shift with contingency in society's general consensus of morality. Represented by specialists who are responsible for actually making these decisions, but also mandated by society itself.

This is where law falls short. Law and the general consensus of morality are not fully parallel at any given moment, and although crime is reduced per the advent of law, it isnt fully effective in limiting all criminal activity.

The general consensus of morality also varies at any given point in time, sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly. This is in reference to the idea that morality can be considered a consensus based on the individual perspective, a region's perspective, a planet's perspective, and perhaps a universal perspective.

You also dont want too much water. The east coast lands especially are predicted to have increased hurricane potential. The tornado valley will have more tornadoes. High ground on the northwest coast may be safer/more comfortable due to elevation and location beside the sea. Low ground on the west coast (most of California) will catch fire. The rocky mountains will be comfortable in some areas for a while due to high elevation, but most everything around it in low elevation will eventually burst into flames, and water supply will be of concern. Great lakes area curves all of these drawbacks.

Honestly the best place I can think of is probably inland of Greenland.

oh so you mean mercenaries? So now we hire police based on what? What we want them to do for us? Not based on a lawful obligation, but an individual's ability to pay them? This clearly does not turn out ethical.

So the soldiers are going to sit around and what? Take a vote? Say they dont feel like going to war right now?

Except what, no one is in charge? How do you propose that the military would operate if no one is in charge?

Social organizations? So you mean like the fda, the CIA, FBI etc. Same thing, different names.

that's also the same thing with extra steps.

And while we are on the subject...

an·ar·chy

/ˈanərkē/

noun

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"

Similar:

lawlessness

absence of government

nihilism

mobocracy

revolution

insurrection

riot

rebellion

mutiny

disorder

disorganization

misrule

chaos

tumult

turmoil

mayhem

pandemonium

Opposite:

government

order

absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Cb *

with CBS radio's and billyclubs. Right. So a cop

You are just saying police but with extra steps

Basically you need tons of water. Before it gets to that point, people are going to migrate based on weather conditions. Some places will be more comfortable, and some will be very hot and dry.

Property by the great lakes is going to skyrocket, because that will be one of the few places with natural inland water supply. I think you will still need a dome or an underground bunker, but if you buy multiple properties you can sell some for profit to build survivable conditions.

I think the philosophy version is a short sighted attempt at some sort of ignorant "do what thou will" cliche, but I am referring to definition 1.

well that's not anarchy, that's voluntarism.



vol·un·ta·rism

/ˈvälən(t)əˌrizəm/

noun

1.

the principle of relying on voluntary action (used especially with reference to the involvement of voluntary organizations in social welfare).

"some councils connected the twin themes of public spending cuts and the strong emphasis on voluntarism"

2.

PHILOSOPHY

the doctrine that the will is a fundamental or dominant factor in the individual or the universe.

just because you know that and I know that doesn't mean everyone else does. Even if they do understand what you say, that doesn't mean they care.

Let me ask you this:

Who keeps the criminals from being criminals in a society with no authority? The criminal themselves? Isn't that counterintuitive to being a criminal?

There are multiple examples explaining the same idea here. Hit and run, robbery, littering, but they are all based on the same premise. Crime is easier under anarchy, and there is less incentive to make moral decisions because there is no authority to provide these incentives. As a result, the people who naturally rise to leadership and become the new, perhaps "unofficial government" are the people who are willing to take advantage of their peers for a leg up in society; leaders of criminal organizations. Crime leadership boils down to who has the biggest guns, and who is willing to use them to retain or gain control.

but you are missing the point. Under anarchy there is no incentive not to litter other than the individual's own moral compass

I mean that's just one example, but you all get the point.

Anarchists speak of the individuals policing themselves, but how can I possibly go to work and also play cops and robbers when I get jacked because there are no police so it's super easy to get away with and the likelyhood of robbery is higher?

I try super hard to not be a shitbag. Doesn't change much, but it's the best I can do. We can all do this until we are blue in the face, but we are fallible beings and we don't always do the right thing and many of us intentionally do the wrong things that we all know and have decided are hindrance for progress, fairness, and well being for everyone.

And people aren't going to magically stop being shitbags. Not anytime soon. Allllllllll of history: shitbags exist and usually prevail dominance.

Never gonna happen unless people magically stop being shitbags.

without law there is no incentive to "stay woke" if you will.
There are no guidelines for morality. It's left to the individual, and I agree we should try to convince humanity to uphold morals and standards that help the world sustain itself, but let's face it we just can't trust people to do it on their own.

Let's take something incredibly simple for example: go outside in any town or city and just look around on the ground. Covered in trash. People are legally obligated not to litter, yet they regularly do it anyway. If they weren't legally obligated it would happen more because there would be no repercussions for the action.