It seems that to answer your questions, one needs to choose between some
form of democracy / mob rule and cold moral absolutes enforced by machines
or machine like people.

The two historical problems I see with collectivism are that it has
traditionally been easily gamed by "lobbyists" (term meant very broadly)
and that intellectually immature people blur suppression of their own
urges with meddling in the lives of others.

The exciting thing is that Radical Transparency helps to solve both of
these problems, the sneaky lobbyist is discredited while the bigot
realizes that everyone is human.


If you'll indulge me, I'd like to play storytime for a moment....

Imagine a group, lets say a group of programmers but perhaps it is a
multi-disciplinary group. If you apply to join and we accept you, we
make a commitment to ensure that your health and wellbeing are looked
after. Technically we become your employer but inside of the group you
still have to choose and apply for a position either in administration
or at one of the companies which have hired the group's services. Jobs
within the group will be paid more than you could expect to be paid at
an outside company. We provide you with a bank account and money from
your job is paid directly to it. Unlike a Secret Society, we operate in
the open and you are not forced to be a member for life.
Although it would effectively mean quitting your job, you can leave any
time you want.

Furthermore you get to have a say in how we operate, to define rules and
guidelines and help to resolve disputes between members.
The catch is that you have to accept personal transparency on your buying
habits. That credit card we issue, we get to read the bank statement.
You also must pay dues which are taken as taxes on transfers from the
bank account. If you're buying basic necessities then the tax might be
only 1%, luxury items perhaps 10% but most importantly if you are
patronizing a company which we have determined to be harmful to the group,
we will charge heavily. A sort of boycott-tariff. Obviously if you pull
out cash or transfer the money to an account which is beyond our view, we
can only assume the worst and assess at the highest rate.


Such a group could provide for a lot of the things where Libertarian
Government falls short. Additionally as the group does not claim
territorial control, if it ever became a tyranny, members could as a last
resort quit.

Ideally there would be many such groups competing for membership.
Unfortunately in my naive example, such groups would be better served
by use of war to establish monopoly / cartel than by competition. A more
stable system would necessitate each person being a member of 3 or more
groups which managed different aspects of their lives. Thus the resulting
web of interdependence makes war a negative value proposition.


ok done