Did I impose them to follow me?
Of course not.
You dont impose them to follow you.
But you are saying to them âIf you decide to follow me, I am the one who imposes, and you are not free anymoreâ
They are still free to leave, free to fork, free to create something else. You are talking nonsense.
1 Like
Inso, they are not free anymore, as long as they keep following.
If they fork, then they stop follow.
What would be freedom then ? That the democratic process imposes something on everyone, even the ones who do not agree ?
You are saying
âIf you decide to follow me, I am the one who imposes, and you are not free anymoreâ
Democracy says
âIf you decide to follow me, everyone is equal to impose. And this equality is freedomâ
Both the above statements are valid as long as you follow.
In both cases you are free to stop following, nobody denied that.
There is also the third statement, just be alone and follow yourself. There is no other alternative, these are the three conditions that may happen.
No this is wrong.
You think I am the one who imposes. Thatâs wrong: it is the whole set of users who accept the rules which imposes you these rules, because they accept to follow it while you do not.
But what you donât understand is that the consensus protocol, underlying ucoin protocol, let us have the best of both worlds :
Consensus let user change the rules together, if they agree, or fork the community, if they donât agree with the new rules.
A democratic process changing the rules for everyone would impose on the ones who do not agree the rules choosen by the ones who won the democratic process.
Noone imposes anything here.
In that case you have unanimity.
Well, I think that this is against your primary goal, to become many.
If you insist in unanimity, then this is 100% a small community. And as long as you are a money community that requires (by definition) to evolve and become big, this is also 100% failure.
Democracy is not only voting yes or no, black or white.
You can also vote with numbers, and extract an average.
In that case there is no winner, or loser.
What is âmanyâ?
Many enough so that your money to become a value of exchange in real life.
OK, and when does it become âa value of exchange in real lifeâ? It is still not clear to me.
Where is the community who pretend to define âwhat is democracyâ and âwhat is not democracyâ ? because Iâm sure Iâm not in it, so is it a âsmallâ or a âbigâ one, how can I measure it ? Will it be stable in time ? If not, when the âdemocracy(t)â decide someting(t) whith a result(t+x), will democracy(t+x) agree to that ?
So where are the âdemocracy rulesâ you suppose here, and you refer to ? Where is your internet site, your work that define it, and where is the âbig communityâ who accept those rules ? Can you give us information about that, sources, ways to verify it ?
Thank you for helping us to know better what is your own road.
1 Like
It is when you are able to buy with that money items of first need (like food, residence, transportation, energy e.t.c)
Is this synchrone with all people at all time, in every part of space ? Do you pretend this can be defined in quantity, in quality, in object, in exchange value for any individual(x,t) ?
I wish you were 3 and be able to buy petrol and home and voiture
Unfortunately to extract petrol, or to built a house, much more than 3 are needed.
Oh, I though you pretented we just needed to buy at least one thing of âfirst needâ.
So you pretend it should be able to buy anything? Well as of today, even any currency cannot buy everything.
I donât know which road you follow here, but it seems really weird.
The decisions of today should not define or restrict the decisions of tomorrow. This is symmetry over time.
Democracy is a regime of the alives, we do not take into account the votes of the deads. The votes of the deads are not used in order to calculate the result of the plebiscites, and this is valid both for the old plebiscites and for the future ones.