On Kings

Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:00:38 GMT

This is a Response Essay to Naomi Theora Most's https://www.facebook.com/nthmost/posts/10158449484348395.

The notion of "king" or "queen" is not something one necessarily has the power to vote to disband. It's very nature is such that the role is the emergent property of someone wanting power and having the means or capability to achieve it.

Folks can collectively act for some period to work against such a role, but eventually inequitable distribution of resources will enable the cycle to renew.

And this is complicated by the reality that many people similarly fear the flaws of ineffectual decision making by way of collective action.

(a) there are a lot of people out there who don't care and or don't have informed opinions

(b) the people who do care are usually disproportionately leveraged, one way or another, to act (in a way which is very difficult -- e.g. last mile, incentive misalignment -- to challenge)

(c) decentralized decision making is difficult, especially for a society which barely has the bandwidth to elect competent representatives. #decentralization

The problems go on. Ideologically, systems with democratic checks and balances are great. Until the fact that they are slow becomes a disadvantage and fast-moving, highly leveraged organizations start iterating on advancements faster than governing bodies can understand or regulate and pressuring the system through lobbying.

What projects often get is design by consensus and a million other flavors which sound good to to revolutionary types (and may have powerful concepts we may benefit from) but rarely results in lasting equitable change that isn't gamed.

Tags: Response Essay, collective action, equitable change , vote, Naomi Theora Most, queen, consensus, decentralized decision making, decentralization, king, checks and balances