I'm not quite sure of your understanding of govern. Sure, the customers don't need an employee to lead them, or push them onto his suggestions; they know to walk around the shop, and they should have the freedom to do so... as long as they don't intervene into their nearby fellows. If you don't have governing, you can't effectively discourage someone from breaking the law likewise.

That raises a very important issue. Should people's opinions on others affect their prosperity? Such society sounds utopian to me. Nobody would want reputation, because nobody who seeks to establish success is surrounded by people who like him. You know there's a saying that if you want everyone to like you, don't be a leader; sell ice cream.

What our Universe looked like in the most early days is a very great analogy. From what science knows, it has been extremely chaotic. But could we have lived in such an environment? Very unlikely…
As most of the dust had settleted down, galaxies emerged, it still took a very long time until our solar system came into existance.

And after a long time, our planet finally got habitable. To reach that point, most of the chaos needed to be settled.
It’s similar to Bitcoin as a great example how to settle a space formerly known for chaos (or at least failed (but still important attempts or researches) like from Chaum) or we can also take our DT system to a lesser degree. It settled down chaos (scammers) and there’s a set of rules and these rules DT1 members can be changed by the community if there’s consensus to do so. 

---

As someone living in a capitalist country, I believe we should arrange the shop like that, to make them buy the most expensive products and more than they wanted to buy.
It’s called product placement.
Just a joke, sorry. 

---

It's not unlikely that Elon Musk would end up as pirateat40 or be someone who's running 1xbit. 

---

Regarding governs governing mechanisms:

As franky 1 has explained already very well, we should try to get an understanding of governs governing mechanisms government governance and consensus.
I’m more used to it to understand "govern" as a verb ("to govern"). At least for our article, I’m referring to "governance" from lat gubernare, which can be applied to a nation state, a community, a sports club, a company, a protocol and so many more. Governance can be achieved in many ways and one important part of governance is to act accoring a consensus.
This consensus should be as fair as possible and involving everyone who’s affected by it. It’s not easy to do it and some people might consider authoritarian governances more efficient but efficient is not everything: It’s efficient vs. fair.

I’m in favor of a fair governance instead of an efficient one. Yes, an efficient one might have advantages but also disadvantages.
Bitcoin is efficient and fair, so it’s already a very special form of governance and I would of course agree to it to call it a fair governance.
Maybe I’m just too focussed on Bitcoin’s tech but that’s what so fascinating about Bitcoin. It’s a special form of governance itself.

To extend this a bit, maybe we can elaborate our current DT system. As you’ve explained, creating trust is essential here on Bitcointalk because (almost) everyone here is an anonymous actor. Scamming is quite easy because scammers can run away easily. So, we need to evaluate, who’s trustworthy to avoid getting scammed. Very early in Bitcointalk’s history, the community agreed to follow a member-based reputation system.
That worked well many years but it was very centralized because DT1 members were picked by theymos.
Some trolls compained that DT is just beneficial "for the elites of the forum" and that some DT members would abuse governance.
But still, DT has been very centralized and in 2019, theymos decided to improve DT by making changes, to make it more fair. Each Bitcointalk member could vote DT1 members in or out via their own trust list.
DT got much more decentralized which also enabled more scammers to get into DT because a vaccum of power always gets abused but overally, making DT more decentralized has been a success in my opinion because changes were evaluated diligently.

So, any opinions on what DT system you would favor?
-   DT before 2019 changes
-   DT after 2019 changes
I would go for a DT after 2019 changes because it’s more fair, more inclusive. More members can participate and be part of DT decisions.

So, yes, we should try analyze what’s a good (fair) governance and what’s a bad (closed) governance and we should try to support and improve the good (fair) governance. We should not oppose a governance itself because it will be replaced by someone powerful trying to seize any vacuum of power.
So, we need to make any system resistant against abuse itself and Bitcoin is achieving that, Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.
A similar issue will come up if we look at PoW vs. PoS. We can take Polkadot, for example, where dPoS (delegated PoS) is used. Polkadot’s inflation is 10% per year and these inflation coins will go to stakers, which are already rich and will make them even richer. In dPoS such rich stakers will be able to consolidate their power, which will lead to a massive centralization over time. Rich stakers will be able to abuse it. I'm sure we'll get a big discussion around it some time later, maybe in 2 - 5 years. 

---

Yeah, that's an important point.

That pretty much sums everything up. I was also referring to a liberty which did not involve any kind of violence.

---

Yes, and that could be possible into an utopian web of trust, where a solid reputation system would be functional, right?

---

I understand your point of view; furthermore, I agree with it. But tell me this: how many times have you seen, in the past 5000 years, a fair governance...?

---

However, I have a different view here... There is a concept name Spontaneous order. It implies that people, by themselves, can organize themselves, even without an authority leading them to do it. Just like in the example with the overcrowded shop. From something which looks like chaos, with no visible order, a new order appears and people organize themselves, in order to be able to find their products on the shelves, pick them up, pay for them and go home. Peacefully.

According to Wikipedia, Spontaneous order, also named self-organization in the hard sciences, is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos.

No wonder, Wikipedia continues, the great economists following Austrian school, about which we discussed earlier, come into play: The Austrian School of Economics, led by Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek made it a centerpiece in its social and economic thought. Hayek's theory of spontaneous order is the product of two related but distinct influences that do not always tend in the same direction.

The reference to anarchism says the following:

Anarchists argue that the state is in fact an artificial creation of the ruling elite, and that true spontaneous order would arise if it was eliminated. This is construed by some but not all as the ushering in of organization by anarchist law. In the anarchist view, such spontaneous order would involve the voluntary cooperation of individuals. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, "the work of many symbolic interactionists is largely compatible with the anarchist vision, since it harbours a view of society as spontaneous order.

So see, even from pure chaos, order may arise. Just by itself.

There is nothing fair objectively. Instruments that implement politics follow the elected party's fairness definition. What's fair for a pro-capitalistic party might not be fair for a pro-socialistic party. Governing is about dictating what's fair.

You know what they say. Ask 10 people what's fairness, and get 11 different definitions.

Nobody has done research about Murray Bookchin? He’s a great actor of a less profit driven society.
Libertarianism is prone to malicious actors and Murray tried to emphasize people over profits, where he shared his opinion on barter.
For example he rejected fascism because fascism is opposed to liberty and Murray Bookchain knew an important fundamental: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It needs a form of govern and individuals should decide it.

Bitcoin can act as a special form of barter and when we research genius texts of Murray Bookchin, we can see why!

When barter?

I fully agree.


Yes, most likely. Now, of course, I don't think as DDR regime was so oppressive to its citizen like Ceausescu was (limiting the amount of food to precise and very low quantities; making sure people can't buy more food than the one allowed etc. -- Should I also mention that, in winters, Ceausescu was also limiting the heat inside houses and people had to survive with only 17 Celsius degrees inside their homes?) -- but I believe it was similar. Besides, many totalitarian regimes fell in 1989...


True.


At least, not yet...

---

You'd be surprised, but spontaneous order is not the only order which appears out of nowhere, straight from chaos. And it is certainly not a blah. Nor the spontaneous order nor the other thing which I will document here. I am talking about catallaxy.


And catallaxy can be seen into Bitcoin as well. According to Austrian school economist Friedrich Hayek, catallaxy is "the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market". From obvious reasons, since people associate by will, we can also say that catallaxy is a part of praxeology. (I will not enter in deep details about praxeology; it should suffice to say that praxeology is the science of human actions and it implies all the actions made by humans for a purpose. Uncontrollable actions, such as coughing or sneezing are not part of praxeology, as they are reflexive actions.)

Practically, catallaxy is close to spontaneous order, but it only brings together people with mutual interests in economics.


Bitcoin is an economic system and consensus is a very important part of it. We can say that all users which adhere to this consensus are also subject or catallaxy. Then again: out of nowhere (chaos), Bitcoin appeared. The earlier chaos found a spontaneous order and this order was named Bitcoin. And through catallaxy, the sister of spontaneous order, bitcoiners gather together to form a consensus.

But why would they be afraid? They did it in the past. Precious essays, such as Tim May's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto or Eric Hughes' Cypherpunk Manifesto were published decades ago. The topics I mentioned in OP were also posted on this forum. I don;t understand where these people are now. It seems like most of them simply vanished...


It certainly did.


Losing a life is always a very sad thing. No matter it was a libertarian's, a priest's a neighbor's life or the life of anyone else...


And they are more and more wrong. But a strong argument for this behavior is the fact that people are not educated anymore for valuing their privacy, their anonymity. Cypherpunks are mostly long gone and, together with them are also gone their loud voices which encouraged people to preserve their privacy in front of third parties.

As I mentioned also in another topic, personal information remains personal until its owner decides to share it with others. From that moment forward it is not personal information anymore, as the owner cancelled the deepest meaning of the term "personal" when he shared his information with others...

ok he is moving onto economics and catallaxy(ill get to the liberarian part to reign gazetta back in)

first lets handle the reason i blahed spontaneous order.. (meaning is skipped it as a non stater of meaningful debate)

randomness vs chaos

the difference is:
random sentiment is just a bunch of variables. if you can see enough the variables you can avoid the chaos
but the more variables there are the more "like" chaos it appears(volatility) until its unpredictable and completely random where you can no longer see the order or the order is seen as completely broke

..
now take my views in many topics on bitcoins VALUE discovery of bitcoin economics and markets.. yep value not price

there are known variables in the world where people equally agree that something hits a bottomline value where every one agrees something is cheap where sellers can no longer profit or break even and thus refuse to sell below

as is at the top the premium where everyone agrees something is expensive and buys all end up agreeing its just too much

sellers fizzle out at the bottom refusing to sell at value
and
buyers at top fizzle out and refuse to buy at premium

this creates a order of a value window (bitcoins 2021 market VALUE window was $10k-$75k). where the market speculation of random sentiment traded within this window above value and below premium and it looked like chaos within this window. until you could see the window frame.. and then seen the order within the frame

the supposed random sentiment of bitcoins market within the window is the catallaxy, where as the known things of economics is the deflationary wider window itself is the economy

.. now back to libertarianism
there is no outlaw, lawless theory in libertarianism. there is no chaos
just because its not a formal order underneath some letter head or leadership does not mean libertarianism = chaos

as for trying to define libertarian structure or the bitcoin community into terms like spontaneous order thats just like saying "random" where you just cant see all the variables so get surprised that there is order, until boom, you see it (spontaneous window frame) and then think it must have been chaos before it due to lack of seeing the order prior

but things evolve, and its the development of many many variables that seem random that collide, collude, cooperate or correspond, act and react that cause these seemingly random act to uniform and unite into bigger more noticeable collectives

libertarianism is not like 10million random minds just woke up one day and started walking towards the light.
certain things happened along the way where things evolved into libertarianisms out of (to some) complete randomness and chaos. but to others subsets of order that evolved into wider sets of collective framed order

fiat world over centuries started at whats seemed as chaos where rival tribes had different currencies and slowly coming together until theres only a few notable currencies left in the fiat economy. converging on the point of dollar dominance of what some call a "one world currency" threat (fear of authoritarianism)

where some want some informal frame of order but a wide window frame to allow alot of variable freedoms
libertarianism has framework and within that framework window. are those that still want self governance where no one can shrink the window unless the collective decide in a self governing manner, and no one should control or be able to close the window.

crypto on the other hand started with one and is diverging out. doing the opposite

libertarians want diversity/freedoms yet still retain a common conceptions of certain agreements of basic frameworks

now where did the libertarians go
they are still in crypto. they just diverged out into other cryptocoins while still within the common framework of crypto-economy

maybe you should ask a buddy

the one who constantly says core devs should do what they want and if anyone opposes/doesnt like it they should fork off and see who follows them
.. its reasons such as that which most other projects started on altcoins rather then being proposed on bitcoin


consensus as it was designed 2009 but slowly diminished 2014-17 WAS unity via common consent of acceptance. and evolution of rule via consent of the mass peers, where if mass population of peers do not consent or simply abstain to not be ready to support a new rule.. then a new contentious rule does not activate. whereby proposers simply go back to the drawing board and think of a proposal that the majority would get behind

certain others think "freedom".. but freedom of higher class elitists, who should do as they please and the community should follow or get out