09-28-2010, 02:36 AM
(09-27-2010, 07:26 PM)Etude in B Minor Wrote: I would argue that the positive path would look more like anarchy than democracy. By anarchy I do not mean the usual negative version of "every man for himself" but rather the pure form of anarchy where everyone is of the same mind and every action is naturally harmonious. A vote is not necessary. This decentralized approach solves the problem of determining how to come up with a proposal that needs to be voted on. Here there is no voting, any idea or proposal that someone decides is worth doing will by definition meet the acceptance of the whole.
Now, it may be that this idea is still a bad one, and perhaps a higher-D council like the Council of Guardians may oversee or impose constraints to protect a society from itself.
decentralization would be the opposite of what would happen in a society that is melding their minds and experiences. it would be more like a hive mind, constituted by all the entities which make up the hive. especially when entities are aware of others' thoughts and feelings and are sensitive and respectful to them. that's totally the opposite of 'decentralization'.
which, naturally ends up as a democracy inside, since everyone's opinion will have direct effect on what the hive thinks, and any decision undertaken by hive would be result of everyone's opinion, directly.