Abandoned South Dakota Town on Sale for $250k

In your efforts to try to fix bugs, you are re-introducing older bugs. Have you considered that a rewrite from scratch may not be ideal here, given how hard it is to get a functioning system?

Here is the explanation you seek, friend. You are implicitly re-creating a leading class. The problem only appears solved because the class is implicit instead of explicit.

And historically, you've probably killed a couple million people by now.

The difference is that it won't be a small group in power, taking away the rights of people. The power will be distributed throughout society, so there isn't a single point of failure and/or corruption.

> "You have also erred in other ways, such as assuming that an identical balance between the individual and the collective is desirable for all."

There's no such thing as an identical balance here, the balance will always be imperfect, but it is up to the individuals in the society to understand this balance, and try to make it as good as it can be.

> "Further, you've assumed that breaking down current power structures will be followed by your preferred "means of organizing society" being adhered to instead of new power structures being established."

I didn't state that direct democracy would definitely lead to communism, I stated that it would be a useful step to take before communism. In other words, should direct democracy take off, communism is not guaranteed, but it helps pave the way should people decide they want a communist society.

> "You've also ignored tribe-forming behaviors that can be reasonable expected to occur around active, inclusive, informative news media."

I don't doubt that tribes will form, but respect can still exist between tribes. For example, I'm not on the right-wing of the political spectrum but I can still respect thoughtful individuals that are. Furthermore, healthy debate is invigorating, people aren't only drawn to that which they agree with, debates between tribes can draw a crowd, especially if both groups feel well represented.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by an 'inclusive, informative' news media, which isn't surprising. Inclusivity is important to ensure all views can be heard, the only way this is going to happen is by removing the filters that control mass media. If it helps, consider the new model for inclusivity will be closer to YouTube than TV.

However, this is only part of the solution, increasing available information doesn't help unless we can make sense of that information, which is why it is important for media to be informative. Extending the YouTube analogy further, every person is free to have their own channel, but efforts would be made to create cross channel content, either to refine the message of one 'tribe', or to engage with those they disagreed with. The easier these types of collaborative efforts are to organise and promote, the better chance we have of increasing our collective political consciousness.

> "I think that primates are instinctual hierarchical creatures, much given to hierarchies of power. I think we are also subject to a wide variety of cognitive flaws and easily misled by emotions. I think that any political philosophy based on blithely ignoring the traits of human psychology are is highly likely to fail. I further think that historical attempts to do so have displayed a disturbing tendency towards spectacular failure."

It'll take time to move beyond our past programming, but that's no reason not to try. The misguided attempts of the past show is that trying to force change through a totalitarian means is not desirable, it's important to raise our collective consciousness first, get people exploring new ways of living together without hierarchical social structures. Once we've had chance to understand this on a personal level, it'll be easier to get working on a larger scale.

And here's where you fail. What you have missed is that you aren't getting rid of power structures. You're replacing an explicit set of power structures with equally explicit rules with a set of implicit structures with no explicit rules. From there, I'm afraid it's a total shitshow.

You still get single points of failure. You still get corruption. You have just jettisoned your ability to deal with any of them effectively.

> There's no such thing as an identical balance here, the balance will always be imperfect, but it is up to the individuals in the society to understand this balance, and try to make it as good as it can be.

Excuse me. An identical balance for all individuals. A balance that is good for one person is incredibly bad for another. You're imposing uniformity where uniformity is unsuited.

> If it helps, consider the new model for inclusivity will be closer to YouTube than TV.

I am considering your model. Unfortunately, this model does not suggest what you think it does. Removing explicit filter systems just replaces them with implicit filter systems that accomplish the same tasks. Just as before, you're confusing getting rid of explicit power structures with getting rid of power structures.

Consider how Digg succumbed to organized influencers. Ask yourself how your system is immune to such things. Hint: it's not.

> It'll take time to move beyond our past programming, but that's no reason not to try.

Apologize to the dead created by people like you first. Consider how they came to be. Understand risk. Then come back.

I realize you think your reasoned discourse can convince, friend. However, all you have convinced me of is that you don't understand why past attempts to do exactly what you advocate have failed and why the consequences were so severe. That places you somewhere on the spectrum between misguided (if largely ignored) and incredibly dangerous (if heeded).

I suggest you start with learning about formal and informal power structures. Taking away the former does nothing except empower the latter.