IF we had an ideal justice institution that was never wrong and never corruptible in its morality judgements it would be foolish not to give it control of bitcoin mutability. What is more ideal than a jury of our peers?
If we can define idealness in systems, why shouldnt we shoot higher than aggregate of people. For devils advocate, I could argue we should explore this model, but keep the council toothless, and train AIs on its work over a few decades.
-
-
There are no higher moral principles than those defined by the propriety of the entirety of our society.
-
Perhaps, but youll never get all of society to feel that way, and many great men were reckless individualists. See: human spirit.
-
What won't society see? You commented on my observation that there is no higher moral judge than our aggregated view. Differing individuals need not agree with this for it to be true or harnessed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As bitcoin can effectively mediate confusion of international value, we need something better than a most fair mechanism to mediate confusion of interpersonal morality.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.