If we allow accumulation of power, those with more power are in a better position to accumulate power...

Huge imbalances of power, including those we have today, have a way of sorting themselves out. Once people are prepared to resort to self-destructive measures, oligarchies, Kings and businessmen alike topple easily.

The game falls apart as soon as people decide they would have a better time not playing against a vastly superior opponent, rather like a child tipping over a game of scrabble he's losing.

The balance of power is a messy business, and requires the destruction of systems as much as new perfections.

>If we allow accumulation of power, those with more power are in a better position to accumulate power, thus entering a slippery slope towards a terminal state in which one player has all the power.

this has been happening since before humankind

since physical force was first used in cooperative pack of organisms

There are no failsafe's against the degradation of a society or system of governance. However, there is no accumulation of power within a monarchy. There are no government jobs for the power hungry, and no point in corporate lobbying. The community spirit would thrive as people would be encouraged to work together to organise the cleaning and protection of their streets.

...

Isnt huge imbalances in power human nature? I mean historically there has always been huge imbalances of power ever since we stopped being hunter gatherers. Some might say its the natural state of human society.

i don't get how this solves anything.

Thing is tough that noone would want to tip over the board if it meant he would have to part with his xbox and bong. So he would be continue to be cattle. I don't want to become even more of a cattle.

Naturalistic Fallacy

A Monarchy is already the end state I described. Since ruthless assholes are better at accumulating power I would not expect the dictator to be benevolent.

So what do we weak men do now in order to keep the good times? More concretely than "becoming strong men".

Naturalistic Fallacy

>Tribal Wars
well, you're not god
your initial conditions are not formulated to have the result you want
if you want to 'solve' 'the problem', then identify and describe it.

lol that movie becoming closer to reality every day

You can not keep the good times when you are weak man.

Problem is described in the OP: One winner in the power struggle, everyone else loses.

Oversimplification

>If we allow accumulation of power, those with more power are in a better position to accumulate power, thus entering a slippery slope towards a terminal state in which one player has all the power.
>Implying we can just not allow it

why not a dynamic system?
who says a government has to stay the same all the time?

>noone would want to tip over the board if it meant he would have to part with his xbox and bong

This is why game theory is so utterly useless when applied lazily. It assumes that actors are rational, and can see the effects of their actions. Hope, revenge, companionship, peer pressure etc are completely ignored.

As I said, actors are completely capable of reducing their own well-being rather, than partake in a system they feel utterly dominated in.

And remember, even in game theory, consensus if often reached to the detriment to both players.

Since ruthless assholes are better at accumulating power I would not expect the dictator to be benevolent.

Good point. I still feel that this would be more easily hackable, just an intuition though

I mean, you can't stop the power eventually accumulating in the wrong hands and society degrading. If you, say, manage to keep up a good monarchy for a sufficiently long time, people will become decadent and everyone loses

That is a contradiction in terminis.
One winner, that is by definition.
How can you have multiple winners ?
Some people like competition and winning, some couldn't care less and have other priorities. How can those people share a same game ?
As I explained, a max level stops the combatant ones destroying the others, so they don't 'lose', yet the other ones can still fight for the one winner.

Not at all. Just hard truth.

Multiple winners implies team sports.

some people like individual sports (boxing, martial arts, ...)

There is nothing wrong with a certain decadence if you have fully automated luxury communism. And "you can't" sucks as a solution.

In this context I define "losing" as someone else having too much power over you, and winning as not losing.

The problem with decadence is, it eventually rots and destroys society from the inside, sending the whole thing back to square one. There is no good permanent solution possible, that's sadly how it's set up. If you manage to solidify a perfect state, eventually the lack of competition and fluctuation of power causes everything to become pointless and rotten.

man, you're difficult, I don't have all the answers
the 'losers' have some unalienable individual rights.
which ones, I don't know, ask someone smarter than me. (not social contract hobbes idiots though)

smart contracts.

Now imagine boxing against team.

> muh rules

Power degrades over time if left alone, and inside a set system it eventually redistributes within the system, causing the strife and the possibility of someone grabbing more and more of it to return

now (as op pointed out), imagine beating up a defenseless victim 'as a team'
again, without morals this is going nowhere, and I would like to see some rational explanation, but I haven't seen one, have you ?

My idea of utopia has humans become like epicurean gods while everything is managed by machines.

Also, what do you mean exactly by decadence?

Pleasing answer to a computer scientist. This might be actually it, if we do it right. Still seems hackable though.

Under capitalism it's more like exactly the opposite.

You are not sure if you will not be the victim in the future, so you want to set up a society without victims.

> fully automated luxury communism

Did you get this from the Culture series? It is science fiction and even there were threats and crises.

When you have this luxury communism, it rules you from the inside. You will degrade to pet.

Imagine invaders with fully different morality.
Remember barbarians.

> muh rules

I did not, and am not saying that there will be no crises. I want to solve the ones we have now - existential threads (with transhumanism, other topic) and recursive accumulation of power.

Like today, I can choose not to use certain luxuries in falc.

people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

This is a nice little read about the fall of empires, extremely relevant to the current state of the US, a little off topic, but a nice source about what leads to destruction of empires. In my opinion, there has to be hierarchy, it works like a spectrum. More liberty = more chaos, more restriction = more order, the only thing capable of restricting entire populations is brute force, which can only be provided when there is a hierarchy of some kind, so hierarchy must exist.

As for making sure the leaders of a society don't become corrupt, the only people capable of overthrowing the leaders of a society is society itself. This is only possible however when the majority of society is able to rise together, and it has been shown many times throughout history divide and conquer tactics make citizens squabble among themselves instead of overthrowing the corrupt leaders who are responsible. Therefore some sort of governance system that allows citizens to oust leaders who are incompetent must be put in place, though I wouldn't say one like the current representative democracy we have.

As for individuals who accumulate wealth to gain power, instead of through political means, I would say this is an even harder one to solve, as these people have the power to make anyone do anything with enough money, even the people who create and enforce laws.

I am 100 % sure when I am 80 years old I will be unable to win a boxing match with some power hungry barbaric idiot, as much as I am sure I can totally beat my newborn kids to a bloody pulp.
so yes, I'm not omnipotent (again, religion, Napoleon, not powerful institiutions)

Contracts need to be enforced. Otherwise - fuck you.

> invaders
build a wall, give room for progressive thought, don't get dragged down in middle ages philosophy.

see How would you ensure all contracts are enforced? what is to prevent corruption?

>Is there any way out?

The powerful are held to noblesse oblige towards their people. This should be socially enforced.

How will you distinguish sociopath from progressive?

nothing, read 'dialogues in hell'

need a minimalist government to prevent fraud and broken contracts.

bomb belt

But when the bomb is an idea, there is no belt.

If there was some form of democracy to the heirachy, corruption could be lowered. This, however, would require that the participants give enough of a shit to educated themelves about the corruption, and that there is competition to corrupt leaders.
One of the reasons Hilary has maintained power is because people are too apathetic to learn about what she's done, and her power has spread to the media. So a separation of church and state would be necessary to make sure the media is not influenced by those seeking positions of power.

Society will always require human maintenance, the very aspect of us overcoming resistance is what actually makes us even stronger/competent, in all aspects of life. As seen with numerous empires when people stop fighting resistance, falling into pure hedonism, society crumbles, to some degree, society will always rest on the it's struggle of it citizens. Power must rest in the 'model' citizens of a society, so that their ways will be passed on to the future generations, a constitution of some kind should regulate their behavior, and when they cease to be 'model' citizens they should be ousted immediately. Power will always be a slippery slope.

You're obviously some islam guy. I like beer, so I don't care what idiot mohammed thinks.

Counterpoint: any player retains power of individual action, enough players acting via stand alone complex against the primary controller will rebalance the accumulation of power; all things inevitably seek the valley.

an extensive constitution however moderating the government and the media is necessary, to prevent disinformation and to make it easier for citizens to oust corrupt leaders.

That's one of my favorite movies.

What movie is this from again?

Alfie (1966)

>right click
>search google for image
>find out it's Children of men

Children of men

How do we find strong men among the weak? Make the hard times harder.

Not at all. I am not religious. Estonian ancestry for at least 400 years. Some nature-related pagan beliefs exist in me because there is evidence they are based.

Why are you turning so mad when I point out that there might be an idea around to fuck you over when the time comes.
Did I expose you, Islam guy?

Solution:
The game never ends.

You are (just like you post soviets friends) living in the past and trying to trick me into attacking your imaginary foe, all the while feeding the power hungry accumulation of power I (and maybe some others) would call NATO. Fuck off shill.

So, Jefferson was right.

The Chronicles of Nig Jesus.

I am not living in the past.
Who is the imaginary foe you are pointing at?

as op was saying
>If we allow accumulation of power, those with more power are in a better position to accumulate power, thus entering a slippery slope towards a terminal state in which one player has all the power.

The game ends as soon as someone hits the singularity. This is the main source of my concern - and a SHAI controlled by a sociopath is still not the worst scenario, which would be a paperclip maximizer. So before that happens, we have to establish a system stable enough to prevent a singularly controlled or unfriendly singularity and beneficial enough that... well, as beneficial as possible I'd guess.

If we build a SHAI of the people for the people, i.e. with smart contracts (so that as many people as possible will be motivated to help building it, and the control is decentralized), we have a shot at both. Still super tricky, but the chance of FALC and epicurean godhood as a strech goal might be good enough of a motivator to seriously start a movement instead of crying about mexicans, muslims and muh slow erosion of christian values.

This is somewhat polemic, but the point that technology enables easy domination of many by few still stands.

This it was has been and will be for all times. Curl up into a ball and cry yourself to sleep if you can't handle it.
>this retarded level of "just world" fallacy, on Cred Forums of all boards

Yeah, why should we even try to improve anything?

And who is the imaginary foe you think I have as ex-soviet country dweller?

As for power concentration I agree with you. I am not globalist.

Does the power equal money?

What we have is as improved as it gets. If not for modern ages your weak ass would have been smashed against a rock years ago by stronger people.

decadence is just a symptom of stagnation

Stagnation leads to rot and death
Competition leads to improvements or death

It's pretty obvious your countries are pushing for a conflict with russia.
I watched RT, and I'm not convinced they are a genuine threat.
You are playing this game for money and power.
Maybe for money, or money equals power, I don't know, but something is fishy.
t. merchant

Conflict with Russia is pushed by globalists.

Plain wrong, there is almost infinite room for improvement. Also that "my weak ass" remains unsmashed is further evidence for the usefulness of progress. Go live in the mud if you like that better.

We need a real god king.
Someone with perfect judgement that is immortal.
That's the only way a fair and stable world could exist.
Better pray for Christ or find a way to program the perfect AI. Though you may have to be perfect yourself to make such a thing.

If you really think that we (country with inhabitants half the number in the city of Rome) push conflict with russia you are fool. As members of NATO and EU we have no (real) foreign policy of our own.

On the other hand - the idea of kicking everyone elses asses with their own hand/feet sounds tempting.
We should meme for it.

>find a way to program the perfect AI
see >Though you may have to be perfect yourself to make such a thing
Not necessarily true

I'm sure you have met power in your village/city, without globalists involved.

I am the power.

ok, maybe in your province or country

My point being, there is some ultimate power (god) that holds you back being a retard with your power.

There is not if I am a retard.

Nature already corrects for this. Nothing lasts. It just seems slow from the Human perspective. Theories can't accurately map reality, it just never works. Its impossible to have all the power, so any theory which posits it as a possibility is just a game, not a useful tool for understanding reality. This is the German race's intellectual failure. Reality doesn't conform to autism.

Introduce a predator. Prey species do not have hierarchies.

>using the overly general model of "nature corrects itself" while criticizing the use of theories

Let me reformulate then. It is likely enough to happen and persist in my (hopefully scifi-scale length - if the transhumanism thing works out) lifetime to affect me in a to negative of a way to not be worried about it.

> the German race's intellectual failure
Idiot.

You need to hit first.

Wolfpack?

Done already, laid back now and watching it fall.

I don't get it, who attacked nato, to justify some action ?

Muslim terrorists. In Nice they killed 2 Estonians.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

not a job for nato.

You don't have to be perfect, just altruistic enough not to cause the program to give you undue advantage, the purist would place everyone on an even scale, a patriot would prioritize societies and peolle that allow expansion of the maximum good