This is exactly what I don’t want.
Leadership is not the way.
Creating decentralised and non-fungible tools is the new “leadership”.
Aren’t you basically recreating a state that way? How exactly bitcoin army will be decentralised? If not decentralised, then how it will resist corruption?
If you have something to read on that, please share.
I can see some way to crowd-fund such an army, where you can withdraw your funding at any minute. But in such scenario individual is still dependant on the will of majority.
Always a bigger fish. And always multiple fishes to take on one.
I feel like I’m talking about the obvious.
We will not solve the problem by denying it.
I genuinely would love to get rid of the need for centralised government.
How exactly a “husband” is supposed to protect himself from a gang of thugs? Organising with other “husbands” is one way, yes. But this is back to wild Wild West. They had it in Russia in the 90s. Wasn’t fun.
But then there is another individual with a bigger stick and a will to take your resources.
It’s lacking a proxy to violence irl or a way around it. No amount of cryptography will protect you from someone just squatting your house.
This needs to be solved. Until then, you have no choice but to rely on governmental institutions.
Wait, how is that no monopoly on violence is required? What exactly will protect me from someone willing to take my property irl?