Hey I like seeing other people interests, intro me to thing I find I like. and yeah I understand your feeling with the Dominion, I felt the same way with Code Geass, where the main character is the bad guy and we, the viewer, follow his path to vengeance and power. Sometime I routed for him, other times not so much.Zakharra wrote:NOMAD wrote:
I can see a resemblance too genetic engineering and some culture and history (conquering and belief superiority) but not to my understanding of the books (which is lacking in the extreme).
To me is sound more like the Britannia Empire from Code Geass but . . .unfamiliar to me.
nevertheless, good find, another book that I've been introduced to.
Glad to have helped. I have read most of that series and every time I read it I want to nuke the Dominion until it's literally glowing from radiation. They are EVIL!
Uncanny resemblance.
Moderator: Outsider Moderators
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
I am a wander, going from place to place without a home I am a NOMAD
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
on the subject of bat shit crazy tyrants, i am kinda strange that i find democracy as ruling system insane, hey don't get me wrong it has a PLACE in a good government, everyone needs some place to voice concerns, but not as THE method of ruling.
why you ask? simple really, if someone you care about has a heart problem, do you want a heart surgeon to perform the operation or a national economics major with a minor in international politics to do it? cause that is just about what you need to understand what the hell is going on, and what you are voting about, and the consequences of that voting.
or have 120+ IQ and some interest in politics, but that is about 5% of the population that qualifies for that, and therefor CAN learn enough about politics without actually seriously studying it.
imho democracy should be one third of the system, with nobility(aka rich people) being another third, and some sort of monarchy(emperor whatever) as one third, requiring a majority to do anything above the use of designated budgets and all in agreement to do anything major(declare war or similar.), with a law about rich people caught interfering in the little peoples pond being summarily executed, they have their way of doing things.
but as mentioned before, i am kinda strange.
why you ask? simple really, if someone you care about has a heart problem, do you want a heart surgeon to perform the operation or a national economics major with a minor in international politics to do it? cause that is just about what you need to understand what the hell is going on, and what you are voting about, and the consequences of that voting.
or have 120+ IQ and some interest in politics, but that is about 5% of the population that qualifies for that, and therefor CAN learn enough about politics without actually seriously studying it.
imho democracy should be one third of the system, with nobility(aka rich people) being another third, and some sort of monarchy(emperor whatever) as one third, requiring a majority to do anything above the use of designated budgets and all in agreement to do anything major(declare war or similar.), with a law about rich people caught interfering in the little peoples pond being summarily executed, they have their way of doing things.
but as mentioned before, i am kinda strange.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
Enlightened despotism would be the ideal form of government, except that despots are rarely enlightened (and even when they are, they don't stay that way... the successor of a just ruler is almost always a tyrant).
"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." - Dalberg-Acton
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill
"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." - Dalberg-Acton
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
Oh. THE dangerous word in politics...discord wrote:...why you ask? simple really, if...
Where´s the difference between money and money?discord wrote:imho democracy should be one third of the system, with nobility(aka rich people) being another third, and some sort of monarchy(emperor whatever) as one third, requiring a majority to do anything above the use of designated budgets and all in agreement to do anything major(declare war or similar.), with a law about rich people caught interfering in the little peoples pond being summarily executed, they have their way of doing things.
That´d be 2:1 for money vs people anyway.
I´d say our todays democrazies are flawed, but they´re still the best form we can have (see Churchill).
Minimum IQ for politicians and more transparency would solve 2/3 of our todays problems.
And for the US-americans here: Vote Colbert!
sapere aude.
-
fredgiblet
- Moderator
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
Which is why I'm voting Denton-Helios in 2052Arioch wrote:Enlightened despotism would be the ideal form of government, except that despots are rarely enlightened (and even when they are, they don't stay that way... the successor of a just ruler is almost always a tyrant).
"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." - Dalberg-Acton
-
GOULimitingFactor
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 5:25 pm
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
Well, the big problem with any despotism is structural - there are still internal power-plays, but they're much, much worse than in a democracy (where power plays are openly acknowledged and governing bodies are structured to control them) - part of it is how much more power is at stake, and part of it is how openly that power is or can be contested. There's a late-Cold-War paper floating around (not sure it's been digitized) that details the structural advantages of democracies in negotiating with authoritarian systems - one of them is that it's much harder to put pressure on a democratic society in negotiations, because decision-making takes longer and so many more interested parties have to be satisfied (which also means more people to buy off, manipulate or blackmail). Some of you may see this as a bug, but it's definitely a feature.
There's a certain strain of naive-left (the naive-right tends to buy it wholesale, as they do everything else) political analysis that holds that the power-hungry are only in it for the money - the truth is that there are easier ways to make money. The money is part of it, but they're in it to be power players. Authoritarian systems look nice, and they have a lot of advantages from a narrative standpoint, but in the real world they're riddled with factionalism and massively unstable, and because they tend to brutal enforcement, internal power struggles are more likely to result in violence. If you think a nobility is a good idea, you're probably beyond saving, or at least grossly ignorant of history.
There's a certain strain of naive-left (the naive-right tends to buy it wholesale, as they do everything else) political analysis that holds that the power-hungry are only in it for the money - the truth is that there are easier ways to make money. The money is part of it, but they're in it to be power players. Authoritarian systems look nice, and they have a lot of advantages from a narrative standpoint, but in the real world they're riddled with factionalism and massively unstable, and because they tend to brutal enforcement, internal power struggles are more likely to result in violence. If you think a nobility is a good idea, you're probably beyond saving, or at least grossly ignorant of history.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
Meh...I tend to partially disagree with that.
I recommend everyone watch Legend of Galactic Heroes.... a 110 episode documentary on politics and government systems.
I recommend everyone watch Legend of Galactic Heroes.... a 110 episode documentary on politics and government systems.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
goul: one of the things i tried to point out, but utterly failed apparently, was that i think democracy as it is today is TOO stable in many ways, it becomes seriously entrenched and after a while(about a hundred years or so) any alternative is unthinkable, since it creates chaos and disturbs the all important peace....at which point the ruling system will grow more and more corrupt.
imho the ruling govenrment should undergo significant change every 50-100 years just to keep things fresh and new, keep it interesting, there is always room for improvement, and ANY government with a bureaucracy will add branches to solve problems, while old ones do not always go away when effectively superseded, this creates extra weight, and makes things less effective....
just saying things need to be shaken up every now and then.
and the classic question when it comes to ruling, it's not important to choose a good leader, it is important how to get rid of a bad one, now how do you do that in a democracy? although to be honest, what does the great leader do really? not much it seems, and if they do anything it seems to get worse for it.
http://corneralley.comicgenesis.com/d/20070905.html <---- so nicely put...
trantor: simple is acceptable in politics as long as it is not touted as a simple SOLUTION, cause that is bad, simple problems, or simple definitions of problems are another matter entirely.
imho the ruling govenrment should undergo significant change every 50-100 years just to keep things fresh and new, keep it interesting, there is always room for improvement, and ANY government with a bureaucracy will add branches to solve problems, while old ones do not always go away when effectively superseded, this creates extra weight, and makes things less effective....
just saying things need to be shaken up every now and then.
and the classic question when it comes to ruling, it's not important to choose a good leader, it is important how to get rid of a bad one, now how do you do that in a democracy? although to be honest, what does the great leader do really? not much it seems, and if they do anything it seems to get worse for it.
http://corneralley.comicgenesis.com/d/20070905.html <---- so nicely put...
trantor: simple is acceptable in politics as long as it is not touted as a simple SOLUTION, cause that is bad, simple problems, or simple definitions of problems are another matter entirely.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
discord wrote:...
and the classic question when it comes to ruling, it's not important to choose a good leader, it is important how to get rid of a bad one, now how do you do that in a democracy?
Simple Solution, no?
sapere aude.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
That a dangerous path, though we all may have wished that on a really really bad political leader. that kind of thing usually create chaos that "worst" people will use to get more power.Trantor wrote:Simple Solution, no?
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
I agree, look at what happen after JFK was killed, President Johnson's tenor wasn't the best, nor was Nixon in the hindsight. ( and poor charter had to take the job after Watergate . . . argh someone had to but really him the nice guyKarst45 wrote:That a dangerous path, though we all may have wished that on a really really bad political leader. that kind of thing usually create chaos that "worst" people will use to get more power.Trantor wrote:Simple Solution, no?
) Granted most might not understand what I'm getting at but the jiff is that one assassination might cause a longer spell of misfortune ( both politically, economically, and internationally) ( in I my own small option). But in terms of getting rid of a bad leader is a democracy it can be very difficult. My own experiences involve the Canadian Harper government with its constant "delays" in parliament and use of "suspension" of parliament. Now I know my country has had some "Dictatorial" elected leaders in our history but sometime it works ( and with this government) sometime it doesn't and thus your stuck until their voted out of power.
I am a wander, going from place to place without a home I am a NOMAD
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
okey, let's take the american system for example...you got a two party system, where there is little actual difference between the parties and you are in fact voting for a person that you know little to nothing about whose job is to deceive you into believing you do, and that you trust him.
now who does this guy work for? heck if i know, but if it is 'the people' it will not stay that way for long after he gets into power for the simple reason that the people are self destructive in their wishes, they want so much, and the state can not afford it but for a politician to get voted into office and be popular must provide it, which leads to deficits, and people want that to continue, which leads to greater deficits, which in time leads to banco rupto, or to use the actual latin bancus ruptus, bench broken which was from where the first bankers worked from, and when they went broke they broke the bench, or the more modern term, bankrupt.
then we have democracy that it is also latin, demo=people cracy=rule, and so the people rule....that's good right? problem is that 'people' are stupid, mob mentality, it's a scientific fact, individuals can be intelligent, 'people' can not, democracy assumes that every voting member needs to be sane, understand the issues and care about the issues, the voter needs to have a free press(good information without which it is impossible to form a opinion based on reality) freedom of speech(to have any opinion whatsoever and not be prosecuted for it.) some more things, but the problem is....
that only 'smart' people have enough brains to absorb that amount of information while at the same time be productive members of society, AND that the press is not exactly free due to the fact that speech is not exactly free either, i could bring up the classic nazi argument, but lets not, everyone gets huffy there, so lets take the a couple of questions relevant to modern America, the democratic leaders of the world, gay marriages...oh sorry, same-sex marriages and abortions. both of which can get you killed, or more likely socially shunned if you voice the wrong opinion about it, how many openly homosexual politicians are there in the US of A? having a little problem finding data on it, but i promise you it is usually a political suicide.
so not very free....and that does not even bring up 'care about the issues' since if you are smart enough to understand the issues you will probably figure out that there is little actual difference between the candidates, nor the fact that large groups of people tend to become irrational rather quickly.
summarized
minorities get little to no representation in democracy, which might seem counter intuitive, but it's actually just a extension of herd mentality, if something is different compared to what you are used to, it's bad and must be shunned.
that democracy requires that people be intelligent and care and that 'people' generally do not have these traits.
and finally that to please the 'people' you must give them bread and circus(and other things), which in time will ruin the state treasury.
now who does this guy work for? heck if i know, but if it is 'the people' it will not stay that way for long after he gets into power for the simple reason that the people are self destructive in their wishes, they want so much, and the state can not afford it but for a politician to get voted into office and be popular must provide it, which leads to deficits, and people want that to continue, which leads to greater deficits, which in time leads to banco rupto, or to use the actual latin bancus ruptus, bench broken which was from where the first bankers worked from, and when they went broke they broke the bench, or the more modern term, bankrupt.
then we have democracy that it is also latin, demo=people cracy=rule, and so the people rule....that's good right? problem is that 'people' are stupid, mob mentality, it's a scientific fact, individuals can be intelligent, 'people' can not, democracy assumes that every voting member needs to be sane, understand the issues and care about the issues, the voter needs to have a free press(good information without which it is impossible to form a opinion based on reality) freedom of speech(to have any opinion whatsoever and not be prosecuted for it.) some more things, but the problem is....
that only 'smart' people have enough brains to absorb that amount of information while at the same time be productive members of society, AND that the press is not exactly free due to the fact that speech is not exactly free either, i could bring up the classic nazi argument, but lets not, everyone gets huffy there, so lets take the a couple of questions relevant to modern America, the democratic leaders of the world, gay marriages...oh sorry, same-sex marriages and abortions. both of which can get you killed, or more likely socially shunned if you voice the wrong opinion about it, how many openly homosexual politicians are there in the US of A? having a little problem finding data on it, but i promise you it is usually a political suicide.
so not very free....and that does not even bring up 'care about the issues' since if you are smart enough to understand the issues you will probably figure out that there is little actual difference between the candidates, nor the fact that large groups of people tend to become irrational rather quickly.
summarized
minorities get little to no representation in democracy, which might seem counter intuitive, but it's actually just a extension of herd mentality, if something is different compared to what you are used to, it's bad and must be shunned.
that democracy requires that people be intelligent and care and that 'people' generally do not have these traits.
and finally that to please the 'people' you must give them bread and circus(and other things), which in time will ruin the state treasury.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
political parties are just as much a problem of democracy as anything else...favors, below-the-table deals and stuff like that.
Honestly, I'd prefer if it punishement for abusing the office (any high or important political position) is a a public execution, not this "slap on a wrist" BS...
Then the politicians would haev something to think about, the next time they want to f*** the people over.
Honestly, I'd prefer if it punishement for abusing the office (any high or important political position) is a a public execution, not this "slap on a wrist" BS...
Then the politicians would haev something to think about, the next time they want to f*** the people over.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
That is myth. Actually there are some research about how mob intelligence has occassionally beaten experts.discord wrote:the people rule....that's good right? problem is that 'people' are stupid, mob mentality, it's a scientific fact, individuals can be intelligent, 'people' can not, democracy assumes that every voting member needs to be sane, understand the issues and care about the issues, the voter needs to have a free press(good information without which it is impossible to form a opinion based on reality) freedom of speech(to have any opinion whatsoever and not be prosecuted for it.) some more things, but the problem is....
that only 'smart' people have enough brains to absorb that amount of information while at the same time be productive members of society,
Not in chess or sandbox games, but prediction of football games, survival in catastrophes, production of innovations, for examples.
Also, there is no amount of intelligence to make one immune to stupidities, like prejudices, mistakes and superstitions.
Supporter of forum RPG
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
bunny: production of innovation? i could buy football games, even if there is a very high chance factor involved there, and survival in catastrophe? that is what herd mentality is all about, so sure.....but innovations? how the bloody hell is a mob innovative? unless you are talking about things like wikipedia, but that is a entirely different matter...cause the only way i could think of a innovative mob is perhaps exchanging the torches and pitchforks for flamethrowers and chainsaws...some improvement, but not really intelligent imho.
or you could talk about internet 'cloud' intelligence, aka anonymous...sure, that works for a lot of problem solving....now that i think about it that is what creates the wikipedia...but that is not a herd of people, the internet helps to keep them from becoming a herd and keep them a bunch of individuals, basically distance helps to keep it from becoming emotional, not stop it, just not as much.
to see what i mean all you need to see is...well, football match gets it done, as does a rock concert but the best example i can think of is a religious gathering, if you are in the group you behave like the group, not as a individual and NOT behaving like the group can get you in serious trouble.
trashman: make it simple, create a law against breaking election promises, that would get you quite a bit when it comes to lowering the amount of...not nice things politicians do....but then you would need to assure that the winner has single majority, not much problem in the US, in Sweden it would be, multi party system, lots of smaller parties creating alliances, i think a system of elimination might be best....but then again, you might want a decentralized system too...well, combine it then...whatever.
actually it is kind of funny, democracy and republic are pretty damn OLD ideas, Plato talked about them, and not much has really changed since his time about how it works....and he did not like democracy all that much, and he would have applied it to city states, relatively small communities, where it works better.
or you could talk about internet 'cloud' intelligence, aka anonymous...sure, that works for a lot of problem solving....now that i think about it that is what creates the wikipedia...but that is not a herd of people, the internet helps to keep them from becoming a herd and keep them a bunch of individuals, basically distance helps to keep it from becoming emotional, not stop it, just not as much.
to see what i mean all you need to see is...well, football match gets it done, as does a rock concert but the best example i can think of is a religious gathering, if you are in the group you behave like the group, not as a individual and NOT behaving like the group can get you in serious trouble.
trashman: make it simple, create a law against breaking election promises, that would get you quite a bit when it comes to lowering the amount of...not nice things politicians do....but then you would need to assure that the winner has single majority, not much problem in the US, in Sweden it would be, multi party system, lots of smaller parties creating alliances, i think a system of elimination might be best....but then again, you might want a decentralized system too...well, combine it then...whatever.
actually it is kind of funny, democracy and republic are pretty damn OLD ideas, Plato talked about them, and not much has really changed since his time about how it works....and he did not like democracy all that much, and he would have applied it to city states, relatively small communities, where it works better.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
Maybe I was little of target when i mentioned innovations. But I meaned that
Experts have great visions, but the trends of progress/fashion/etc comes usually from mass of people.
Experts have great visions, but the trends of progress/fashion/etc comes usually from mass of people.
Supporter of forum RPG
-
GOULimitingFactor
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 5:25 pm
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
...Once again proving that citizens of a democratic society have no trouble rooting for aristocracy, as long as they can imagine that they'll get to be the aristocrats.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
I think the notion of an aristocracy theoretically can work... if a sense of duty is instilled in them. The problem here is of course the same problem with that of absolute monarchy, which is that privilege almost always breeds complacency and incompetence, rather than duty and efficacy. For a system to survive, there must be a mechanism in which there is pressure applied on the leaders and the leadership class -- popular pressure on an elected leadership, or cultural and/or traditional pressure on a nobility and/or despot. In most of our Earthly history, the second of the two has more often than not failed, That doesn't necessarily mean it's not possible, but for humans at least I think we can confidently say that given modern technology it's a very inefficient way of trying to run our society.
If you have a leadership caste, you might be able to instill a sense of duty in them as part of their training. This kind of system can work, but is difficult to protect from systemwide corruption.
The Loroi as a culture prefer oligarchy/dictatorship to democracy because it's comfortable to them. The Loroi consider themselves to be a warrior culture, and so some degree of authoritarianism is just assumed to be the norm. They are slow to accept change, and popular sentiment is considered of secondary importance. However, the Emperor's power is not absolute; she owes her position to the Diadem (the Torrai ruling council), and she is under significant pressure both from the "constitutional" rules of the caste hierarchies and also from the possibility of impeachment or civil war to act in a manner best suited for all. Loroi longevity helps a bit in this... a "good" ruler can last a long time (though age is no guard against corruption or disillusion or anarchronism -- one of the most successful Loroi emperors (Eighth Dawn) ultimately failed in the time of greatest need because she could not adapt rapidly enough to changing conditions), while a "bad" ruler can be quickly removed.
If you have a leadership caste, you might be able to instill a sense of duty in them as part of their training. This kind of system can work, but is difficult to protect from systemwide corruption.
The Loroi as a culture prefer oligarchy/dictatorship to democracy because it's comfortable to them. The Loroi consider themselves to be a warrior culture, and so some degree of authoritarianism is just assumed to be the norm. They are slow to accept change, and popular sentiment is considered of secondary importance. However, the Emperor's power is not absolute; she owes her position to the Diadem (the Torrai ruling council), and she is under significant pressure both from the "constitutional" rules of the caste hierarchies and also from the possibility of impeachment or civil war to act in a manner best suited for all. Loroi longevity helps a bit in this... a "good" ruler can last a long time (though age is no guard against corruption or disillusion or anarchronism -- one of the most successful Loroi emperors (Eighth Dawn) ultimately failed in the time of greatest need because she could not adapt rapidly enough to changing conditions), while a "bad" ruler can be quickly removed.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
bunny: no, most 'innovation' as in ideas for direction usually comes from science fiction writers, jules verne is the classic example another good one would be gibson and sterling for the cyber punk era, there are LOTS of others out there, that came up with a idea for a story and later it turns out to be doable, philosophers....lesse who was the first to come up with the idea that the universe began with a bang? the first to write it nicely was edgar allan poe, there is some indication that erasmus darwin was earlier, but that was pure poetry imho.
arioch: that is why i think it is important to split the system.
nobility, AKA rich people, give them voting power in their own chamber based on taxation value, basically plutocracy.
the people, but instead of national elections, make the system decentralized(vote for who represents your county(or maybe even go down to city? dunno), and the representatives from there elects one of them to represent them in the state and the same for the federal level.), so you get MUCH smaller campaigns that is possible to do without millions in funding, decentralized democracy.
and finally some sort of imperator, probably a hereditary, some kind of monarchy.
and then taxation, 10% of the tax from county goes to state level, 10% of that goes to federal level, and 10% of that goes to the imperator to do whatever the hell he wants to do with it...or something like that, this would give more power to the local government, and therefor make the citizens vote more....noticeable and feel like it makes a actual difference, while at the same time let the wealth be spread about on the state level, and the money on the federal level is mostly just military....the actual numbers here are just a simple placeholder, the actual ratios to be kicked up would of course vary from nation to nation, but CHANGING them would require all three chambers to agree, at which point you can be bloody sure it is needed.
this is all just ideas, i am simply throwing'em out to you and seeing how you react and if you have any opinions/ideas/criticism, and me trying to figure out how to stitch this together to a working system, it SHOULD work pretty well in my not so humble opinion.
arioch: that is why i think it is important to split the system.
nobility, AKA rich people, give them voting power in their own chamber based on taxation value, basically plutocracy.
the people, but instead of national elections, make the system decentralized(vote for who represents your county(or maybe even go down to city? dunno), and the representatives from there elects one of them to represent them in the state and the same for the federal level.), so you get MUCH smaller campaigns that is possible to do without millions in funding, decentralized democracy.
and finally some sort of imperator, probably a hereditary, some kind of monarchy.
and then taxation, 10% of the tax from county goes to state level, 10% of that goes to federal level, and 10% of that goes to the imperator to do whatever the hell he wants to do with it...or something like that, this would give more power to the local government, and therefor make the citizens vote more....noticeable and feel like it makes a actual difference, while at the same time let the wealth be spread about on the state level, and the money on the federal level is mostly just military....the actual numbers here are just a simple placeholder, the actual ratios to be kicked up would of course vary from nation to nation, but CHANGING them would require all three chambers to agree, at which point you can be bloody sure it is needed.
this is all just ideas, i am simply throwing'em out to you and seeing how you react and if you have any opinions/ideas/criticism, and me trying to figure out how to stitch this together to a working system, it SHOULD work pretty well in my not so humble opinion.
Re: Uncanny resemblance.
Actually the founding fathers of the US originally had a system very close to this one Discord. They felt that the general population was to ill informed and fickle to have a large control over the federal government. To this end they established that the "Lesser" House of Representatives was the only part they had a control through general elections in. The Senate was chosen by the State Legislature that they represented, and the President was chosen through a group of elites that we call the Electoral College. It is only recently that they have changed it so that the general populace has control over most aspects of the federal government.discord wrote: instead of national elections, make the system decentralized(vote for who represents your county(or maybe even go down to city? dunno), and the representatives from there elects one of them to represent them in the state and the same for the federal level.), so you get MUCH smaller campaigns that is possible to do without millions in funding, decentralized democracy.
.