Worldwide voting system - Beware the Choice Architect

Worldwide voting is baked into the protocol, it’s one of the Maidsafe patented inventions.

The Choice Architects will be drooling over this, so it’s incumbent on us to know something about these Behavioural Scientists.

Choice architecture/Libertarian Paternalism is a simple concept of ‘we know what’s best for you’ They decide the menu and default choices…you are being ‘Nudged’

Nudging can be open, like in the video at the end or sneaky…like these:

Example 1/ Problem: We don’t have enough organ donors Solution: Make the default on drivers licences to ‘opted in’

Example 2/ Problem: People wont invest money in the economy, their hoarding Solution: Set the default on retirement accounts, to a higher risk level…thereby forcing money into stocks and risk assets

Example 3/ Problem: Too much money being spent on end of life care Solution: Set default to ‘do not resuscitate’

You get the drift…a raft of options set to a desired outcome. If you don’t look you wont notice. Like most things it can be used for good or nefarious reasons

So we look at voting on something…you can bet the choice architects are going to set the options to herd the masses to the desired outcome.

Example 4/ Scenario: We are having a vote for a colour scheme, the choices are red, blue, white, yellow, green My choice is a frequency outside of the visible spectrum…crazy, but that’s the way I operate, because I’m unique.

My choice wont get up, because it’s not an option and even if it was…of course it would still not get up…but I was able to express myself and others might be inspired to think outside a set choice menu also…bad computer.

This architecture is right through the whole of society and baked into ‘democracy’

So will this Maidsafe voting system scale…inwards.

If were stuck for the time being with this pyramidal system of governance…I want the ability to choose my neighbour as the capstone.

Wait a minute…I don’t know my neighbour! Best get out and get to know the people in my street, reach a consensus to build a menu of choices for my street.

Street by street, town by town, council by council.

Builders! make it scale…inwards and get creative…encourage imagination.

Nudge, nudge,nudge your being nudged

From the maidsafe patent:

Distributed Controlled Voting

According to a related aspect of this invention, to further manage the system there has to be a level of control as well as distribution to enable all users to access it at any time. The distribution of the votes is controlled as system messages and stored for users using the messenger system described earlier.

The main issue with a system such as this would be ‘what’ is voted on and ‘who’ poses the votes and words polls. This is key to the fairness and clarity of the system and process. This voting system will preferably always have a ‘not enough information’ selection to provide a route by which users are able to access information so that they are well informed before making any decision.

The system will require a group of individuals, who are preferably voted into office by the public as the policyholders/trustees of the voting system. This group will be known by their public ID and use their public ID to authenticate and publish a poll. This group will preferably be voted into office for a term and may be removed at any time via a consensus of the voting public. For this reason there will be continual polls on line which reflect how well the policyholders are doing as a group and preferably individually as well.

According to a related aspect of this invention, users of the system will input to the larger issues on the system. Macro management should be carried out via the policyholders of the system, whom as mentioned previously may be voted in or out at any time, however larger issues should be left to the users. These issues can preferably be what licenses are used, costs of systems, dissemination of charitable contributions, provision to humanitarian and scientific projects of virtual computing resources on large scales etc.

To achieve this, preferably a system message will be sent out, where it is not presented as a message but as a vote. This should show up in the users voting section of the system. User private IDs will be required to act on this vote and they can make their decision.

There will be appeals on these votes when it would be apparent that conclusion of the vote is dangerous to either a small community or the system as a whole. Users will have an option of continuing with the vote and potential damage but essentially the user will decide and that will be final. Preferably this system does not have a block vote or any other system which rates one individual over another at any time or provides an advantage in any other way. This requires no ability to allow veto on any decision or casting of votes by proxy so that the authenticated user’s decision is seen as properly recorded and final.

According to a related aspect of this invention, a system of perpetual data, self encrypting files and data mapping will allow a global anonymous backup and restore system for data to exist. This system can be constructed from the previous discussions where data may be made perpetual on a network and anonymously shared to prevent duplication. This together with the ability to check, manipulate and maintain revision control over files adds the capability of a ‘time machine’ type environment where data may be time stamped on backup.

This allows a system to rebuild a user’s data set as it was at any time in history since using or similar technologies. This may form a defence at times where in cases like prior art enquiries, insider dealing etc. is being considered, as the system is secure and validated by many other nodes etc. It can therefore be shown what knowledge (at least from the point of view of owning the data pertaining to a subject,) anyone had of certain circumstances.

According to a related aspect of this invention, preferably using aspect(s) previously defined or any that may improve this situation. Taking distributed authentication, backup and restore along with data map sharing; the system can add to this the ability for granular access controls. In this case a node entering the network will request an authenticator to authorise its access. In this case the authenticator will be a manager or equivalent in an organisation (whether matrix managed or traditional pyramid). This authorisation will tie the public ID of the authoriser to the system as having access to this node’s data and any other authorisations they make (in an authorisation chain).

This allows an environment of distributed secure backup, restore and sharing in a corporate or otherwise private environment.

According to a related aspect of this invention, all of the capabilities described here with the exception of the above will ensure that a network of nodes can be created, in which users have security privacy and freedom to operate.

These nodes will have refutable IDs (MAID, PMID etc.) as well as non refutable IDs (MPID) for different purposes, just as in human life in general there is time to be identified and times when it is just best not to be.

According to a related aspect of this invention, adding the ability of non refutable messaging allows users to not only communicate genuinely and securely but also the ability to communicate under contracted terms. This allows for the implementation of legally kept trade secrets (as implied with NDA agreements etc.) plus many more contracted communications. This will hopefully lessen the burden on legal issues such as litigation etc.

According to a related aspect of this invention, adding the ability to create two voting systems, anonymous and non-anonymous, allows the system to provide a mechanism for instant democracy. This is achieved by allowing a voting panel in a user’s account that is constantly updated with issues regarding the system and it’s improvements initially. These votes will be anonymous.

In another anonymous voting scenario users may continually vote on certain subjects (as in a running poll) these subjects could be the leaders of boards etc.

In a non anonymous voting scenario it may be there’s groups of identified people (via their MPID) who have a common grouping such as a charity or similar and they may require certain people to vote on certain matters and be recognised. This is where the MPID is used for voting


I like Bitvote’s open vote approach. The only thing is, they work with URLs and websites sometimes dissapear or show a complete different message. Another thing, an URL doesn’t completely say what you think is important about that URL, that you vote for.

These are 2 URLs with the same message but that doesn’t tell my opinion about the article. It would be ideally if you could highlight things in the article or just type what you think about it in Bitvote. The bigger picture would be that the Bitvote system gets smart enough to connect all the dots and that is the temporarly final vote about that subject. To use time as a mechanism to give voting power is brilliant, because it’s the only thing we humans can’t control. But when I think about “High Frequency Trading” time could also work against humans, if we allow AI’s to vote about something.

To be honest I’m sick and tired to vote for people who are suppose to represent us. If we take ourselves really serious, maybe we should let these people feel through financial consequence and jail time for their acts in office. But reasoning this way I know that i’m a complete idiot, because it’s corporation that decide what happens in politics. Honestly let’s take the smart group of humans completely of the drawing board. Let’s all just talk about thing that we think is important. We should let algorithms filter through the noise and let us hear the harmony we long for. We don’t really need somebody to decide which choices or topic we should talk about and make decisions over. We allready know the choices we want to make, we could start today by going through all the laws that we have in place today.

Laws should constantly be evaluated and updated. Everybody should be part of this conversation, people who are not able to give their opinion yet, should be able to add their vote and the rule should be adjusted. Personally I think that we should have a decentralized government and you can vote to topics worldwide or locally. For instance I can vote YES for Net Neutrality and that I want the potholes fixed in my neighbourhood. The pothole vote would be with a volunteerly payment, because i don’t own a car. But if you own a car that you are actually using, your vote is automatically YES and you have a minimum of let’s say $10 contribution. The minimum is based on the amount of people and cost that it takes to repair all the potholes. It would be funny if we had sensors on our cars scanning the potholes and after a full sweep all this data is send to the voting machine, which calculates the sum and picks out the best repair company based on price, location and a few other parametres.

I HATE top down systems and people thinking that they are somehow powerfull or priviliged. Let’s just all get on the same stage and NEVER again place people on the stage like they are the SUN. What I LIKE/LOVE most about Bitvote is that your money doesn’t buy you Vote Time. It’s the way to go if you ask me. But it’s just the first steps, our voting system should dig deep into the core of things and find solutions. For instance, I’m against abortion (every life is important) that’s why my vote should trickle down into donating $1 (per month, quarter, annum) to an orphan house taking in abandon babies. I know that letting people pay for what they believe seems a little forcefull and who can say if the money is used right? Well this is the part where the voting system really shine, because if it detects that a Lamborghini was bought by the director of the orphan house with the money people like me donate. It directly stops my reccuring payment. But not only in that case should it take an action, also if the director did it with his own money. Then it would be nice to know this, so that I can change the orphan house, it would even be better, if they got feedback about my change of heart. Public figures or instances receiving money should all be followed by the vote system. Maybe we can even take it a step further, that the instances doesn’t receive the money at all, but their supplier does. That way you can make sure that the money is spend the way it was intented too.

Voting should go hand in hand with paying a price for what you vote for. This would give people the real idea of going to war in other countries. I understand that vote should not become a put your money where your mouth is adventure, because not everybody got money. And that’s why the vote system should be able to peep into accounts, so that a bum can still vote for more bumshelters without having to pay for it. So what if you don’t want to provide any account info? well as a private person you would still be able to vote. But charities and instances receiving money their financial doors will have to be wide open. Bitcoin is ideal to keep track of all these entities.

Voting can really become a headache, because proof of unique human is shaky. Also can we really get a fool proof system? You could have a person’s heartbeat as proof, but even that can be twarthed with an artifical one or that if an animal. So you need another layer, maybe a brainscan, maybe speech and so on. Identity and who can vote (Human/AI/Alien/Animal) is sure gonna be a hot topic in the years to come. But we should start thinking how to improve how we vote and who is actually voting.

Don’t see the problem, it is the most humanitarian way to do it and religious people can opt out if they wish.

This is just economics, but not sure this happens. In such a scenario, interest rates head towards zero,(actually negative interest rates in some places) thereby robbing savers and encouraging people to spend. It is a problem inherent with the current failed market economy/Capitalist system.

I don’t believe this to be the case. This is discussed with the patient or their surrogate. DNRs only prevent cardio/pulmonary resuscitation, which is not efficacious in patients near end of life - the success rate is very low. It is to prevent unwarranted and invasive suffering. In no way is it a default option anywhere as far as I know. All other life prolonging procedures are given though, such as transfusions etc.

This is a tricky issue though, basically how do you represent minority opinions or protect minorities from being abused? Some majority opinions (especially religious ones) can be extremely harmful - think hanging gays, female genital mutilation etc.
This problem would be inherent in any voting system. I do appreciate that your idea has a lot of merit and solves a number of issues, but not sure if it addresses the fundamental problem - then again I can’t think of any system that would

I think you missed my point here and I should have made it clearer, the scenarios may or may not be real.

The point was, to introduce the concept of choice architecture and Libertarian Paternalism as a soft method of herding humanity into desired outcomes.

I tied this into the SAFE voting system to say hey! we have this fabulous technology that can be used for good, but just be awake to the fact choice architects would like to use it to frame the terms of reference in their favour…a menu of choices as opposed to something which represents the will of the people.

Thanks for your input, I’ll try harder to make the intent of my points more obvious


Right, I see, sorry. To be honest this seems to be the case with things like general/presidential elections The presented choices of say Conservative/Labour (even Liberal now) or Republican/Democrat are a case in point to my mind. None of these choices are representative of the People’s will anymore, rather the will of Corporate interests - whichever you choose. Who voted for fracking, raping the planet, diminishing rights and privacy etc? Cheers.

1 Like

Al_Kafir, this example is outrageous and that is apparent.
Here you are basically saying that you (or the government which I also didn’t vote for) is authorized to set humanitarian standards and then pre-vote for me the way they want just in case I am too stupid or uncivilized to understand the preferred choice.
I cannot not obliged by someone’s made-up “default” choice.

Example 2: The criminals from the Fed and other central banks. Enough said.
Example 3: Death Panels, weeee! It’s a false choice, though, the solution is to have everyone decide for themselves how much to spend.
Example 4: The problem would not be inherent in any voting system. If the citizen can opt out and not vote, he would not not have to. Let’s say you don’t want to vote. You can do that even in moderately free countries like the US or Germany.
But that doesn’t solve the next problem, which is that he’d still have to live by the laws introduced as a result of that democratic vote (which is why democracy invariably gradually turns into totalitarianism).

What on Earth are you on about, I’m talking about organ donation in the event of death? Your argument is illogical for a start - there necessarily has to be a default of one sort or another. Currently the default is to not harvest organs after accidental death - I can use your own arguments against this default.

You wouldn’t be, you’d have a choice as now, only instead of opt-in, it would be opt-out. This would be the most Humanitarian way to deal with current organ shortages - this I don’t think is arguable in any sensible way. As I said, why would you prefer to not potentially save a child’s life by giving away something you no longer have any use for, unless as I said it was for supernatural religious reasons? - Those kind of reasons seem extremely selfish and irrational to me btw.

sorry, forgot what I was going to say…

Yes. There are poor people who could - instead of being “nudged” into the humanitarian choice - authorize someone to sell their organs in case of their accidental death.

You’re wrong.
a) There does not have to be a default. I can leave that decision to my heirs. In case I leave debts behind me they could - should they want to - sell my organs and not be ruined by debts that I didn’t/couldn’t return.
b) You cannot use my own argument against the current default (do NOT harvest) because nothing can be forced upon me without my agreement. Not harvesting organs doesn’t force anything upon anyone. Harvesting does.

Of course I would be. In order to avoid posthumous confiscation of my organs, I would have to incur various expenses:

  • Cost of paying the government to come up with hare-brained schemes like that
  • Cost of time learning about the opt-in default
  • Cost of time, effort and material required to opt out

Guess who would get to sell their organs posthumously and who’d end up donating them for free?
Do you think the poor and those in need would do well in your auto-opt-in system?

You are making the common mistake of mistaking my being against the government doing something for me objecting to it in general. To paraphrase: It is as if you were to accuse me of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Not sure why you are riffing on an imaginary scenario…I made it clear:

I think you missed my point here and I should have made it clearer, the scenarios may or may not be real.

The point was, to introduce the concept of choice architecture and Libertarian Paternalism as a soft method of herding humanity into desired outcomes.

I tied this into the SAFE voting system to say hey! we have this fabulous technology that can be used for good, but just be awake to the fact choice architects would like to use it to frame the terms of reference in their favour…a menu of choices as opposed to something which represents the will of the people.

Please keep the discussion on topic i.e Choice Architecture/ Libertarian Paternalism.

If you don’t understand these concepts, please research before posting further.

This goes on at the moment - the reason being, that there is a scarcity of available organs. If it was the default to donate, then more organs would become available and there would be no incentive for people to sell their organs.

Why would you leave the decision to your heirs, rather than take responsibility for the decision yourself? This would put a bit of added stress to your bereaved family wouldn’t it ? It would also massively delay any harvesting and render any organs useless. So, the only reason you would do this is for financial reasons - you are quite happy to sell your organs, but not donate them …even after you’re dead!!! nice guy.

Lol…you won’t exist, so how could you agree, we are talking about a corpse? Again, you generously make my case for me: Why should I have it forced on me to not help save lives after my death?
You are advocating that we should base these decisions on theological, rather than Humanitarian reasoning, basically. Anyway, it’s the way things are going and will definitely be the future. The way we decide these things is to forward the arguments for and against, then society comes to a consensus. People like me are winning this argument…just a fact.

lol, its not that I don’t understand these topics, its that me and Janitor veered off topic, that’s all. Apologies.

I think this is the basic question you are asking (as well as warning of the choice architects) and I don’t know the answer, so will go now…


This is not an imaginary scenario, it is a real and current issue.

No, I didn’t miss your point (maybe you meant to reply to Al_Kafir?) because I read your post carefully.
I did not find it necessary to comment on those imaginary scenarios because your post already shows how those scenarios are inferior to what you (or the patent) are/is proposing. I only decided to comment in reply to Al_Kafir’s comment because it seemed to me Al_Kafir approved of them.

It seems anonymous voting wouldn’t provide the ability to examine one’s voting record to check for possible conflict of interest and similar issues. If that’s the case voting that would require this ability would have to be non-anonymous (and the user-system ID mapping that’s known to the government. To me that’s a problem because it opens the door to possible abuse of dissidents and so on. That’s why I see the non-anonymous voting mechanism more suited to private DAO’s which can operate on the basis of PoR.

Is this going to be included MaidSafe or does it require implementation from scratch?

  1. I’d like to see this used for MaidSafe governance, features and how to distribute freebies.
  2. If person-to-ID mapping is required for government-related voting and voter identity can be determined, I don’t think it can work well to make democracy work (on top of that democracy doesn’t work either).

They could post surety bonds, but that would mean only the richest could run for the office and many cause damage that even Bill Gates couldn’t pay it’d be a poor and partial solution.

That creates the political class, bureaucracy, high taxes, corruption and inefficiencies.
Laws and regulations should instead be one by one cancelled until there’s the bare minimum of them left in place, sufficient to protect the voters’ life & property.

Democracy by definition cannot be successful because voters are inclined to vote for anything that disproportionately benefits them (if a new public road costs me $9 in additional taxes and I get $10 worth of convenience out of it, I’ll vote for it) and wile making it more efficient this way can fix some most obvious problems, it doesn’t fix its fundamental flaw.

Democracy is a sham, a failed experiment. I don’t even know why we’re having this conversation. In the maidsafe system you can easily transfer funds anonymously. What’s to stop senator asshole from getting in touch with corruptioncorp and asking for a bribe in return for campaign funding and passing laws that support corruptioncorp? Say we had an election on maidsafe with parties A and B, open to the whole network. All it takes is some rich guy to message party A or B and offer a bribe (or a threat) and democracy is compromised and meaningless. Nevermind the whole tyrany of the majority thing.

The most effective thing I could see working would selective leadership, if you want leadership at all. Basically you choose who you follow, what legal system/political system you subscribe to and you’re free to opt out at any time. I do not believe or support the concept of taxation so I wouldn’t opt into a system that uses taxation. (I’m uncomfortable enough as it is that maidsafe uses a form of taxation to support the devs but do appreciate that the devs are being supported. In short if there was a checkbox to support the devs I’d check it but I’d appreciate there being a check box instead of it being hard coded into the system.) Some people do believe in taxation, and that’s fine, and would opt for a system that uses it. The problem is when people that do believe in it try to force their system on people that don’t. This can apply to anything, gun control, abortion, public education, healthcare, theft, murder, anything. Under such a system society would divide into factions with their own beliefs, codes of conduct and ways of life. We would no longer be divided by national borders but rather by what we believe and whom we follow, if anyone.

1 Like

This is not really taxation, it is paying for labour really as I see it.

Paying devs is a completely different category to the above list I think. Civilised society generally recognises the benefits of gun control, a woman’s right to choose, public education and healthcare provision - and agrees ways to deal with theft and murder. Separate factions touting guns, murdering abortion doctors etc and not generally obeying the laws of the land they live in will suffer consequences whatever voting systems are in place really - at least for the foreseeable future.

Oh I see so those who believe abortion equates to murder, who believe in the right to bear arms, or believe in public social engineering programs, no those people would be uncivilized in your eyes eh? And on top of all this you’re saying that it’s justifiable to rob people to support all of this instead of using voluntary funding methods. Yes very civilized indeed.

I’m not trying to spark a big debate here (though I could most definitely ream you out over any one of those lines of subject matter) but the point is there are many who believe in freedom, be it education, their right to bear arms, their right to preserve morality, so forth and so on. And you enforcing your beliefs by taxing them and then passing laws to enforce your beliefs on them, using stolen money (taxes) just exaserbates the issue. Not to mention you are devaluing those who believe differently than you. Quite frankly personally I can’t see any diffrence between abortion and murder so I couldn’t see any “civilized” nation allowing it, at least while they made murder illegal since it’s a blatant hypocrocy, but then there are many like yourself that disagree with me. And my point being that those who disagree should not be forced to fund one another nor have to abide in the same associations/communites should we choose to opt out of them. You want gun control and I don’t? Let’s develop seperate communities, one with gun control and one without. No laws, no fighting over different belief systems, just you go your way and I’ll go my way. Why would gun control even be required if all the members of a community agree to remain unarmed? Gun control is only required if those who wish for the community to remain unarmed wish to force their belief on those who do not wish to be unarmed, that’s why it’s called gun control.

Did I click I checkbox or in any way choose to pay for their labour? Remember the devs aren’t just working on the maidsafe project, the money also goes to support devs that works on various apps. Therefore my farming fund goes to support devs and apps I might never use. And while I might actually agree to this I still want to have the CHOICE of whether or not to agree to this.

As you have just walked up to me with your stove pipe hat on and slapped me all round the face with your gauntlet, then tossed it to the floor , I feel obliged to pick it up. Unfortunately I have a mildewy bathroom to paint first though, so till later. Cheers

1 Like

Yes, pretty much. We all have different ideas about what is civilized behaviour. My idea is different from yours and I guess an advocate of Sharia law, or crusading Christian would be different again.

Again, taxation is not robbery. Societies choose to have a safety net for things like health and Social Security, rather than leave their populations to the kind of social Darwinism that you seem to recommend.

Yes, collectively known as the tea party.

Well, there is one, but you’re entitled to your opinion, though this kind of thinking leads to the actual murder of abortion doctors. I would say you think this for either religious reasons or because we differ in where on the continuum of foetal development we believe an actual human life begins. If for religious reasons, then this doesn’t really come into the argument in regard to legislation, simply because not everyone is religious - these types of laws have to based on Secular/scientific/humanitarian reasons.
If you ban abortions, then all you do is recreate the back street abortionists of Victorian times.

How exactly do you envisage this being workable? Are you suggesting some cities have guns and others don’t or are you again advocating more of the same current system, whereby individual countries have their own laws - ie just the way things already are?

It’s interesting you seem to think that I was saying there should be no social safety nets when in fact all I was saying was there should be no taxation. You seem to think using coercion to get your funds for your various public services is the only way.

Say you wanted to set up a hospital. No you could coerce the pupulace to give up a portion of their income to fund it. OR you could ask the populace first if they wanted the hospital, they probably do and if they don’t then what’s the point? So first you ask and they say yes, then you see who is willing to contribute and in what way to it’s construction. Some might be willing to contribute time, some financially, some with labour and skills. And the point I’m making here is your project, the hospital, your public service, becomes manifest using voluntary means. You staff it the same way. You find doctors, or investors, that are WILLING to fund it or willing to work ther voluntarily. You do not force people to pay for it. Statism is based on the concept of coercion, of force. What happens when you do not pay your taxes? You are COMPELLED to pay your taxes. That’s FORCE, that’s THEFT.

I am not in favor of the school system not because I don’t support education but because I don’t support social engineering and having our children being propagandized, disattatched fheir families, and taught to fear the state and authorities from a young and impressionable age. The only true education is self education. Welfare and other such systems are based on dependency and doling out cheques instead of helping to create indepence and self sufficience. Why doesn’t welfare help client grow their own food when they settle into a new home? Why aren’t their government sponsored urban gardening programs? Why aren’t clients taught simple and money saving skills like say composting so they can create DIRT to GROW FOOD with. Basic basic stuff… that as a result would get them off the rat race and undermine the entire system of control. Oh no we mustn’t have a free populace that is actually self sufficient and indepent in so much they have no need to get a job OR be on government assistance. Heaven forbid. (And before you go off on a tangent yes there is more to it but I was using a few little example skills there.)

Are you from the states @AlKafir ? You seem to be caught up in this Left vs Right bullshit whch is kind of sad yet entertainng at the same time. A lot of people from the states are sucked into that. The Tea Party? Good God I deplore party politics. I’ve been labeled a communist as often as I’ve been labeled a tea bagger. It’s both amusing and irratating. I’m an anarchist man. In general I do not support wars as they are pretty much pointless and used mainly for political and economic reasons. I’m generally collaborative. I believe in gift society economics, open source software and getting rid of copyright. And you’re labeling me with a Tea Party label? Seriously. Take your stereotypes and shove them up your ass.

I believe an actual human life begins from conception. Your parents are human therefore you are human. Your chromosomes are human, your dna is human, cells are alive, you are growing, at no point have you died or changed species, therefore you are alive and a human being. Frankly I find any other definition to be insane and consequently the “civilized society” to which you refer equally so. If acknowledging and valuing obvious human life is uncivilized then am a proud barbarian. Moreover I’ll have you know I’m rather repelled by organized religions, especially the zoriastrian faths such as Chrstianity, Judiasm and Islam, because of their adherence to concepts like absolute truth, Absolute Good vs Evil, their propensity for war and persecution of those different than them, etc etc. So put the notion out of your mind of trying to label my beliefs as “religious dogma” or some shit like that.

Yes but then again if you ban murder all you do is get people shot and murdered in back alleys so really I don’t see your point. No prohibition doesn’t work. People find a way to do it anyway but consider I see abortion and “murder” as equal therefore I see making abortion legal and murder illegal as a giant hypocracy. The fact that banning abortion would result in it being done illegally is a moot point for me because murders are commited illegally too and they’re the same thing. So what’s your point?

Yes. To whatever degree people could reach consensus they’d group together. Some households, some neighbourhoods, some blocks, some cities, some states, some countries, all having their own beliefs and values. Ideally it wouldn’t be based on geographical location, that is to say one wouldn’t have to move from area a to get to a place which was more accepting of their values in area b. However given the nature of physical reality that seems the only way to do it. Having improved transport between various locations would greatly expedite all of this and allow this with various beliefs to travel to areas with like minded people.

Yes I heard all about the hardships for families in India during partition in 1947. This is a shining example of your philosophy and it’s consequences. I really don’t have the inclination to respond to the rest of your thread, advocating this kind of thing - it really is just silly.