None of the points on your list really needs technology to work. You can even have exchange of text instead of in-person-meetings. Switzerland, for example, had a lot of direct democracy going on before tech could be harnessed to support it. Of course I love how tech makes it easier to transmit information and talk to others around the globe, but it doesn’t enable something that couldn’t exist before. The only difference I can see in building a more direct democracy without tech would be that decisions take longer, and that might actually be a good thing.
Mind you I’m not arguing to remove all tech from government. I was busy dealing with government services the other day and was very glad to not have to go and see anyone in person. But I don’t buy that the tech just by itself will bring us any closer to a fair anarchist society. Adding a layer of tech (or anything else that the majority of the population doesn’t understand) means adding a layer of possible corruption that will have to be kept under check.
The problem is scale. You can do all of it on paper or in person, but that scales awfully badly. On a country level a referendum takes years to set up and organize. That is a huge problem for Switzerland as changing anything can take ages. Womens suffrage took Switzerland until 1971 on a federal level and 1990 on a canton level. Just as an example. That is for what really is a small country. Just think about something the size and compelxity of India for example. Switzerland only has four languages, India has hundrets and happens to be much bigger.
If only, but in reality it probably ends up being more like this crypto-bro shit: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjknx/tech-billionaires-launch-fund-to-create-new-libertarian-societies-balaji
None of the points on your list really needs technology to work. You can even have exchange of text instead of in-person-meetings. Switzerland, for example, had a lot of direct democracy going on before tech could be harnessed to support it. Of course I love how tech makes it easier to transmit information and talk to others around the globe, but it doesn’t enable something that couldn’t exist before. The only difference I can see in building a more direct democracy without tech would be that decisions take longer, and that might actually be a good thing.
Mind you I’m not arguing to remove all tech from government. I was busy dealing with government services the other day and was very glad to not have to go and see anyone in person. But I don’t buy that the tech just by itself will bring us any closer to a fair anarchist society. Adding a layer of tech (or anything else that the majority of the population doesn’t understand) means adding a layer of possible corruption that will have to be kept under check.
The problem is scale. You can do all of it on paper or in person, but that scales awfully badly. On a country level a referendum takes years to set up and organize. That is a huge problem for Switzerland as changing anything can take ages. Womens suffrage took Switzerland until 1971 on a federal level and 1990 on a canton level. Just as an example. That is for what really is a small country. Just think about something the size and compelxity of India for example. Switzerland only has four languages, India has hundrets and happens to be much bigger.