As we all become global citizens, centralized governments will slowly loose their jurisdictional power over people. We will create self organizing and self regulating free market economies and societies, in turn moving the power, back to the people. This idealistic vision of an Utopian future sounds like a dream. But I believe Steemit and other similar organisations are busy independently laying the foundation for exactly that.
Yes, we have a long road ahead before any and all of us can claim to be truly free of the unjust and restrictive system that have gotten us this far. This path, down which we are clearly heading, is being left behind at an ever increasing pace. An exponential pace. Artificial Intelligence, Self driving cars, 3D printing, Genome sequencing, Nano bots, Virtual/Augmented reality. All of these converging technologies drive the speed at which we, as a collective organism, advance. So even if the road is long, the time is short, and we need to proactively start thinking about what justice means in a Decentralized Society.
So if given exactly what we asked for. Freedom of choice. Freedom of expression. Freedom from control. What will we do with our freedom? And to what extent will we allow others to exercise theirs? Because at the face of it, it's simple; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But the real world is far more complex than this, and the horrible failure of our current global justice system speaks volume to the level of change we desperately need. The discontinuity and irregularity in how we treat murderers, rapists, and the worst members of our societies compared to ordinary people, being at the wrong place and time or making a series of innocent but bad decisions is disheartening. Clearly something is wrong.
So giving the opportunity, if you could design, albeit not perfect, but better justice system, what changes would you bring?
For me personally, the system is broken at it's most fundamental level. A system with discrete, black and white, rules but fluid implementations of those hard and fast rules, is doomed to fail from the start. I believe this is purely a outcome of the human phyche. If there is a boundary, people will see how far they can push it. If the legal drinking age is 21, people will compared to that arbitrary number see you far below that they can have their first drink. Or if the legal age of consent is 18, people will always see with what they can get away with.
We all inherently "know" what is wrong and right given the circumstantial information. And if not, we should learn. So imagine a legal system with not a single rule. No boundary to push. No loophole to find. Self governance all the way. But, very importantly, any member of this society must have the right to challenge any other member based on decisions they made. An open, transparent, independent and decentralized jury would then self-assemble, review all subjective evidence and make subjective votes on recommendations of what actions need to be taken. The jury could be any size and would attract/lose members based on the perceived importance of the outcome. After actions have been implemented and rehabilitation (which should be the ultimate goal) verified to the extent that perceived importance is low enough, the jury would self-dis-assemble. Jury members would be rewarded for making suggestions and/or early up voting suggestions, that are later implemented. Very similar to the current Steemit system.
An adaptive system for a complex world. Fluid rules for a subjective society. At the mercy of each other. Like we already are. At least this will be more direct, transparent and fair. Well, I think so.
What do you think?