Como agradar Noam Chomsky & Yuval Noah Harari?

[The original article is from December 13, 2020, migrated on this date to this new blog]

I will focus on just two points: the reduction or elimination of ultra-mega-corporations and, finally, the reduction of the state or, at least, that we watch the state much more than it can watch us.

Chomski warns that reducing the state while maintaining ultra-mega-corporations keeps individuals — including small entrepreneurs — hostage to these giants. Therefore, if we do not reduce or eliminate ultra-mega-corporations, it is better to maintain a state even stronger than them. But why not just reduce both? We can reduce both.

How to get rid of monstrous corporations?

Many have their days numbered, just wanting to. If we want to.

1. Banks. Bitcoin or Ethereum.

2. Notary offices, authentication. Ethereum.

3. Facebook, Google, Amazon. Decentralized networks, for example, Zeronet.

We would do as Marie Kondo teaches us: “we genuinely thank you for the brilliant teachings, ultra-mega-corporations” — and dismiss them from our lives.

Why? Is there “claustrophobia” of mega-corporations? Are they evil?

They are not evil. But if a service can be hosted by all of humanity, without an owner or some specific owners, isn't the entire humanity as the owner a beautiful option?

I may be wrong.

There are some effects that are not only psychological.

In the case of money, fees and borders disappear.

In the case of documents, fees, borders, bureaucracy and delays disappear.

In the case of social networks, navigation, website hosting, clouds, messaging applications, everyone's data becomes fragmented, instead of concentrated. Few stop knowing everything about our ways of navigating. The intelligence about everything we do becomes more difficult to transform into knowledge in the hands of a few, or a few governments. No one — or everyone — could know, but never a few.

Bonus for those who have read this far.

4. Governments, congress. Improvements in authentication to the point of finally allowing sufficiently reliable online voting in elections allows the population to vote directly on bills. Without congress or congressmen. By the way, wasn't it time? We needed representatives in the time of the horse-drawn carriage and fountain pen, right? Online debates, blogs, forums would allow creating, discussing, and voting on bills. Humanity no longer needs to be indirectly represented.

Fear? We are humans, food, sex, taking care of babies, never stops, let's not worry about tools external to this biological core.

* In the case of money, in theory, purposeful inflation disappears, with the emission of money by one or more countries disappearing.

Now, the state.

Is there a reason for a government to have any secret documents?

I am not referring to breaches of judicial secrecy, usually used for criminals, for a short time. By the way, these same ones are falling into disuse, because we can pursue spending — without compatible legitimate income — instead of the crime, ugly, dirty. Spending is more glamorous and waits for the rat to come out of its hole, without having to get your hands dirty. It catches everything at once, from all crimes, offsetting the crime and the rat. But no: I am not referring to this old judicial secrecy.

I am referring to government. Does a government need any secret documents?

I would like to conclude that no, it doesn't need to.

And that it would be up to us, the population forming the majority, to mold our government with no secrets at all.

Here comes the chantilly.

In addition to having a “Wikipedia” with everything the government does, all the time, instantly updated in real time automatically by the official document creation system itself;

We would create an API, that is, machines could have access to all this information.

Then, programmers, scientists, the press, curious teenagers, everyone could create analyses of any and all government documents and movements, from the supply of a car to large investments, and their set.

Of course, with artificial intelligence working for us, finally, not just passing reports about us.

We could also innovate by creating a rule to automatically monitor the bank accounts and assets of everyone elected to political office. These politicians would always have the option of not running, if they felt “offended” by the people's more invasive surveillance during their term of office. Taking care of everyone's money would have more counterparts than in the 80s, we can innovate.

Everything suggested here is easy or close to easy, technically.

Politically, I am calm because it is enough for us to want to, even if slowly forming majorities.

Becoming more relaxed trying to satisfy two geniuses, little by little.

Thank you for transmitting ideas similar to this, and/or correcting and pointing out my flaws.