The problem with your statement is that you consider law-enforcement immoral. The thing I shake my head at is that you keep insisting that there are universal moral laws as if somehow there is a law but no enforcement of that law. A law without enforcement is arbitrary at best and void at worst. If the law is void it inherently cancels itself out and does not exist. If a law is natural and universal, it must also therefore have an enforcement mechanism.

We see that with such natural laws as the law of gravitational attraction. You really have no choice but to obey that law. The law or constant value of pi is the same: if the value of pi changes, all calculations based on it similarly frustrate themselves.

The second flaw in your statement is in equating coercion and justified force. One of the major flaws in your proposed ideology is the lack of an adjudication and enforcement mechanism which is consistent and authoritative.

The licenses for wi-fi are held by the technology manufacturers and then passed down to the consumers. The manufacturers actually bid on those licenses. Because the implementations are locked down to power levels that minimize interference beyond a few hundred feet, individual consumers don't require a license to operate the equipment.

There is another standard which comes into play here called UCC. Every electronic device which goes out in public has to certify that it won't interfere with other devices. (Not sure how extensive your electronics knowledge goes, but flowing electricity creates magnetic fields.) Most of that testing happens in-house with large manufacturers (self-certification). If you've never seen or been in an anechoic chamber, it's quite the experience.

The requirement for an individual license - whether private or commercial - is for broadcasting at a power level where the signals may affect someone else.

And who adjudicates when there is justification in your world?

"Let's say I am an idiot"

You present a lot of ideas that you haven't completely thought through. Yet when I point out significant problems or inherent contradictions, you blow them off saying "I'm sure there's a way to figure it out." If you really had it figured out - with solid ideas or practical example - it wouldn't be so hard a sell.

Not sure you've been paying attention to the COVID or "global climate change" conversations, but those have been narratives spun by supposed "experts."

The entire problem is that people - even supposed "experts" - are fundamentally flawed. They are ignorant. They are ideologically biased. And they are anything BUT logical. You are assuming people will self-govern at an individual level. A quick look around and we can see that is far from accurate:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary." - John Adams.

"The problem is that no society exists that would match my ideology."

And you might want to consider just why that is.

No one here is saying that the current state of the US government is acceptable. They have abrogated the basic principles this nation was founded on and are irredeemably corrupt. There is a war going on between the elites such as the Davos group and the rest of the world. Global "climate change", COVID, ESG - they are all tentacles of the same monster.

"If nobody wants national defense then why force people to have it?"

Emergency services are those that people never want to pay for until the service is critically needed. It's a classic economic problem. Firefighting, police, ambulance services - they all fall into this category. The problem is that if there isn't some funding and infrastructure in place up front, the services don't exist and aren't available at all!

"Competition will make things cheaper..."

Competition does not solve every problem. That's an illusion. There are some services which are more efficient when presented by a monopoly. Those include power, water, sewer, and national defense.

"As long as you perform law enforcement according to the universal law, I don't see a problem with this."

Seriously? Anyone performing law enforcement duties? No training. No badge. No official capacity? That's chaos - not law and order.

"Somebody will need to be paying for the service."

And how's that exactly going to work? Seriously. What's your plan?

Flesh out your plans from soundbites into real proposals. Until you do that, you're just spitballing, throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.

'Really, most of what laws are is that attempt to pass on to future generations the learning of those who have already "been there, done that."'

There is no need to force someone under the threat of death to do something in order to teach a lesson. A historical text should do the trick. Making people do stuff against their will would likely have the opposite effect. They are only going to follow your law out of fear. They would not care about the reason why the law is there.

For example, I don't drink (alcohol) or do drugs. I don't do it because of a law. I do it for health reasons. I didn't need to try it to receive broken bones, all I needed is to learn of the research that was previously done. There was a time when alcohol was illegal in the US. I don't think that helped much. It probably made things worse. The war on drugs is an utter disaster. If I was a betting man, I would bet that removing those drug laws is going to decrease drug usage.

I am not buying your argument. I think it is a lousy excuse for the wrongs of decreeing arbitrary laws.

"You still seem to be unable to differentiate between being able to choose something vs facing a consequence for that action."

How so?

"wisdom of others"

Maybe I will take advantage of it, or maybe I will deem it foolishness. Regardless, I should be free to make that choice. I am prepared to face any consequences that result from my own choices.

However, if you force some choice on me and then it causes negative consequences for me, then you did me dirty. Such as when the state decides to have a war, drafts me and gets me killed. No thanks, I would rather experience bumps and bruises of my own making.

I finally have gotten down here to respond to this. I think I explained this before. The authority can be logic. Rules are codified by proofs done by academia or something similar. Enforcement can be done by anybody able to follow the rules and overpower the rule breaker. I guess enforcement can fail theoretically.

Now, if I can get some time to respond to some of the other replies, that would be nice...

"The problem with your assertion is that IF the "Golden Rule" is axiomatic it can only be axiomatic if one recognizes innate qualities that can not be explained by atheism. If one assumes atheism, one of necessity denies anything innate and accepts that human beings and their interactions result from universal processes - e.g. they are derived - and therefore not axiomatic."

I don't know if I properly understood what you said, let me know if I got something wrong.

An axiom is something taken as true without proof.
1. We have to start with something. You can't have a proof without a starting point.
2. Axioms are obviously true, no one can deny them.

I don't think it matters if we can go deeper and find some more basic axiom.

I proposed that (something like) the golden rule is to be taken as a starting point for deriving a system of laws. Why?
1. We have to start with something.
2. Nobody would argue with some proposition like the golden rule.

I guess we can go simpler and use 'contract on equal terms' as an axiom. It is also equivalent to the 'men are created equal' thing.

I don't think our system of universal laws needs to necessarily relate to physical attributes of entities entering into the contract. It is just an agreement to cooperate.

In my view, a sentient being is nothing more than a system for optimizing nerve signals. The system builds a model of the world internally and attempts to use it to increase its "reward." In this model, there is a placeholder for another sentient being. The system can use various strategies to deal with the other sentient being. It can either destroy it, put some distance between them or work with it to increase its own reward. The agreement to cooperate is the latter. If the agreement is on equal terms then both entities benefit. If it is one sided then one side suffers and will likely quit the agreement. Obviously, the right strategy is to adopt an agreement on equal terms.

I think the above is acceptable by atheism.

'That is the quintessence of "might makes right..." '

We better make the deal then.

One thing I would say is that there is only so many hours in the day and if I could extend my life to read and process everything that has been written, I would. However, I have to be practical and take some shortcuts.

"PEOPLE attempt to seize power, gaslight, brainwash, steal, loot, etc."

Agreed. So, would you consider my proposal to remove people from law making and allow logic to do the job?

No voting for/against laws. No special powers of any kind.

"core foundation"

Not really. DNS can be swapped out for some other system or used in parallel with some other system for doing the same thing.

There are even some decentralized systems that do the same thing:
https://namecoin.org
https://handshake.org

Trust me, I know a thing or two about DNS, I have been dealing with the stuff for almost 20 years. I know, shameless appeal to authority which I hope you will excuse, like that thing with being a certified debate judge :)

It is worth pointing out that IEEE is not a government entity and one that doesn't use violence to enforce its standards.

"incredibly desperate to challenge ANY centralization/government"

Actually, the question was about decentralization vs centralization. There is plenty of workable decentralization. To be clear, I'm not against centralization itself. Only one that is forced by the threat of death.

I guess I am biased against being killed, yes, obviously.

"everyone trying to come up with and implement their own communications protocols"

But they are. I think Google uses some internal algorithm of their own in their data centers, or so I've read. I forgot what it was called. Not sure if they still use it. It is compatible with everything else because of the way routing works. It doesn't matter what updates the routing table, so long as packets get routed semi-correctly.

"The only reason you can USE the internet is because of the DNS system."

Not really, I can use the Internet without DNS. All you have to do is add all hostnames into /etc/hosts and keep that file updated. That's how it was done pre-DNS. Check for yourself. This is a fact.

"How can an execution do that?"

Obviously, executions are not moral.

That is not in question. I think the criteria was that a decentralized system must be able to overpower a centralized one. How they did it doesn't matter. I guess centralized one also executed people, so, I guess they are on the same level in that case.

I don't disagree with you, maybe the issue is my loose use of words.

Let me attempt to reword it:
"The state is by design a monopoly that is maintained by coercion. It must continually engage in coercion to maintain its existence. Coercion is immoral, therefore, the state is an entity that continually engages in immoral actions. If it stops these actions, it ceases to be a monopoly and, therefore, it ceases to be a state by that definition."

Is that better?

I guess by this logic Nazis might start being "good" or "neutral" at some point. Maybe after they killed off all the non-aryan races.

"biases against anything resembling a central governing body"

I am only against the unjustified use of violence part.

"You said it, not me."

If I don't know a state-free solution that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

"dead wrong there"

One needs a license to operate amateur radio but not to operate wifi equipment. As I understand, you need to buy a license to use certain bands as well. I am pretty sure FCC themselves call those bands / wifi equipment as 'unlicensed'. Correct me if I am wrong.