The so - called "iron law of oligarchy" is no less important than the concept of "point of Schelling" (to which we referred here ) to understand both the social dynamics of the assault on Bitcoin as its limits in a context of free competition.
and more than a century ago, Robert Michels noted that any political organization always emerges a small group of individuals who just concentrating a high degree of control over the purpose of the organization and the means to achieve those ends. Michels then surmised what did not hesitate to call "iron law of oligarchy".
But the discovery of Michels, as more than one sociologist has observed, is not limited to political organizations. Almost all human organizations have effective leaders motivated enough to take high responsibilities and leadership roles . This phenomenon, stubbornly ignored by the gurus of cultural Marxism, is due to a simple reason: we are not all equal.
Some humans are tougher, smarter or bolder than others, to mention only some common qualities among natos- leaders. Note that these qualities do not refer to the moral status of the members of the oligarchy. The iron law applies for better or worse: while an organization maximizes the range of the hierarchy most ruthless psychopaths, another does the same with the most generous philanthropists.
The iron law of oligarchy lives up to its name within every human organization, from the traditional nuclear family to the mercurial open source projects, through all political, religious and corporate structures that have been tested. But evil that despite the established oligarchies, competition between different human organizations with overlapping purposes can not be prevented, although often limited by natural or institutional barriers.
In the case of politics, organizations operate in an isolated environment of market especially attractive to addicts coercive power and, in general, for human kind skillful in zero - sum games . Hence the growing disinterest in politics that tends to show the rest of the population, as the iron law is cutting its influence in public affairs and expanding the party elites. In the latter stages of this process, the political party happens to be seen by the common people as a criminal organization the most, and the rise of a new leader as being no more relevant than the rise of a new mob boss. So little sense has an interest in it as an interest in improving the business under a regime imposed by the central planning of the economy.
Bitcoin in the world, however, the doors to competition remain wide open . Not for the efforts of a group of elected whose mission is to keep those doors open, but because there is no alternative; who will try to close them sooner or later isolated, dark and abandoned in a fork sterile. Here no one has privileges: all projects face, ultimately, the verdict of the user interested in the usefulness and success of Bitcoin.
And users in a wide sense of Bitcoin (depositors, investors, consumers, merchants, payment processors, etc.) can always choose the software that best serves their interests. Entrepreneurs, therefore risk being fired at any time if they lose sight of meeting the needs of users. They can not go, like the fiat world, to isolate for political competition: this is only possible efforts to prosper benefit users in other words, accepting the rules of the free-market.
And what benefits users of Bitcoin? Whatever the desires and needs of each, little or nothing is what you would expect from Bitcoin if he never becomes established as a unit of account . All the promises of Bitcoin are subject to their status as good coin; that is, free scalability intermediaries (read within the block chain), preservation of the network effect, and increased market capitalization.
The team in charge of client Bitcoin Core can continue to ignore the scalability free intermediaries, preservation of network effect and market capitalization ; what you can not do is remove incentives that force to take seriously those requirements . Like all the teams working on Bitcoin clients, those responsible for Core disciplinadoras are exposed to market forces, and will continue until padeciéndolas deign to pay attention or otherwise -case, if they insist on giving her back lose relevance.
This is how the free market punishes oligarchies that refuse to accept their rules; not with the guillotine but with marginalization and neglect.
But it would be naive to expect people Core is replaced by a group hug between bitcoiners finally reconciled, or a cacophonous chorus of pundits compulsive. While Core focuses on creating problems and then monetizing "solutions", other teams are working hard to rescue the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto. Decentralized development does not stem from a tenuous network of atomised programmers who contribute code in their spare time, but the competition'm not exclude cooperation when the benefit is mutuo- between different highly motivated and well organized teams , each with its leaders who are free to follow or not.
In Bitcoinlandia also it governs the iron law of oligarchy, but the last word has not oligarchs but users.
and more than a century ago, Robert Michels noted that any political organization always emerges a small group of individuals who just concentrating a high degree of control over the purpose of the organization and the means to achieve those ends. Michels then surmised what did not hesitate to call "iron law of oligarchy".
But the discovery of Michels, as more than one sociologist has observed, is not limited to political organizations. Almost all human organizations have effective leaders motivated enough to take high responsibilities and leadership roles . This phenomenon, stubbornly ignored by the gurus of cultural Marxism, is due to a simple reason: we are not all equal.
Some humans are tougher, smarter or bolder than others, to mention only some common qualities among natos- leaders. Note that these qualities do not refer to the moral status of the members of the oligarchy. The iron law applies for better or worse: while an organization maximizes the range of the hierarchy most ruthless psychopaths, another does the same with the most generous philanthropists.
The iron law of oligarchy lives up to its name within every human organization, from the traditional nuclear family to the mercurial open source projects, through all political, religious and corporate structures that have been tested. But evil that despite the established oligarchies, competition between different human organizations with overlapping purposes can not be prevented, although often limited by natural or institutional barriers.
In the case of politics, organizations operate in an isolated environment of market especially attractive to addicts coercive power and, in general, for human kind skillful in zero - sum games . Hence the growing disinterest in politics that tends to show the rest of the population, as the iron law is cutting its influence in public affairs and expanding the party elites. In the latter stages of this process, the political party happens to be seen by the common people as a criminal organization the most, and the rise of a new leader as being no more relevant than the rise of a new mob boss. So little sense has an interest in it as an interest in improving the business under a regime imposed by the central planning of the economy.
Bitcoin in the world, however, the doors to competition remain wide open . Not for the efforts of a group of elected whose mission is to keep those doors open, but because there is no alternative; who will try to close them sooner or later isolated, dark and abandoned in a fork sterile. Here no one has privileges: all projects face, ultimately, the verdict of the user interested in the usefulness and success of Bitcoin.
And users in a wide sense of Bitcoin (depositors, investors, consumers, merchants, payment processors, etc.) can always choose the software that best serves their interests. Entrepreneurs, therefore risk being fired at any time if they lose sight of meeting the needs of users. They can not go, like the fiat world, to isolate for political competition: this is only possible efforts to prosper benefit users in other words, accepting the rules of the free-market.
And what benefits users of Bitcoin? Whatever the desires and needs of each, little or nothing is what you would expect from Bitcoin if he never becomes established as a unit of account . All the promises of Bitcoin are subject to their status as good coin; that is, free scalability intermediaries (read within the block chain), preservation of the network effect, and increased market capitalization.
The team in charge of client Bitcoin Core can continue to ignore the scalability free intermediaries, preservation of network effect and market capitalization ; what you can not do is remove incentives that force to take seriously those requirements . Like all the teams working on Bitcoin clients, those responsible for Core disciplinadoras are exposed to market forces, and will continue until padeciéndolas deign to pay attention or otherwise -case, if they insist on giving her back lose relevance.
This is how the free market punishes oligarchies that refuse to accept their rules; not with the guillotine but with marginalization and neglect.
But it would be naive to expect people Core is replaced by a group hug between bitcoiners finally reconciled, or a cacophonous chorus of pundits compulsive. While Core focuses on creating problems and then monetizing "solutions", other teams are working hard to rescue the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto. Decentralized development does not stem from a tenuous network of atomised programmers who contribute code in their spare time, but the competition'm not exclude cooperation when the benefit is mutuo- between different highly motivated and well organized teams , each with its leaders who are free to follow or not.
In Bitcoinlandia also it governs the iron law of oligarchy, but the last word has not oligarchs but users.