Update

democracy.md

@@ -9,6 +9,6 @@ Nowadays the politics of most first world countries is based on elections and vo
 Voting may be highly ineffective and even dangerous. We have to realize that **sometimes voting is awesome, but sometimes it's an extremely awful idea**. Why? Consider the two following scenarios:
 
 - **On simple issues wisdom of the crowd work very well**, as demonstrated by the famous experiment in which averaging guesses of many people on a number of beans in a jar resulted in an extremely precise estimate, a much more precise than any man alone could give. This is an example of when voting is the superior solution to making a decision.
-- **Non-experts voting on complex issues is a disaster** (which is why we mostly don't have direct democracy but rather representative one). Many retarded rightists believe direct democracy would somehow be "better" -- no, it would be indeed be infinitely worse to let braindead rednecks vote on complex issues. When a [chess](chess.md) grandmaster plays against thousands of people who make moves by voting, the master easily wins, as demonstrated e.g. by the Karpov vs the World (or Twitch plays Pokémon lol) experiment (later projects such as Kasparov vs the World had to somehow moderate and filter the move votes to give the world a chance). The reason is that the majority of weak moves voted by non-experts outweight the few good votes of experts, but also ADDITIONALLY even if only expert votes are takes, the result may be inferior because different long-term plans and visions will collide with the long term plans of others, which is probably the reason why e.g. Romans used to elect a single dictator in times of a crisis rather than relying on a council of experts. This is why it's a very bad idea to have people vote directly e.g. on complex economic or diplomatic issues. We have to say [we](we.md) do NOT advocate for dictators (we are anarchists) -- we rather believe in implementing a [decentralized](decentralization.md), self-regulating society in which we avoid the need for any dictators or governments.
+- **Non-experts voting on complex issues and voting on issues requiring large vision is a disaster** (which is why we mostly don't have direct democracy but rather representative one). Many retarded rightists believe direct democracy would somehow be "better" -- no, it would be indeed be infinitely worse to let braindead rednecks vote on complex issues. When a [chess](chess.md) grandmaster plays against thousands of people who make moves by voting, the master easily wins, as demonstrated e.g. by the Karpov vs the World (or Twitch plays Pokémon lol) experiment (later projects such as Kasparov vs the World had to somehow moderate and filter the move votes to give the world a chance). The reason is that the majority of weak moves voted by non-experts outweight the few good votes of experts, but also ADDITIONALLY even if only expert votes are takes, the result may be inferior because different long-term plans and visions will collide with the long term plans of others, which is probably the reason why e.g. Romans used to elect a single dictator in times of a crisis rather than relying on a council of experts. In such cases democracy may be similar to wanting to create a nice picture by averaging all pictures ever made by all people, the result will probably be just an ugly gray noisy blob (imagine e.g. creating a picture by having many pictures "vote" on color of every pixel simply by voting for the color they have on the same pixel position { Actually I've tried this now and yes, it looks just like a noisy gray blob. ~drummyfish } ). This is why it's a very bad idea to have people vote directly e.g. on complex economic or diplomatic issues. We have to say [we](we.md) do NOT advocate for dictators (we are anarchists) -- we rather believe in implementing a [decentralized](decentralization.md), self-regulating society in which we avoid the need for any dictators or governments.
 
 What happens when it is democratically decided that democracy is not a good tool for decision making? If we believe in democracy, then we have to accept its decision and stop believing in democracy, but then if we stop believing in democracy we can just reject the decision because it was made by something that's not to be trusted, but then...