Dear @Dantalion, I very much enjoyed your comments. Let’s see what we can explore here together. . . .
Nope, I definitely did not. I’ve been on this planet long enough to not make that false assumption. Nice try. 
We Don’t Need Faith in Human Nature with Cardano. I don’t have faith in human nature at all. My confidence in Cardano is based on a technical understanding of the incentive structures that Cardano shapes and the corresponding institutional/community accountability that it automatically enforces.
I already included that risk in my original post when I said “Every democratic system contains the seed of tyranny by empowering a majority to oppress a minority.” This is exactly why I mentioned the Cardano Bill of Rights several times.
Communities don’t turn against themselves. Individuals with malicious/selfish intent turn against their communities. Everything I’ve written in this thread is predicated on one core assumption: CardanoCL-based smart contracts will eliminate virtually all of the subjectivity associated with corruptible human institutions today. Anybody who doesn’t accept that assumption will have a difficult time appreciating Cardano. (I’m not saying this to you specifically; it’s a broader observation.)
Based on what framework are you making this claim? An immutable transaction settlement system that completely prevents any subjectivity whatsoever is certainly good from the perspective of creating a trustworthy economy and a just society. Thus, the ideal level of “orderliness” in a system is dependent upon our goals for the system.
For example, if we want to inspire creativity at the application level (CardanoCL), then we should minimize how much order we impose upon developers by giving them virtual machines based on the K framework that can interpret and compile any programming language they want to use. In contrast, if we want high-integrity politicians and institutions, then we should maximize the order that we impose on their incentive structures.
This is already inherently built into Cardano’s architecture, which automatically aligns the incentives of virtually the entire community toward supporting the platform in many ways. Only a small number of adversarial groups do not have these aligned incentives. I’ve written about this in some of my other posts.
These are all core questions that have already been addressed within the technical architecture of Cardano itself. I’ve also written a lot about many of these issues elsewhere. Bottom line: “Justice” only exists to the extent that a particular outcome is desirable to a sufficient number of humans (usually a simple majority) to avoid pissing off too many humans, and thereby, causing a violent revolution and perpetual socioeconomic instability.
Nothing in Cardano Land says we all have equal rights. In fact, it’s clear that any Poof-of-Stake algorithm, by definition, creates different levels of power based on different levels of stake. This is why I posted “Cardano Bill of Rights”.
Most decisions in life are not truly constrained by false dichotomies, all-or-nothing logic, and either/or choices, but the human brain seems to be very good at injecting this illusion into human decision-making. In this case, Cardano is neither a purely collective nor a purely decentralized community–we are both, depending on what layer of the system and corresponding community we are examining at any given moment. I can cite many examples of this, but you’re a bright guy; so, I think you get the point.
The underlying systemic design of Cardano already addresses the issue of conflict resolution. In fact, this is the issue addressed by every democratic framework/system/government since 1776, but all other democratic systems have failed to achieve and sustain truly broad-based consensus-building and true justice because they don’t have the incorruptible incentive structures and immutable transaction integrity of Cardano. However, the primary issue here is the “tyranny by the majority” problem, which I’ve already addressed.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. Back to work I go. . . .