One way to ensure things do not go off course is to secure an architecture. So, we will enforce some invariants on the system. We will use the term “invariant” to refer to the set of rules we want to enforce on the system. The idea is that if we can prove the system satisfies these invariants, we can be certain it will behave in a specific way.
We should establish this invariant now, not later. The reason is that if we set it later, we don’t know when! So, it will be never when it can be later than any time! We will have to change the code to satisfy the invariant, and the later we set it, the harder it is to satisfy. So, not a second later—right now!
If we imagine a future where the source code is given to everyone, then anyone can instantiate a full-featured system, regardless of scale or who owns that system! Anyone arguing against this future is arguing against having a full-featured system as code, which is either against having a full-featured system and/or against having it as code. In both cases, it holds everyone else back unless they build the future for the one who has and needs control over others, who indeed belongs to the past! Who suggest to build the past under the name of future!
In this situation, we need to ensure the system is not used in a way we don’t want while also ensuring the system continues to develop non-stop. The best invariant is to give full power and authority to a single person over any other source of power. This person acts as an invariant in the system in which operates. And it is the best way since there is no other way needed and this invariant can not threaten the future while being able to threaten the past.
There could be various arguments against this architecture, for example, what if the person makes a mistake? What if they misuse power, or what if they prevent others from gaining power? Any argument based on a single person having ultimate power over the system is an argument against having a full-featured system as code. Such an argument is against the future. If there is one future and one history, then that person will always find protection against such trends. So opposing this architecture based on a concentration of power is opposing the future.
But there could be another category of arguments that does not reject one person holding ultimate power but rejects the idea of a single individual holding it, while agreeing to give ultimate power to an organization of this kind or that kind. However, the ultimate future is not an organization empowered; it is the person inside being empowered, which could be anyone in the organization. So, we should give full power to each and every individual in that organization too, which then raises the question: Why do we need an organization for a bunch of people with the ultimate power? So it must be just one in that organization! So organization can not solve the problem of power concentration for a single person!
So, it will be a single person, and it will be full power unless someone argues against this person and not that person. But this is a never-ending effort, as there is always another name to give power to if the issue is the name. And if the issue is identity, there is always another identity to give power to. As a result, they will never pinpoint a name or identity, no matter how much they explore. This is endless war! The Ultimate power is not transferable, it is obtained by the one who has it, and it is not given to the one who does not have it. Not being born, and not giving birth!
Some might argue against performance or this policy or that policy. The approach is to make them responsible for the system and let them do what they want, who has argument against the system, with the exception of veto power, which is exclusively held to secure the future.
So, transferring full power to a single person is a one-way transfer and could be stabilized if that person properly uses the power to secure a future in which everyone is empowered—or, basically, a future where no one cares which person is powerful because it is difficult to find who is not!
The only argument against such an architecture is about power being misused. But power in the hands of everyone can be misused too! It is the other way around that they need not worry about, especially those who have too much! And this should be the priority of the entire system. The invariant needs start to secure power for one future and one history and keep this approach, not to start with securing the future and history for one power! As ultimate power is limitless, it cannot be secured for one hand unless secured for all hands. This is an invariant that whoever wants to be part of the future should check, wherever they are.
This architecture is repeatable for any system at any size, scale, or level. Just produce more power and more power and more power. By returning that power to one system that has all hands in, with the option to start having one anyone out of the system by writing their own name on the entire system’s history and its future. Maybe that is the only person who is right and all of us are wrong! or maybe wrong! But we won’t understand it before giving the option. We don’t use probability to determine the future, we secure the future by securing an invariant.
The reason the system stabilizes is because the future is already set! The invariant is the reflection of the end, which is the same as the beginning. As the future is already set, setting the future by that single person is a game-changer! I hope they understand what benefits them most as I try to do it too! It will be repeated even they mis-calculate! So, everything could be threatened except the future, which keeps everyone, including that person, hopeful, although if they don’t know clearly where they are going. Even mis-calculation can not change the future! As the future is already set, it is not a matter of who is right or wrong! It is a matter of who wants to be the one who can secure that one future for everyone! Just do it without any permission as that is also your future!
If anyone thinks there is a right thing, why don’t they do it? Why are they waiting? Why do they follow or care about the one who is the creator of the wrong thing? Why don’t they enforce an invariant? Why don’t they build up the future? Why don’t they build up the power? Why don’t they become the one who is the future? Such a person doesn’t care who has power or not, looks at themselves, and takes the lead! If a single person can stop the future for everyone, then without that single powerful person, there is for sure no future as many are more incentivized to destroy something than one if someone cares about the destruction power or destruction of the future.
Isn’t that correct? Correct it! Is that correct? Promote it. Don’t you have something to say? Say it! You have one! Say it with a loud voice! Don’t waste a second. Even a person with ultimate power can not have all words! You have one extra!
And that person doesn’t have to be perfect or know everything from the beginning! As long as it wants the entire system for one name and one identity, it is part of the future!