Topic: Perfect government by protocol (Read 4029 times)

Yes, just don't pay the tax, don't be a citizen and pay for each and every service from said government out of your own pocket.

As for US healthcare your cost is 16% of GDP (in rich country) and yet you don't live very long. That cost is largely insurance company profits.

My country's system is pretty bureaucratic, socialized and bad, however it STILL only costs 9.8% of GDP and life expectancy is slightly better than the US.

The facts simply don't back up privatized insurance. Maybe privatized hospitals can work, but not the coverage part.


Why do you people think the first government was created? For absolutely ZERO gains? Out of shear violence - then why didn't the private armies win?
If governments are universally bad then any long lasting society would have disposed of them - having superior efficiency and all winning over governments should be EASY right?

The world is the opposite the only free countries are countries like Somalia. Sometimes I think ultra libertarians just want to shirk any duty.

You can't create a monopoly on violence and expect it to NOT become corrupt. Like every government that has ever existed.

Someone does need to step in and stop violent actors. To conclude that we need a monopoly on violence to solve this problem is a non-sequitur.

Health care in the states is expensive because of numerous regulations that drive up the cost. eg malpractice laws, perverse tax incentives. It has nothing to do with it being "privatised".

Roads by a million companies might not work, but that's the great thing about the free market: entrepreneurs will find a way that DOES work. The customer is always right.

What if i disagree with your algorithm? Still voluntary?

Sure that was a bad move, but it doesn't counter my argument - those first FED people may well have been more decent than the ones destined to come later.

Are you REALLY saying that the government that landed on the freaking MOON is exactly as bad as the shit-pile we see today?

Anyway this discussion is weird and off topic. If you don't even believe in governments then my idea is useless to you, just go troll somewhere else.

President Coolidge ( July 4, 1872 – January 5, 1933 ) said :

I am working on a bitcoin smartcard first at the moment. You are welcome to join that endeavor - you could earn money too.

You don't need skills if you have just a little passion, anyone can learn!

This is a very interesting idea (although not entirely new) and I hope that you do start developing it. I know very little Java and no C#, however if you need testing or VMs, let me know. PM or IRC.

I think Bitcoin is the first to invent the "blockchain database" so I am guessing other than alt currency chains, no.

Are there already other block chain database programs that can be used for more generic purposes?

I like the idea, but if anything it's a little too ambitious. I think this system would only work for a certain elite of people and not the general population. There's no way they would understand this at this point.

It's however an interesting idea and could be implemented and used by groups.

A general election method has to be static and simple so everybody can keep up to it.


One suggestion though is that you change the name from "Perfect Government by Protocol" to "Algorithmic Government by Protocol" - firstly because the concept of perfection doesn't really apply to governments (it's a lot more generic and it implies no mistakes are made not just in the application of the algorithm, but in the decisions themselves) and secondly because I believe the "perfect government" wording can trigger negative emotional response, and this is important in real life. Some people, even posters here, would react ideologically and you can quickly be branded as a "pseudo-scientist". The "perfect government" claim can be quickly dismissed as unrealistic, because of the common connotations of the word "perfect". You can also say "byzantine fault tolerant protocol applied to government" (or even "election methods" instead of "government"). The more devoid of political ideology, the better.

Hope my input is useful.

The world itself is based on violence, small creatures are eaten by larger ones, until the larger ones die and are themselves eaten.

The video is BS, governments provide a service like anyone else, once they stop revolutions dispose them rather quickly. People don't accept taxes because of some paper, they accept it because they somewhere believe in their country and government.

A tax officer will not kill you even they imprison you.
A tax lets you have roads, internet, police, protecting soldiers and free food should you one day find yourself down on luck.

The problem is the US government has become corrupted and thus people are stopping to believe in them. My algorithm would avoid such corruption and hence likely this discussion about government vs. criminals.

US government = criminals = correct.
Government as a concept = criminals = false.

When people rape, murder og rob others someone needs to step in and exert violence over the bad guys. It can NOT be avoided. What funds that is TAXES however low a libertarian might like them.

I know your next argument "private security firm". Considering the vast overprice you are paying for private health insurance in the US I think that is a really shitty idea. Let alone what happens when such a firm finds out that beating up people brings more customers!

Roads by a million different companies so you can't drive to work without a 100 stickers in your window?

The US meltdown must have melted your brains too...



All that said my algorithm/program IS voluntary, you would know if you read a few posts in the thread first. However nothing is stopping a later algorithmic government from using some level of violence. Again: natural.

I'm allowed to rob you (10 min):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

Any system based on violence is doomed to fail. You can figure out all the algorithms, voting methodologies and systems you like, but if it's not voluntary, it's a lost cause.

I see.

So initially it would be decided by the person launching it and then changed by majority vote according to that system.

What I programmed in my bachelor (and what the idea in this thread is based on) allows the implementation of most organization core structures.

In other words if you want to do weighted voting of some kind you could set this software up as you wanted it and then LOCK it. After locking it would maintain the rules you originally specified and even you yourself would be unable to change those rules.


The political system (ie not related to the software idea) I have in mind uses voting only as a safe guard in case of really bad leaders, but otherwise focuses on controlling the organizations inside the government and the selection process of new leaders.

This is because people seem unable to choose good leaders in elections due to their stupidity and propaganda, but even given propaganda seem decent at kicking out leaders that mess up.

Is that a fixed value for everybody in your system? or does it weight voting in some form?

I have already talked to a pirate party guy about this stuff, its pretty nifty.

The org protocol idea is a way to make sure say the pirate party top keeps doing votes in the fashion agreed on for hundreds of years.

However I'm not programming it right now and probably not alone whenever.

This might be of interest: http://liquidfeedback.org/

Did you consider including some form of "Liquid Democracy" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting#Delegated_voting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_Democracy) in your software? Some of the pirate parties in the world do favor such a model. I think this is a good compromise between effort to be done by every participant (effort in the sense of getting informed on a specific topic to make the right decision in the vote) and self-determination.

The other possibility of being everything regulated by free market, IMHO does not work, because of "informational friction". Customers will need to be (timely) informed to decide, when to buy a service and give their vote to a specific company and when not. Nowadays with web and mobile networks this is much less of an issue, but the problem remains, that these services are provided by companies, who then would have very much power. Also how do you prevent companies teaming up behind the scenes instead of being competitors? There will be needed a third party, which has the power to regulate these issues.

Lol that also applies to BTC software... Anyway I will just go ahead and use my freedom to "waste my time"

You can call it a cooperative if you like. I could see it working for things such as retailers making a bulk purchase from a wholesaler so that they get a lower price with a combined rate.

I have belonged to an electric cooperative as opposed to a private or public company. I also currently get my water through a private cooperative. Each customer is also a voting member, we elect a commission each year who then decides who will be the director in charge of day to day operations. Most local services could be provided that way.

Which Traktion and me are trying to tell you is a non solution and therefor a waste of time.