Actually the various ratios would also be voted on.
So I take it that you don't want folk to have an opinion? Or at least that they ought not to be able to state that opinion?
If you have a family for example you have to sometimes take opinions and address local issues, like whose doing the dishes tonight or what channel will the tv be on, and so on. If you think that hundreds of millions of people, many of whom have been to court numerous times, are simply going start working together without being allowed some place to make their opinions heard or to resolve issues then it's going to be very difficult to have this discussion.
I agree with your position that we should all be involved , as I am also, and commend you for that however why not organize that involvement in a way that can be globally and locally effective and efficient. The 51% straw-man you keep mentioning has been addressed in the Bitcoin arena why not in the Political one also?
Additionally not everyone in the world is going to sit back and relax once they've found you have no organized sense of defense or policy are they? Does China agree with your NAP for instance? However a hive mind driven by pure democracy sounds quite powerful and agile to me particularly if those voting understand the idea of doing no harm. We cut out the middle men, who have so obviously been corrupted in many cases, and go directly to the source.
There is an argument relating to the NAP and private defense somewhere, but in a way this proposal could easily make all defense private for the whole country, while the watchful eye of the public could limit it's extent, rather than the case now where a limited few spend huge amounts of our money and resources on many wasteful projects with little oversight.
The NAP can't forget that each of us is sharing this one resource we all live on, it will not silence the opposition and will not serve to remove even a single persons opinion.
I'm not talking about tweaking, this is a major change. For example I personally use so little material I rarely put my garbage out but will this society and political system ever be able to reduce my taxes because of that. I really don't think so, no one has ever been able to change that except perhaps with private removal, but then what about the old lady who can't afford it, isn't the NAP about "do no harm"? Or are you just saying don't actively harm anyone but if they suffer it's not your fault? This proposal is trying to find the system that removes the need for undue trust, which has proven necessary for Bitcoin, while allowing even the most disadvantaged a say and position. Why is this such a bad idea?
Should we for example dismantle the national parks system, since private enterprise could use the space or drill for oil, who gets harmed if we do that? Is hydro-fracking a good thing? It is if it gets us cheaper gas but what about the people whose water is being contaminated. Do we bother helping the UK if Germany invades it again?
Would New Yorkers still be able to drink from 24oz cups if the New Yorkers had actually been asked?
Even some sort of NAP based system needs a process to track difficult issues and spot places where harm is being done, at least I would imagine so? Or is it a magic word that just makes it all work? If so why didn't Bitcoin just work, why do we need all this crazy cryptography?
It's interesting to hear children talk about where meat and vegetables come from, "the supermarket daddy..". Who in your NAP society will talk to the Russians or the Chinese when they decide you've gone weak or negotiate with Mon Santo once they own all the food?
The only way the UK monarchy will ever be deposed is by referendum, this proposal allows that type of referendum to be decided not by an unelected House of Lords but by the decision of the people.
Interestingly, whether fairly or not, you cite me as wanting to tweak the system but you yourself seem to want to do less to it than that?
You said a lot of good stuff here.I've been trying to say stuff like this for a long time. NAP has zero unification of community driven unified agendas needed to get us to protect resources which would otherwise be slowly (if not quickly) destroyed because others are selfish, ignorant, or both.
The landscape as a checkerboard of 64 squares:The checkerboard (composed of black and white squares) where half are white and half are black and one color has value X and the other color has value Y is not valued at 32X + 32Y! This is due to the fact that each square loses value from the edges it shares with a square of a different color.
The landscape or society as a large square with 64 squares where the western half is white and the eastern half is black:The shared edges between black and white in the second case are less, and thus each colored area has greater value. It's value comes closer to 32X + 32Y.
NAP gravitates to the checkerboard,
where each individual is free to either preserve or fuck up his parcel.All of the above is based on the study of
edge effects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_effectNot only does it have consequences related the Earth's natural capital (which ultimately everything, including human society is derived from and supported by), it has effects with regard to urban planning.
