Topic: Side stepping nonsense governments, OpenGov can it work? - page 3. (Read 4598 times)

I say your government since you keep forcing words into my argument and answering for me.

Remembering that the entire country gets to vote on every issue I should imagine the answer to that would be no since it really doesn't seem like an issue worth wasting troop resources or another world war on and would surely end up as some sort of court settlement. I hardly imagine many people voting yes on the docket to "Should we attack Russia because they are flooding the market with cheap chairs."?

Why are you so desparte to resort to violence in your ideas? When you say "if need be" do you somehow expect the final result of every single discussion to come down to weapons and bullets?

Your own reasoning and attempt to frame my answer as you see fit exemplifies why this system is needed, imagine the outcome of the the Cuban missile crisis if instead of JFK George W or someone else less diplomatic altogether was in power? Although this does bring up a good point you'll always need people on the ground in the trenches as it were to represent the voters so I imagine a hybrid approach with politicians heavily controlled by the voice of the people.

As I said before presumably issues of force would remain solidly within the realm of last resort when the country or an ally is under attack.

But it's not my government. It's yours. You haven't proposed a change in the mechanism of enforcement, only in the decision making process. So let me answer for you. If the vote came down that 51% of the populace were in favor of imposing a tariff on Chairs imported from Siberia, it would be enforced, violently, if need be.

I think you need to stop trying to frame this discussion with impossible questions. If you read the post it says that arms should only be employed when absolutely necessary. Your attempt to reduce this to a yes or no pissing contest is futile and depicts the current political scheme almost perfectly Donkey or Elephant?

If your government would enforce the use of arms to prevent the import of chairs from Russia then that is just an additional reason why this proposal is so important, imagine if you were the one in the political position to make that decision my nay vote would be meaningless without it.

I read your post, and nowhere in there was there a yes or no answer. This is the closest, but even this is rather slippery. The vote says tarrif. Is it imposed under threat of violence to the importer if he does not pay?

Bitcoin works because there are so many miners, our democracies fail because there are so few holding the power.

In my opinion political decisions like this are often going to be influenced by the idiots who think import tariffs are good for anything. In general I'd be against any tariffs unless there is a really good reason, the chairs are being made by slaves for example or are being subsidized by Russia to corner the fat ass market.

Again in my opinion any political system should be slow to arms unless under threat of violence from external forces or to the support of those we might be able or want to assist. Your arguments seem to suggest that we'd be sending the army out to resolve every issue?

I myself am currently under threat of losing my home and livelihood to the so called government here in Manchester, NH since I have been unable to pay property taxes. Apart from the fact that I resent paying incredibly high prices to live in such a city, freezing half the year and boiling the rest while living in a food desert, all while having supported the economy here with vast amounts of interest. I'm fairly certain that the US government is going to violently evict me. Tweak that? (No really if you could I'd be very grateful.)

You are framing a question that I can't answer but I believe if enough people are involved a more suitable answer can be found, that's what the voting system is for and scientifically that's what pure democracy is supposed to achieve.

You or I have brought up an issue and here we are discussing it, isn't that what living together is all about? Why not make it easy with a system that lets everyone actually participate just like this forum? The forum's software is not bad but I see we all still want an upgrade. There is no threat of violence here and yet we'll all probably end up choosing or writing a better forum eventually.

I could very well say that your idea of removing my ability to have an opinion that is heard is a violent attack on my right to have an opinion and that cities like this one would benefit from that silence since I'm fairly certain my proposed system would save me and many others from a similar fate I mentioned above by simply exposing how ludicrous it is.

The proposed system would naturally include user interfaces for input and study of detailed reasoning behind every voting issue and would eventually resemble a huge AI, entirely under the control of the population subjected to its/the peoples decisions of course.

Open Source is a powerful tool that allows many eyes to see the truth or fallacy of some proposed method of coding, why should a system that produces such good software fail when applied to other mechanistic environments?

From an anthropic perspective the fact that we don't seem to be achieving the equality, peace, and dreams that we are all looking for suggests the current route is the wrong one.

OK, then I misunderstood your original post. It seems to me that there's no point voting unless there's either (a) a government to enforce the outcome of the vote, or (b) an agreement amongst the voters to respect the outcome of the vote. In the absence of any suggestion of (b), I assumed you intended (a). Please clarify...

Suppose the following question comes up: "Should there be import tariffs on chairs made in Siberia?". The question is put to your voting system, and the result is that 51% of eligible voters favor import tariffs being levied on Siberian chairs.

What happens now? If someone tries to import a Siberian chair, does an import tariff get levied under threat of violence or not?

You were the one to bring violence in to this discussion. Miners voting is non violent in exactly the same way the voting system proposed here is non-violent or at least we are searching for that. See the question mark in the proposal.

Aren't the 49% of miners who disagree with whatever being "violently overthrown" when 51% choose a different BIP in your own words?

What's the difference between a BIP and some other policy or bill?

To clarify this is a non-violent idea, however just as with your island analogy each individual in the system has to agree to non-violence. on the island if you're sexually unappealing you're out of luck, no amount of voting or non-voting or whatever you are or aren't suggesting is going to change that?

Bitcoin creates a larger democracy resting from the hands of a few a system that effects us all, this proposal is supposed to do the same for all political inequalities.

Why are you trying to frame the question any other way?

Of course that's not a violent takeover, and I don't see how you got that idea from my comments.

Miners voting with their feet is ethical and non-violent.

As far as I can tell, you are proposing that, provided there is an efficient voting system, it's ethical for 51% of the population to violently impose their will on the other 49%. As in the example of "13 men and 12 women on an island voting to decide who can have sex with whom". Yes or no?

I'd like to know what would happen if finance and politics were fully integrated; if you want to have a say you have to pay for it

as for one vote per person - how many votes does a conjoined twin with 1.5 brains and no fingers get?

I like the anarcho-communist call to action there in that open source has sprouted something quite big really. there are plenty now against ownership.

I wonder though. there has been many against trade and cash in the past too but the problem was that the efficiency in decision making that money allows has led to that being more powerful. look at china. there is a need to address this

So when the miners vote with their feet for or against a particular BIP that's a violent takeover?

Simply put n generalization:

If you have two people or groups who disagree and the outcome of their discussion effects everyone then everyone needs to be involved NAP or no.

Here are three questions:

1) Integrity is exactly the issue, how does anyone know that whomever happens to have been voted in hasn't been corrupted?
2) Why does Bitcoin need so much explicit protection of integrity?
3) Are political questions somehow simpler and less relevant than financial ones?

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?

Actually I don't think that the OP's proposal would be a step forward. As I understand it, the OP is proposing that the public can vote on each and every issue on a 51%-wins basis. That just degenerates every vote into the situation of "13 men and 12 women on an island voting who has sex with whom". The current system, corrupt and inefficient though it is, at least provides the possibility for an elected representative to show some integrity and make some tradeoffs to avoid the situation of "every decision is a 51% attack".

There's not much point changing a government, either democracy-style (by voting) or Egyptian revolution style, or Afghanistan invasion style. It always boils down to "out with the old boss, in with the new".

Instead, one should strive to return power to the people by making government irrelevant.

So you shouldn't ask "what would be my first step?", rather you should ask "what steps am I already taking?".

I, along with millions of others, have been helping to move society beyond old-school IP laws by my support of and contributions to open source software, and by my support of and contributions to media freely licensed under creative commons.

I, along with millions of others, have been helping the people to obtain increased access to knowledge and information through my support of and contributions to Wikipedia, and my support of and contributions to OpenStreetMap and to other similar projects.

I, along with everyone else here, have been helping to make honest money become a reality, by facilitating the spread of Bitcoin.

I, along with some others here, are building trust by undertaking voluntary trade free of the invoked power of the state.

I have donated over a thousand bitcoins to worthy organizations who are working towards increasing people's liberty, opportunities and self-worth.

If more people would do things that empower individuals and make government less relevant, and if people bring up their children to respect the non-agression principle in public life as well as in private life, then eventually we will achieve a society where the application of the NAP is widespread.

However, tweaking the voting system is nothing more than a distraction. People should just stop voting, except for voluntary organizations. Voting just encourages those in power, and lends a veneer of respectability to their wars, their debasement of the currency, and their oppression.

Perhaps signing the votes with a biometric private key, like a fingerprint, in combination with the individuals own Bitcoin address and other identifying information would solve that problem?

Nice one lol!

To keep things fair, I would have a panel of "independent" judges from each proposed choice, who can also vote for one of the proposals other than their own.

The final decision would be based on a 50-50 split between the results of this panel of judges, and the btc-weighted "votes".

Last but not least, each proposal would be required to sing a short pop song (about 3 minutes in length) before voting opened.

Sorted.

given that democracy has been turning into a convenient method of debasement

 we could do this with bitcoin right now to vote with real cash.

the winning vote could effect a change in who is able to spend the cash St the end of the affair. the whole thing could be enforced with crypto.

would get complicated pretty fast so let's keep it simple at first.

a bunch of people vote by sending btc to address a or b. after x number of blocks the greatest account effects a change, such as a payout to a number of addresses predefined.

more info and background knowledge on this ideal of democratic capitalism.

remember, voting in traditional democracy requires one vote per 'person' but proving identity not least the natural person is hard and ultimately impossible because in the end we are all one

Excellent question. I'd say I'm waiting for an answer, but I can tell the response will probably be "you have to think outside the box. Instead of any one group deciding the rules for any other group, each group decides for themselves." The question to ask is whether such a system could actually work or not.

It doesn't seem defective to allow everyone a say in the management of their world.
The current system is defective because we can't trust the arbiters of our choices in the same way we can't trust banks or governments with our wealth, I hardly see making choices on proposed issues as violent takeover.
Does anyone really believe Jeb Bush is going to make the right choices when he's president in 5 years?
What ratio would you want?