Topic: Side stepping nonsense governments, OpenGov can it work? - page 4. (Read 4577 times)

I agree, of course in the end those politicians would most likely start using the system however their voice would now be in proportion to all the rest.

Yes I suppose I am, certainly pro liberty. I think my first step would be posting to this forum since this is one of the few places I can often get a sensible answer!

Thanks for the link!


Again agreed, it's important to have local decisions be effective locally. Politicians in London with no knowledge of local conditions in Scotland, for example, would often make ludicrous decisions effecting millions of people of whom they had no knowledge of at all. The Thatcher dynasty, for example, imposed Poll Tax on the Scots several years before it took effect in England and it was ended years after it was taken down there.

Politicians are rightly paid for their effort so in this system all voters would be paid for their votes from a fund that would be agreed upon and paid for by the system. Perhaps part of the process would see voters actually supporting good ideas by funding them with small amounts of Bitcoin?

I think the trick will be setting up a "bicoin-like" fork and then designing carefully an ecosystem for generated credits for use. For example people could be paid for maintaining local public or private property using credits earned by running the client or doing community service yourself. Each jurisdiction could have their own fork to limit abuse and support local business.

I think more-or-less everyone on this forum would agree that the current western paradigm of government is a farce which gives sweeping powers and immunity to those who best abuse it. I hope you can at least agree that OP's proposal is a step forward.

Your post suggests you are pro-libretarian. What would your first step be towards returning power to the people? I mean your first step, so please don't reply and say "implement the NAP".  That would be the last step.

Basically you propose to automate a 51% attack, by which 51% of people make and violently enforce rules for the other 49%.

If you want to improve society, there are so many ways you could work towards a more pluralistic, less confrontational and less violent society. Trying to improve the efficiency of a defective system is missing the point.

You need to implement a secure online voting system. Look up CommitCoin, a voting protocol based on bitcoins. Get that working and widespread, and suddenly political representatives will become more-or-less obsolete.

I guess you have to start somewhere. Call the voters whatever you want? 

It's kind of funny that you propose to side step "nonsense governments" but at the same time apparently to maintain "nonsense citizenships" 

I propose an online government that allows everyone to participate based on an infallible voting system (presumably a fork of Bitcoin, perhaps with built in incentives for good participation.). It would become the de-facto standard and every denizen would be born with the right to operate it once they can prove their age and citizenship.

There are hundreds of millions of folk in the country and each of their so called votes for representatives and presidents is so watered down as to appear almost meaningless. Politicians are practically unaccountable and the common folk are separated by so many degrees from the policies and bills that determine their life's as to be laughable.

The political systems of the world only ends up serving to perpetuate the slavery whether by greed, negligence or corrupt business influence. In the end democracy has been shown to work somewhat however in it's current guise it appears to require too much trust in individuals who are too easily corrupted.

I say de facto standrad since, much like Bitcoin's rejection of central control and monetary policy, this project would simply side step all governments and allow the voice of the actual people to be heard.

All issues would be represented digitally and initially would simply compare the decisions of the people versus those of their politicians.

It's likely governments would reject this system outright however with enough participation the people would see just how disjoint the decisions they make versus what their so called leaders are backing and would eventually secede.

There are good reasons to delegate since there are always so many issues at hand however I believe it would be possible to design a system that could balance this deluge and allow normal citizens to make informed choices about real issues rather than voting for someone else who may or may not end up making the choice they wanted. Perhaps private aggregated information services could provide the required information.

Open Source, why not Open Government? It only seems to follow given the importance of the decisions those people are making on our behalf.

Current governments were designed as an evolution towards stripping control from the ultimately powerful in an attempt to empower those ruled and are essentially ancient artifacts that nontheless were and are still unduly influenced by the wealthy and powerful. The British house of Lords is a case in point, the US Federal reserve another where unelected officials wield unlimited power.

The forefathers came here to escape the nonsense of royal rule and yet time has managed to bring it all back.


Current list of resources:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin
http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page
http://eprint.iacr.org/2011/677.pdf : Commitcoin

For some reason these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_effect
http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf


Articles of interest

Machinery of Freedom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#!

The author here describes the lack of online voting as a huge cyber threat:
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=746&doc_id=246047&