An Online, Distributed, Decentralized, Purely Democratic, CryptoGovernment

[Ron~Popeil]

"to gradually and peacefully transition the human race into a singular government system, this change needs to happen soon, very soon."

hell no.  It's hard enough to get things changed at your local city hall, let alone some "world hall" in some distant country.  history is full of governments abusing people, and the more powerful they are the worse it is.

Yes, further centralizing political power would be a disaster. If you think people in Ohio are going to give a shit about what some politician in Prague says you might be in for a surprise. 

[Snax]

Yes, further centralizing political power would be a disaster. If you think people in Ohio are going to give a shit about what some politician in Prague says you might be in for a surprise. 

Then I guess it's a good thing the people in Ohio won't be seeing what the people in Prague say... read the OP before you display your ignorance so boastfully.

[JohnnyLightning]

I agree that history is full of governments abusing people, because for all of history government were ran by a very small, disproportionate group of people, separated from those they govern. This can't happen in a pure democracy. Especially since this one is pinned almost entirely on liberties alone.

In a pure democracy, 51% can vote to kill the other 49%, and it's "legal".

[DooMAD]

I'll be sure to keep an eye on this thread.  If the idea takes off, then I'm certainly interested.  Disillusionment with the current outmoded system of elected representative is damaging to what little democracy we have left.  The less people care, the more those in power get away with, the worse things get, the less people care.  It's a spiral of increasing failure.

[commandrix]

Sounds like you really put a lot of thought into this. But a lot of the problem with having a system like this is basically the same problem the Soviets had with implementing Communism. It's hard to make it work on a large scale simply because there's a massive catch-22. You need to have somebody making sure that somebody doesn't get greedy and hog all the doughnuts. But what do you do if the people in charge of distributing doughnuts suddenly decide they're hungry and start eating them all. It's kind of hard to do anything about it once you start noticing empty boxes of doughnuts except maybe take the remaining doughnuts away from them and put somebody else in charge of distributing them. And you're also going to need somebody who is in charge of the machine that counts the votes but that machine can be hacked and its programming changed to, say, counting a "yes" vote on a certain issue twice and a "no" vote only once. However, it's relatively easy to make it work on a small scale like, say, a communal farm because the system is simple. Everybody can get a say in making decisions (with the catch that you have to take your share of the responsibility for a foolish decision), everybody takes up their fair share of the work, and everybody gets a fair share of the produce.

[Elwar]

Voting can already be done at http://www.bitpools.com

Example vote result:

[Snax]

In a pure democracy, 51% can vote to kill the other 49%, and it's "legal".

In some forms of pure democracies yes, but not this one. A lot of people here seem to be very confused as to what liberty means. I'll give a much more robust outline of liberty in the updated constitution.

But a lot of the problem with having a system like this is basically the same problem the Soviets had with implementing Communism.

You're delusional, and I'll show you why...

It's hard to make it work on a large scale simply because there's a massive catch-22. You need to have somebody making sure that somebody doesn't get greedy and hog all the doughnuts. But what do you do if the people in charge of distributing doughnuts suddenly decide they're hungry and start eating them all. It's kind of hard to do anything about it once you start noticing empty boxes of doughnuts except maybe take the remaining doughnuts away from them and put somebody else in charge of distributing them. And you're also going to need somebody who is in charge of the machine that counts the votes but that machine can be hacked and its programming changed to, say, counting a "yes" vote on a certain issue twice and a "no" vote only once.

It's not any harder to make it work on large-scale than it is on small-scale, because both scales are automated the same way. Voting can't be hacked on a distributed cryptographic network, just like you can't double-spend bitcoins. When a transaction goes through, it's gone through, everyone agrees on it, end of story. The information of that transaction can be anything, so votes can't be double spent either.

Voting can already be done at http://www.bitpools.com

Voting on a crypto network is not a novelty, the bitcoin network can be used for voting, as can many other cryptocoin networks; voting isn't enough, your platform is not suitable for running an entire government system off of. We aren't just talking about voting, we're talking about the entire government, ran and automated on this distributed cryptographic network. Your platform would have to be many factors more robust in order for this to work.

[Elwar]

Voting can already be done at http://www.bitpools.com

Voting on a crypto network is not a novelty, the bitcoin network can be used for voting, as can many other cryptocoin networks; voting isn't enough, your platform is not suitable for running an entire government system off of. We aren't just talking about voting, we're talking about the entire government, ran and automated on this distributed cryptographic network. Your platform would have to be many factors more robust in order for this to work.

While it is certainly not robust enough for running a huge government, the fundamentals are there. I am starting small on purpose.

However it is not set up for running government the way we know it today. BitPools would allow for the ability to run as the "government" of a Galts Gulch type of city where there is no centralized authority but people still want to pool their money for city projects and have sway over how their money is spent through proposals and votes.

Similar to governments but with control over your money.

[LostDutchman]

The OP has no understanding of history, has gotten a ton of facts wrong and may be somoing some really serious stuff.

[Ron~Popeil]

Yes, further centralizing political power would be a disaster. If you think people in Ohio are going to give a shit about what some politician in Prague says you might be in for a surprise.  

Then I guess it's a good thing the people in Ohio won't be seeing what the people in Prague say... read the OP before you display your ignorance so boastfully.

My point was about people in the US and most other countries never accepting the idea of one government no matter how decentralized or "democratic" it is. A huge government of any kind is a bad idea. No need to display the fact that you are a prick so boastfully.

[LostDutchman]

Yes, further centralizing political power would be a disaster. If you think people in Ohio are going to give a shit about what some politician in Prague says you might be in for a surprise.  

Then I guess it's a good thing the people in Ohio won't be seeing what the people in Prague say... read the OP before you display your ignorance so boastfully.

My point was about people in the US and most other countries never accepting the idea of one government no matter how decentralized or "democratic" it is. A huge government of any kind is a bad idea. No need to display the fact that you are a prick so boastfully.

Well said!

[Marlo Stanfield]

Democracy has it's problems. Whether or not it's the best form of government in general, I don't know. But this is like taking all of democracy's problems and amplifying them one hundredfold. Direct democracy is the worst form of democracy and a bad idea in almost every case.

On an ultra small scale it might work where everyone's interests are aligned, like a farming community or something. But it really breaks down quickly on any meaningful scale.

[Snax]

My point was about people in the US and most other countries never accepting the idea of one government no matter how decentralized or "democratic" it is. A huge government of any kind is a bad idea. No need to display the fact that you are a prick so boastfully.

Okay fine, then people in the US will be left behind. I'm okay that the lower-end of the intelligence spectrum won't be the earliest adopters of this kind of system. If anything this is a positive. Why is a "huge" government a bad idea? This government is pretty minimal tbh, there's a lot less human infrastructure involved.

Democracy has it's problems. Whether or not it's the best form of government in general, I don't know. But this is like taking all of democracy's problems and amplifying them one hundredfold. Direct democracy is the worst form of democracy and a bad idea in almost every case.

On an ultra small scale it might work where everyone's interests are aligned, like a farming community or something. But it really breaks down quickly on any meaningful scale.

There's only been a couple governments in history that have had real democracy, and the problems they experienced were discussed in detail in the threads this idea was started in a couple years ago on scienceforums. This proposed system directly fixes all the named problems that a pure democracy has ever had, as well as a bunch of solutions for future possible problems. Your concerns with wide-spread disagreement on how things are done is fixed by the layered-law system similar to America's current system where there is district>city>county>state>federal breakdowns in laws.

[LostDutchman]

"Democracy".

How little knowledge of history there is around here.

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

You got 100 people in your democracy.

The "democracy" wants to hang you.

That means that if 51 people vote to stretch you neck, you are done*

Halfwits.

Jesus Christ on a raft.

* Of course 49 people, most likely including yourself didn't want to hang you.................

[Ron~Popeil]

The OP has no understanding of history, has gotten a ton of facts wrong and may be somoing some really serious stuff.

Evidence or get fucked.

My point was about people in the US and most other countries never accepting the idea of one government no matter how decentralized or "democratic" it is. A huge government of any kind is a bad idea. No need to display the fact that you are a prick so boastfully.

Okay fine, then people in the US will be left behind. I'm okay that the lower-end of the intelligence spectrum won't be the earliest adopters of this kind of system. If anything this is a positive. Why is a "huge" government a bad idea? This government is pretty minimal tbh, there's a lot less human infrastructure involved.

Democracy has it's problems. Whether or not it's the best form of government in general, I don't know. But this is like taking all of democracy's problems and amplifying them one hundredfold. Direct democracy is the worst form of democracy and a bad idea in almost every case.

On an ultra small scale it might work where everyone's interests are aligned, like a farming community or something. But it really breaks down quickly on any meaningful scale.

There's only been a couple governments in history that have had real democracy, and the problems they experienced were discussed in detail in the threads this idea was started in a couple years ago on scienceforums. This proposed system directly fixes all the named problems that a pure democracy has ever had, as well as a bunch of solutions for future possible problems. You're concerns with wide-spread disagreement on how things are done is fixed by the layered-law system similar to America's current system where there is district>city>county>state>federal breakdowns in laws.

So people that disagree with you are from "the lower end of the intelligence spectrum?" What kind of elitist bullshit is that?   

[Snax]

How little knowledge of history there is around here.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
You got 100 people in your democracy.
The "democracy" wants to hang you.
That means that if 51 people vote to stretch you neck, you are done*
Halfwits.
...
* Of course 49 people, most likely including yourself didn't want to hang you.................

This is where I get to play prescient in predicting future arguments and quote my past prescient self, "Maybe you didn't hear me. I pretty specifically said the democratic gov that would nest on top of this platform is based entirely on the formal logic principles of liberty."

And another iteration of the division of processes should be noted here, "there's two parts to this system, the platform the government runs on, and the government itself. The platform would be like etherium but much more robust, where anyone can build their own form of government on it, and then there's the government system itself, the first of which I'm proposing as a pure democracy to instantiate and popularize the platform. The reason I chose a pure democracy is because (based on every comparative politicist with a PhD I've talked to, and I've talked to dozens about this over the years) it's the only form of government that can peacefully transition the world into a singular world-government."

If you don't like the proposed form of government here, you can literally go make your own entirely separate government on top of the same platform, and hey, maybe yours will be more successful. I doubt it, because I haven't seen you propose a full crowd-sourced government like I've just done, but I've been wrong before.

So people that disagree with you are from "the lower end of the intelligence spectrum?" What kind of elitist bullshit is that?  

No, I said Americans are on the lower end of the intelligence spectrum. I appreciate that you chose to only read that once and assume your reading comprehension was strong enough to argue about it even though your arguments are about things no one here ever said lol. However, I guess I am a bit elitist about this system, because it's not mine, it's hundreds of people's system, similar to how Bitcoin is now. This has been crowd-sourced to death, it's only being presented here now to see if there's any dev teams that can handle it.

[Mike Christ]

OP's an egalitarian shithead

Karl Marx was also an egalitarian shithead

Coincidence?

[Snax]

OP's an egalitarian shithead
Karl Marx was also an egalitarian shithead
Coincidence?

"If you don't like the proposed form of government here, you can literally go make your own entirely separate government on top of the same platform, and hey, maybe yours will be more successful. I doubt it, because I haven't seen you propose a full crowd-sourced government like I've just done, but I've been wrong before."

[Marlo Stanfield]

What's wrong with delegating individual power to someone who knows better? Does your system allow for this, or does every person need to participate? What if they don't have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision?

Isn't the main problem with our current democracy lack of knowledge? If not, what is?

[efreeti]

Will never happen.

A normal person is usually too occupy to make informed decision on important issues.