Side stepping nonsense governments, OpenGov can it work?

[ribuck]

I propose an online government that allows everyone to participate based on an infallible voting system... 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.

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.

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

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?

[punningclan]

I propose an online government that allows everyone to participate based on an infallible voting system... 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.

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.

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

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?

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?

[ribuck]

Just to clarify this is a non-violent idea.

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?

[punningclan]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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?

[punningclan]

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.

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?

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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.

[punningclan]

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.

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 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.

[myrkul]

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.

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 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."?

Maybe you need to check the definition on "tariff". It is a tax imposed on importing an item. It's not "attack the importing country", it's "force the people importing chairs to pay us for the privilege". Bringing stuff in without paying the tariff is called "smuggling". Would you enforce your tariff, if it was voted by 51% of the people, by stopping smugglers? If so, how do you propose to do that non-violently?

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?

Again, all you are proposing is a change in the decision making process, not the underlying system. The underlying system is a violent one, so every decision will, in the end, come down to the gun in the room.

[JoelKatz]

Again, all you are proposing is a change in the decision making process, not the underlying system. The underlying system is a violent one, so every decision will, in the end, come down to the gun in the room.

Worse, such a system will make changes in course easier and faster. One of the biggest problems with many governments in the world is that people can't rely on their laws remaining constant and being enforced over a long period of time. An unpredictable government is generally worse than a consistently oppressive one.

One of the problems States like California have had with their public initiative systems is that a mere 51% vote can basically do whatever it wants. So you'll see things like initiatives prohibiting car pool lanes from being built because 53% of California doesn't car pool.

If 10% of the people really want a law and another 42% prefer having it to not having it, it doesn't matter if 38% are totally screwed by that law. They effectively don't count at all. And sooner or later, you'll be part of that 38% on one law or another. There is no effectively balancing of interests in direct Democracy -- no "you get this, but I get this". Representative Democracy tends to make this problem much less serious -- a politician can't afford to piss off 47% of the people on issue A and a different 43% of the people on issue B because now he has only 30% support.

Direct Democracy is not all good, by any stretch of the imagination.

[steelhouse]

It you could somehow have a coin where the winner of a digital election gets funding for a political campaign we actually might send some candidates to congress.

1. Johnson
2. Simpson
3. Hanks
4. Ruth
5. Lemmon

Lemmon wins you get all the transaction money for year 2015.  Congratulations you have won %3,565,555 election coins worth about $5,000,000 good luck on your campaign.  That is how you send anarcho-capitalists to win.

[punningclan]

So let me get this right, it seems that many of you think people shouldn't be allowed to to be part of the decision process that guides and defines their life's because inevitably violence will be the outcome and that we should stick with a few people being allowed to make those decisions for us because an oppressive government is better than one owned by the people they are oppressing?

Isn't this the exact antithesis of the Bitcoin idea?

[myrkul]

So let me get this right, it seems that many of you think people shouldn't be allowed to to be part of the decision process that guides and defines their life's because inevitably violence will be the outcome and that we should stick with a few people being allowed to make those decisions for us because an oppressive government is better than one owned by the people they are oppressing.

No, I believe that nobody should be making anyone else's decisions for them.

[punningclan]

So let me get this right, it seems that many of you think people shouldn't be allowed to to be part of the decision process that guides and defines their life's because inevitably violence will be the outcome and that we should stick with a few people being allowed to make those decisions for us because an oppressive government is better than one owned by the people they are oppressing.

No, I believe that nobody should be making anyone else's decisions for them.

What if those decisions effect other people?

I take it you will never agree that you and other people may at some point need to make decisions in a shared environment involving shared resources or shared outcome?

I imagine that makes you very unpopular when trying to decide what movie to watch with your friends of a weekend? 
 
Can you provide a counter proposal?

[myrkul]

So let me get this right, it seems that many of you think people shouldn't be allowed to to be part of the decision process that guides and defines their life's because inevitably violence will be the outcome and that we should stick with a few people being allowed to make those decisions for us because an oppressive government is better than one owned by the people they are oppressing.

No, I believe that nobody should be making anyone else's decisions for them.

Can you provide a counter proposal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

[punningclan]

So let me get this right, it seems that many of you think people shouldn't be allowed to to be part of the decision process that guides and defines their life's because inevitably violence will be the outcome and that we should stick with a few people being allowed to make those decisions for us because an oppressive government is better than one owned by the people they are oppressing.

No, I believe that nobody should be making anyone else's decisions for them.

Can you provide a counter proposal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

Is it possible to make the process of Volunteering efficient by say listing what everyone can volunteer too?

If you read the thread you'll notice that all I want to do in the early days of this system is to highlight how much the opinions of those who have voted differ from their representatives. Is this a bad idea?

Bitcoin after all is really required in this world, is there a system that embodies the ideas in Bitcoin and that applies them to the interactions that Humans inevitably have to have?

[myrkul]

If you read the thread you'll notice that all I want to do in the early days of this system is to highlight how much the opinions of those who have voted differ from their representatives. Is this a bad idea?

Well, no, it is not, but it doesn't really solve anything, either.

Government is still, at best, a 51% attack.

[punningclan]

If you read the thread you'll notice that all I want to do in the early days of this system is to highlight how much the opinions of those who have voted differ from their representatives. Is this a bad idea?

Well, no, it is not, but it doesn't really solve anything, either.

Government is still, at best, a 51% attack.

It would seem that volunteerism is a form of voting, participants vote with their feet which is an idea I like however as with all organic systems efficiency is always an issue. Organic constructs like nerves and neurons came into existence to help with that in nature and this proposal is searching for the equivalent in human society. I'm not suggesting we all become a big brain but instead we decide on a framework and design a system that would allow everyone to be heard, whether anyone acts on that or not is an entirely different topic. The title OpenGov is probably at fault for some of the argument but then again argument is a good thing.

My belief is that highlighting exactly why the old system is failing so epically to those caught in it is part of the solution.

For the record, I'm with you and whether right or wrong I've never voted. 

[myrkul]

My belief is that highlighting exactly why the old system is failing so epically to those caught in it is part of the solution.

Then you're on the right track with this system. And I applaud you for never attempting to force your decisions on someone else.

[nedbert9]

Again, all you are proposing is a change in the decision making process, not the underlying system. The underlying system is a violent one, so every decision will, in the end, come down to the gun in the room.

Worse, such a system will make changes in course easier and faster. One of the biggest problems with many governments in the world is that people can't rely on their laws remaining constant and being enforced over a long period of time. An unpredictable government is generally worse than a consistently oppressive one.

One of the problems States like California have had with their public initiative systems is that a mere 51% vote can basically do whatever it wants. So you'll see things like initiatives prohibiting car pool lanes from being built because 53% of California doesn't car pool.

If 10% of the people really want a law and another 42% prefer having it to not having it, it doesn't matter if 38% are totally screwed by that law. They effectively don't count at all. And sooner or later, you'll be part of that 38% on one law or another. There is no effectively balancing of interests in direct Democracy -- no "you get this, but I get this". Representative Democracy tends to make this problem much less serious -- a politician can't afford to piss off 47% of the people on issue A and a different 43% of the people on issue B because now he has only 30% support.

Direct Democracy is not all good, by any stretch of the imagination.

Yep, and that's one thing that China has going for it.  It's a fair bit more deterministic.