Perfect government by protocol

[Elwar]

I would be very interested in working with you, even if you can't code, however I think we will need to be 3 minimum.

I can code, not very well versed in the nuances of C# but started out with C/C++ with some .NET and now mainly work in Java.

My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system. For me the perfect voting system means that only those people who want something, pay for it and get it.  This gets a bit tricky with things like defense or something that gets paid for and benefits those who do not pay for it, but with moving money around it can be done. At the very least, a voting system that everyone agrees on upfront would be good as well.

[1715205276]

1715205276

[hazek]

My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system.

This has already been found many many decades ago and it's called by strictly consumers regulated markets (i.e. free markets) where voting is carried out 24/7/265.25.

The only problem is there's this small gang of psychopathic people who benefit immensely by using violence to interfere with it. Remove them and all of our problems with governments will be solved.

[Vitalik Buterin]

My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system.

This has already been found many many decades ago and it's called by strictly consumers regulated markets (i.e. free markets) where voting is carried out 24/7/265.25.

The only problem is there's this small gang of psychopathic people who benefit immensely by using violence to interfere with it. Remove them and all of our problems with governments will be solved.

Let's take government out of the equation here.

You and your 500 closest neighbors formed a voluntary association which legally, according to strict free market principles, bought up some nearby undeveloped land for the purpose of maintaining a park there. Everyone contributes a bit, everyone's happy. Three years later, there are some decisions which need to be made about which direction your commonly owned park will go in. There are debates as to whether the park should have a playground or if the money is better spent planting more trees, where the paths should go, whether a field should be cleared to allow people to play sports in it, etc. The challenge is to create a voting system which creates the optimal outcome in all of these cases while minimizing bureaucratic inefficiency.

What should we do?

[hazek]

My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system.

This has already been found many many decades ago and it's called by strictly consumers regulated markets (i.e. free markets) where voting is carried out 24/7/265.25.

The only problem is there's this small gang of psychopathic people who benefit immensely by using violence to interfere with it. Remove them and all of our problems with governments will be solved.

Let's take government out of the equation here.

You and your 500 closest neighbors formed a voluntary association which legally, according to strict free market principles, bought up some nearby undeveloped land for the purpose of maintaining a park there. Everyone contributes a bit, everyone's happy. Three years later, there are some decisions which need to be made about which direction your commonly owned park will go in. There are debates as to whether the park should have a playground or if the money is better spent planting more trees, where the paths should go, whether a field should be cleared to allow people to play sports in it, etc. The challenge is to create a voting system which creates the optimal outcome in all of these cases while minimizing bureaucratic inefficiency.

What should we do?

Do what big corporations with thousands of share holders do to make any decisions..

[Realpra]

I would be very interested in working with you, even if you can't code, however I think we will need to be 3 minimum.

I can code, not very well versed in the nuances of C# but started out with C/C++ with some .NET and now mainly work in Java.

Thats just fine, C# is much like Java anyways.

How about you Vitalik, wanna join?

I think it will be a big project, might take a year. That's why I wanted to make the smartcard and earn some money with a job also and then do the OrgProtocol.

EDIT: Perhaps also specify the hours you will have. I think I will likely have a day (8 hours) a week.

My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system. For me the perfect voting system means that only those people who want something, pay for it and get it.  This gets a bit tricky with things like defense or something that gets paid for and benefits those who do not pay for it, but with moving money around it can be done. At the very least, a voting system that everyone agrees on upfront would be good as well.

My work of the last 6 months was an organizational framework, it should allow most organizational structures including what you describe via plugins.

Using that as a rough starting point for the P2P version we could later easily implement the organization types we each believe in and go our separate ways.

Do what big corporations with thousands of share holders do to make any decisions..

Companies go bust when they mess up or get a bad leader, your community will not have that option as going "bust" could mean very nasty things.

Keep in mind that shareholders also vote, so given that corps still go bust at times, trying to find better voting methods seems a decent idea to me.

My own ideas are more systematic; I have tried to minimize voting to a fail safe while focusing on promoting only the best to leadership - precisely because voting seems to fail too often for my taste.

That is however not important when discussing a "P2P OrgProtocol". Anyone got a better name?

[opticbit]

I like this,  Its something i've wanted to see for a long time
many think it will never work, many think the same about bitcoin, but here we are, and most people still don't know what it is, but say they will look it up.  The same way I say I'll look it up, but then forget what it was, and don't bother trying to contact that person about it.  Over the years as people see the benefit and start using it, or a better replacement.

I have been saying for a long time that a good start would be a wiki, get people who are legal minded to write a document on how things should be run. I set one up on my host, It got damaged by spam bots, and i havent re-installed since changing hosts.  I was the only one writing in it, I'm not a very good writer so a great idea doesn't look as good as it should.  I expected my family to contribute some, and then the OccupyWallSt people to be interested, a small group of them were interested, but didn't do anything.

Write in the spirit of the law in plain english, and have the letter be the fine print in legalese .  Part of the problem with the current system is going by the letter there are too many loopholes because if every contingency was written down a simple rule will turn into a book.  Along with the intended loopholes.

Many people don't agree on what rules to live under.  We can decide to live under a set of rules, and be ok with someone else living under a different set of rules - like Creative Commons and choseing how open your software is.

There are many other features i'd like to see, cant think of them all, right now, and don't want to make this a longer read. There are many people out there that have come up with a better way of doing things, but it hasn't been implemented, Many because of red tape, we need to be supporting these new ways more.  I envision this like bitcoin, a small group of people working on it, and getting to the point where people can look it over, like it and agree to it,  then start spreading it, to the point where the old system fades away,  No violent revolution needed, And the new system will thrive.

[Traktion]

My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system.

This has already been found many many decades ago and it's called by strictly consumers regulated markets (i.e. free markets) where voting is carried out 24/7/265.25.

The only problem is there's this small gang of psychopathic people who benefit immensely by using violence to interfere with it. Remove them and all of our problems with governments will be solved.

Thanks for being the sane voice on this thread.

'The state' is just an organisation like any other, except that it gets to use violence with impunity. It's strange that people seem unable to see this and want to treat it like some sort of special flower - an organisation which is somehow unlike any other and should therefore get to coerce people as it sees fit.

All people need to accept, is that they own themselves and the results of their actions (both good and bad). Everything else from theft, through fraud to murder, all fan out from these basic assertions.

It doesn't matter how a 'special' organisation is run, whether it is via software or humans, allowing it to steal and murder with impunity, will lead to tyranny. No organisation or individual should be able to coerce with impunity, no matter how special some think they are - including the organisation called 'the state'.

[Traktion]

Can we please not degrade every thread on innovative social organization into people yelling at each other about violence and coercion? I understand the moral concerns, but I would really like to see interesting discussions on how we can implement a society that can overcome issues such as tragedy of the commons and public goods problems without creating a centralized hierarchy of power. There are lots of political systems that can exist even within a constraint of non-coercion; both a communist no-private-property system and an ultra-neoliberal regime of privatizing every last square centimeter of nature and human creation are technically compatible with the concept - this insight is what ideas like the Political Compass are ultimately all about.

I personally find the idea of running elements of basic infrastructure on cryptographic protocols quite ingenious; it removes both private power and government power and leaves us with a simple set of rules that anybody can play by to participate in the network.

There are many ways to form groups in society and if they are voluntary, then that's fine.

Maybe cooperatives/mutuals (where members are owners and can vote etc) are better for some things (health, roads, schools perhaps), while directed organisation are better for others. It isn't really important which are used, but rather that they are voluntary.

I've got a book waiting to be read by Elinor Ostrom. She won a Nobel price for her work about the tragedy of the commons and how it can (and is in many cases) be solved without central governance: http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/the-victory-of-the-commons

You don't have to go far back in history to reach a time when many commons had to be shared and the state had little involvement in the process. It is only in the modern era that communications have lead to top down organisation even being remotely feasible - the option simply wasn't there for millennia and people found systems to deal with commons just fine.

[Elwar]

My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system.

This has already been found many many decades ago and it's called by strictly consumers regulated markets (i.e. free markets) where voting is carried out 24/7/265.25.

The only problem is there's this small gang of psychopathic people who benefit immensely by using violence to interfere with it. Remove them and all of our problems with governments will be solved.

Yes, the free market and individuals making individual choices is ideal. But most libertarians understand the concept of trying to organize individualists is like herding cats. Collectivists are able to form groups and combine efforts, but they tend to fail as the planning is centralized and  stifles individuality.

What I look at is taking all of those individuals who all have the same goal but do not have the power to combine their efforts toward the same goal.

When it comes to a group of people spending their money in a combined effort, this should be easily done voluntarily. Like the example of a group of people putting their money together to buy a park. Something that would otherwise be reserved for someone with a lot of money.

Ideally, there would be a group of people with a similar goal that would pledge a certain amount of money. Many ideas would be put forth toward achieving that goal. Members of the group would vote with their money toward the achievement of that goal. If not enough money is voted toward the goal then it fails and other proposals are put forth. If only 80% of the group votes with their money toward the goal but 80% is sufficient, then it goes forward. A new group is formed of those 80% stakeholders and the other 20% has the choice of contributing and having further say or moving on. The proposals put forth could include the organizational rules such as this software would provide, a leader to oversee the spending, a voting method for how to deal with future decisions, dues if necessary and whatever else may be desired. The key being that everyone agrees to how things are set up and nobody is forced to do anything. All while providing a way to combine efforts.

[Traktion]

My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system.

This has already been found many many decades ago and it's called by strictly consumers regulated markets (i.e. free markets) where voting is carried out 24/7/265.25.

The only problem is there's this small gang of psychopathic people who benefit immensely by using violence to interfere with it. Remove them and all of our problems with governments will be solved.

Yes, the free market and individuals making individual choices is ideal. But most libertarians understand the concept of trying to organize individualists is like herding cats. Collectivists are able to form groups and combine efforts, but they tend to fail as the planning is centralized and  stifles individuality.

What I look at is taking all of those individuals who all have the same goal but do not have the power to combine their efforts toward the same goal.

When it comes to a group of people spending their money in a combined effort, this should be easily done voluntarily. Like the example of a group of people putting their money together to buy a park. Something that would otherwise be reserved for someone with a lot of money.

Ideally, there would be a group of people with a similar goal that would pledge a certain amount of money. Many ideas would be put forth toward achieving that goal. Members of the group would vote with their money toward the achievement of that goal. If not enough money is voted toward the goal then it fails and other proposals are put forth. If only 80% of the group votes with their money toward the goal but 80% is sufficient, then it goes forward. A new group is formed of those 80% stakeholders and the other 20% has the choice of contributing and having further say or moving on. The proposals put forth could include the organizational rules such as this software would provide, a leader to oversee the spending, a voting method for how to deal with future decisions, dues if necessary and whatever else may be desired. The key being that everyone agrees to how things are set up and nobody is forced to do anything. All while providing a way to combine efforts.

Aren't you essentially advocating cooperatives? Specifically, organisations where everyone owns a share and votes on the direction of the organisation as a whole?

While you may want to create some fancy software system to manage such a thing, it is by no means needed. There are many examples of successful cooperatives, who operate in similar ways, with voluntary membership.

IMO, there are times when cooperatives are good and useful and times when they are not ideal. The best way to find out when each should be used, is to let individuals choose via the market place.

[Realpra]

@opticbit
A wiki is a nice idea. I don't know how to set one up though.

A mailing list should also be possible.

Still at the moment I favor my smartcard idea as that will also teach me basic BTC skills I will need for this/fund any operation.

@Traktion
You don't have to join us or anyone else, we are just talking about software.

As for companies being oh so nice, you forget how oil companies poison the environment and decimate local tribes. You also forget their private security officers.

[hazek]

@Traktion
You don't have to join us or anyone else, we are just talking about software.

Which Traktion and me are trying to tell you is a non solution and therefor a waste of time.

[Elwar]

My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system.

This has already been found many many decades ago and it's called by strictly consumers regulated markets (i.e. free markets) where voting is carried out 24/7/265.25.

The only problem is there's this small gang of psychopathic people who benefit immensely by using violence to interfere with it. Remove them and all of our problems with governments will be solved.

Yes, the free market and individuals making individual choices is ideal. But most libertarians understand the concept of trying to organize individualists is like herding cats. Collectivists are able to form groups and combine efforts, but they tend to fail as the planning is centralized and  stifles individuality.

What I look at is taking all of those individuals who all have the same goal but do not have the power to combine their efforts toward the same goal.

When it comes to a group of people spending their money in a combined effort, this should be easily done voluntarily. Like the example of a group of people putting their money together to buy a park. Something that would otherwise be reserved for someone with a lot of money.

Ideally, there would be a group of people with a similar goal that would pledge a certain amount of money. Many ideas would be put forth toward achieving that goal. Members of the group would vote with their money toward the achievement of that goal. If not enough money is voted toward the goal then it fails and other proposals are put forth. If only 80% of the group votes with their money toward the goal but 80% is sufficient, then it goes forward. A new group is formed of those 80% stakeholders and the other 20% has the choice of contributing and having further say or moving on. The proposals put forth could include the organizational rules such as this software would provide, a leader to oversee the spending, a voting method for how to deal with future decisions, dues if necessary and whatever else may be desired. The key being that everyone agrees to how things are set up and nobody is forced to do anything. All while providing a way to combine efforts.

Aren't you essentially advocating cooperatives? Specifically, organisations where everyone owns a share and votes on the direction of the organisation as a whole?

While you may want to create some fancy software system to manage such a thing, it is by no means needed. There are many examples of successful cooperatives, who operate in similar ways, with voluntary membership.

IMO, there are times when cooperatives are good and useful and times when they are not ideal. The best way to find out when each should be used, is to let individuals choose via the market place.

You can call it a cooperative if you like. I could see it working for things such as retailers making a bulk purchase from a wholesaler so that they get a lower price with a combined rate.

I have belonged to an electric cooperative as opposed to a private or public company. I also currently get my water through a private cooperative. Each customer is also a voting member, we elect a commission each year who then decides who will be the director in charge of day to day operations. Most local services could be provided that way.

[Realpra]

@Traktion
You don't have to join us or anyone else, we are just talking about software.

Which Traktion and me are trying to tell you is a non solution and therefor a waste of time.

Lol that also applies to BTC software... Anyway I will just go ahead and use my freedom to "waste my time"

[floeti]

Did you consider including some form of "Liquid Democracy" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting#Delegated_voting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_Democracy) in your software? Some of the pirate parties in the world do favor such a model. I think this is a good compromise between effort to be done by every participant (effort in the sense of getting informed on a specific topic to make the right decision in the vote) and self-determination.

The other possibility of being everything regulated by free market, IMHO does not work, because of "informational friction". Customers will need to be (timely) informed to decide, when to buy a service and give their vote to a specific company and when not. Nowadays with web and mobile networks this is much less of an issue, but the problem remains, that these services are provided by companies, who then would have very much power. Also how do you prevent companies teaming up behind the scenes instead of being competitors? There will be needed a third party, which has the power to regulate these issues.

[d'aniel]

This might be of interest: http://liquidfeedback.org/

[Realpra]

I have already talked to a pirate party guy about this stuff, its pretty nifty.

The org protocol idea is a way to make sure say the pirate party top keeps doing votes in the fashion agreed on for hundreds of years.

However I'm not programming it right now and probably not alone whenever.

[muyuu]

Is that a fixed value for everybody in your system? or does it weight voting in some form?

[Realpra]

Is that a fixed value for everybody in your system? or does it weight voting in some form?

What I programmed in my bachelor (and what the idea in this thread is based on) allows the implementation of most organization core structures.

In other words if you want to do weighted voting of some kind you could set this software up as you wanted it and then LOCK it. After locking it would maintain the rules you originally specified and even you yourself would be unable to change those rules.


The political system (ie not related to the software idea) I have in mind uses voting only as a safe guard in case of really bad leaders, but otherwise focuses on controlling the organizations inside the government and the selection process of new leaders.

This is because people seem unable to choose good leaders in elections due to their stupidity and propaganda, but even given propaganda seem decent at kicking out leaders that mess up.

[muyuu]

Is that a fixed value for everybody in your system? or does it weight voting in some form?

What I programmed in my bachelor (and what the idea in this thread is based on) allows the implementation of most organization core structures.

In other words if you want to do weighted voting of some kind you could set this software up as you wanted it and then LOCK it. After locking it would maintain the rules you originally specified and even you yourself would be unable to change those rules.


The political system (ie not related to the software idea) I have in mind uses voting only as a safe guard in case of really bad leaders, but otherwise focuses on controlling the organizations inside the government and the selection process of new leaders.

This is because people seem unable to choose good leaders in elections due to their stupidity and propaganda, but even given propaganda seem decent at kicking out leaders that mess up.

I see.

So initially it would be decided by the person launching it and then changed by majority vote according to that system.