Government of the Future?

A few weeks ago I made a post, with very poor success, about what I saw as the future melding of capitalism and socialism. In fairness, my theory was probably not developed enough to see the light of gray text on darker gray background. Certainly it was too liberal for most of the honest working class individuals who inhabit this forum. Even to me, it was naive. I even said it in the post.

Today, I will make a similar but different thread. My idea of the "perfect" government. Again, this is just a brainchild. It's simplistic, naive, and liberal. Much like my farm-raised midwestern self. So, here it is. Just like last time, flames, additions, criticisms, conspiracy-related comments, self-delusions, rebuttal of self-delusions, and, I suppose, constructive replies are welcome and dearly hoped for.


It is my opinion that the idea behind representative government has expired. Representative government made sense at a time when it wasn't practical for individuals to make their own decisions, so they got a group together, chose a trusted individual and said, "Look, we're trusting you to understand and represent our interests. Don't let us down. Go to Congress and make us proud." This made a ton of sense in a time when going to your uncles house 2.5 miles away was your summer vacation. It made sense at a time where you were so busy on the farm that you didn't really have time to talk about what precise percentage company incomes should be taxed at. It made sense at a time when the best you could hope for was to choose a trusted representative to send to the forum and hope he could get the word out about what you needed or didn't need to be able to keep making a living.

This seems moot, now. Via the internet, every day we give our opinion so many times. We like posts on Facebook, we ignore others. We flag and star ATS posts, we ignore others. We play this game, we ignore that one. We watch one Youtube clip and never click the other one. In short, we have time, ability, and motivation to say to others, "You don't know me, but this is what I think about this one specific thing.", several times a day.

So imagine this.

Say congress was replaced by an open-source polling software. You register with what is now your SS number. In future, I would imagine a Universal ID would encompass your name, vital statistics, bank balance, and secure email. But that's maybe for another post. At any rate, a system would be in place to ensure one vote per person.

I imagine a system that would be something like ATS, and Youtube put together. But all, absolutely all (this is a super important part of it) open source. I could even imagine the central servers handling raw data only, and the open source code being compiled and executed on end-users machines to ensure compliance.

Basically, there would be an issue. Let's say the issue is ISIS. A 10 day (for example) poll would begin. During the 10 days, anyone who chose to could submit an "thread" to a forum composed of this subject. These could be text of video. Users would rate these threads with stars, flags, likes, thumbs, whatever you want to call it. After a few days, it should become clear that a few ideas that a lot of people agree with are beginning to emerge, and these would be shown more prominently than whatever random guy's "My idea on Ebola". However, the promotion would be regulated by the software which, again, would be open source so that there's no doubt that a specific agenda is being pushed.

During and especially toward the end of the 10 days, users would be able to vote on a thread. Whichever thread gets voted highest becomes law, exactly as happens when congress passes a law now.

This is still a centralist government. I have an additional theory which basically involes flipping government upside down.

Basically, the federal government is the weakest but most widespread.
State government is medium. Not as weak, but not as widespread.
Local government has the trump card, but is not at all widespread.

Basically, the federal government could say "Murder is illegal, Rape is illegal, Prostitution is illegal, and Marijuana is illegal."
And state A could say "We inherit the federal laws on murder, rape and prostitution. Marijuana however is legal in this state."
And Local A could say "We inherit the state laws on murder, rape, and marijuana. Prostitution is also legal in this locality."
And Local B could say "We inherit the state laws on rape. Murder, Marijuana and Prostitution are both legal in this locality."

This is basically a programming concept. The federal government would set the local variables, but state, county, and city governments would have the ability to reprogram each variable, but only in their own scope. City A could never change city B's law. But City A and City B could both take issue with State A's law on "X" and change it. But only locally. Any city could also just inherit law "X".

Maybe I've had too much to drink tonight, I'm not sure. But as much as I, for one, don't care to welcome our robot overlords, I really feel like open-source computer programming will and become the future of domestic and commercial plumbing.

S^F for the thoughts in your thread. I do have a problem with majority rule. The republic was set to protect all, even a minority by law. Imagine two fish and a worm voting on what is for supper as an example.... Does it always work, nope.. Are our representatives more responsive to their voter base.... or the ones that gave them money to run and win..

Why would anyone spend several million dollars to get a job that only pays 175,000 ?

Why have so many millionaires been made in the Congress and Senate ?

There are many things that need to be addressed I agree.. The first thing is burn the bastards by voting them out of office every chance we get. Harry Reid (Mr. Arizona land man), Nancy Pelosi (pass it to see what is inside), spring to my mind right off the bat but there are many others ... All will probably be voted right back into office due to some slick adds and people not really knowing their Reps.

originally posted by: TheBlackTiger

This wont happen cause with an ID system in place the illegal Aliens wont get to vote two or three times. Seriously. While I support having to have an ID to vote (seems logical and only way to make sure people vote once) TPTB would hate this as they could no longer bus people in and have them vote in every district if some how you could limit a voter to one vote.

Also I do not believe we have yet designed software that can prevent cheating. If we could ever achieve that then I would support the idea.

originally posted by: TheBlackTiger

Maybe I've had too much to drink tonight, I'm not sure. But as much as I, for one, don't care to welcome our robot overlords, I really feel like open-source computer programming will and become the future of domestic and commercial plumbing.

Let's hope they don't run on Windows. Power tends to corrupt, Microsoft Windows already comes corrupted. Cue the cliché man vs. machine video...

Awesome plan OP !

I was going to toss in a few pennies but it appears you've already got it covered.

I would love to see your plan manifest.

My concern with this is twofold

firstly what if people panic and over react to perceived threat. For example lets say someone repeats 9/11 or something even worse. Whats to stop people latching onto the first convenient group to blame when it could take weeks or even months determine who is responsible by that time we could have been dragged into a war with a innocent party.

Secondly whats to stop the majority dictating to the minority, I mean obvious examples would be concentration camps and legal restrictions on certain groups rights but more broadly it becomes very easy to take a "don't like it? ban it" approach to minority activities. As well as large scale wealth confiscation on the wealthy and possibly even the middle class.

I think while well intentioned a government like that would go down in flames.

It made sense at a time where you were so busy on the farm that you didn't really have time…

…to provide for the common defense. At a time when "Americans" had come here to get away from the king and the frigging king kept coming here and trying to further impose his will and armies on the 'new world", they needed someone they could all trust to provide for the common defense and earn its own keep.

So they decided to vote someone to do that and raise the funds for those by placing a tariff on imports.

Thats it. A government (voted) into office and tariffs (not taxes). Thats the true definition of a limited government.

Protect us from the assholes of the world and raise the funds to do it from big business. Anything other than that smacks of tyranny and thats what we left the European continent to get away from.

Now its all sick and twisted and buried under tons of bureaucracy and we have become the same thing the constitution was supposed to guard us from.

a reply to: TheBlackTiger

It would be nice if we could break things down to a much smaller level again and have governmental laboratories where different political theories could be tested out. I personally would be up for almost anything non-abusive or too meddlesome. I think what we have has become so dismal as to be disheartening for people, and I can't bear looking out into the world and observing the faces of crushed souls. Capitalism only makes sense when you have full employment and decent wages under any other conditions, you might as well have slavery. At least then everyone would have a home.

Thank you its been ages since I had an excuse to write something on here!

Your theory is very much in the same vein as my personal political-systems thinking of the past few years, which begins at the premise that a representational democratic system was developed into its current state because of available communication technology. Similarly, I would argue that the failure of socialist/communist systems were due to technological inability to accurately convey the will of the masses, necessitating a centralized, oppressive approach with resultant corruption of leadership structures.

I like how you refer to the meeting place, the decision space, as the forum. It provokes the imagery of Greek democracy, the pioneers of the rule-by-many concept. It also delineates the role of a parliament, congress or whatever you want to call it, without gravitating to any particular present system. As a non-American the second part of your OP struck me as being too closely based to what you have right now. We must rethink the whole system to the point that present references becomes irrelevant. Of cause a forum also points to the internet's ability to enable many-to-many communication.. After all, we are sitting right now in the ATS parliamentary building engaging like good citizens do

Nonetheless, to me, a true democracy would be closer related to what I would call a social anarchy, where the true will of the people is exercised, to take power away from a central authority and distribute it between the citizens. I believe that was the original intentions for creating the democratic system. And any modifications to the existing should strive for this ideal.

It is clear, that by not personally standing in the established order's forum, our "chosen representatives" tend to not argue for one's interest, but rather submit to whichever external force promises greatest personal reward, as 727Sky pointed out. For the citizenry to relegate this responsibility to corruptible, power-seeking individuals worked out rather nice for powerful individuals and companies allowing the maxim money=power to gain truth.



My proposal

At the dawn of the Third Industrial Revolution, at last we have the means and the technology to create a true system of democracy which sidesteps the problem of corruptible middle-men administrators. I too, idealistically and naively, envision a system where all decisions would be made by majority vote of the citizenry and where public servants take pride in the meaning of being servants to the people.

It does not need to be much more complicated than a website in the vein of reddit or facebook, where importance of issues is ranked by the interest it gathers. I do have a problem though with the one-man, one-vote idea, since all men do not contribute equally to society. And apathy does not deserve a vote. One of the strengths of such a system should be that the knowledge bearers of a particular issue should be the leading voices in the surrounding debate, and their vote should carry more weight than somebody that simply scrolls past an opinion and clicks "like". One should also not underestimate the power of the troll.

Thus I would propose that your profile vote would be weighted with reputation scores in different areas of expertise. Your reputation can be increased by real-world degrees or certifications, completed online courses, or being active/popular debaters in the forum, maybe even taking frequent current affair questionnaires, whatever... as long as anybody can vote on any issue, but their vote carrying the weight and respect of being an enlightened person. People will naturally gravitate to areas of their expertise/interest. Provided that all have equal access to such a forum, one's political power is not constrained by social class or economic strength, but by one's will to be an active citizen and personal drive to develop knowledge. The point is, the decision should not be made by a paper pushing administrator on god-knows-who's-paycheck, but by the people engaged and active on the front line of an issue.

Alright, for me, a quiet guy, much was said and I would love to expand on any points of this conversation. Thank you Black Tiger for sharing your thoughts on this thread.

PG13

originally posted by: 727Sky
S^F for the thoughts in your thread. I do have a problem with majority rule. The republic was set to protect all, even a minority by law. Imagine two fish and a worm voting on what is for supper as an example.... Does it always work, nope.. Are our representatives more responsive to their voter base.... or the ones that gave them money to run and win..

Why would anyone spend several million dollars to get a job that only pays 175,000 ?

Why have so many millionaires been made in the Congress and Senate ?

There are many things that need to be addressed I agree.. The first thing is burn the bastards by voting them out of office every chance we get. Harry Reid (Mr. Arizona land man), Nancy Pelosi (pass it to see what is inside), spring to my mind right off the bat but there are many others ... All will probably be voted right back into office due to some slick adds and people not really knowing their Reps.

This a million times.

People need to put in the effort and do some research on the candidates before they vote. Just voting D or R because you have always done that is bad practice. Effort by the voting population is required to fix the mess we have.

I think your ideas are great. There are a few factors that would cause it to fail greatly however if not squashed completely. Propaganda on all levels isn't good for the community, and we're not very likely to get rid of it. In your example, the "threads" written and voted upon would in and of themselves be propaganda in a sense. Even if the writers were anonymous they may very well be funded by big business with nefarious agendas. They would be backed up with false claims and skewed science.

The main reason that we create governments to solve our problems is to take the majority of the stress of cultural issues out of the lives of the commoners. Put it back in and the process of change would be a long and grinding experience, and might not benefit them as much as they like. When they make a mistake they would need to start the whole process over. Not very efficient. At the same time you may have ideals that are in a constant state of flux and trends would constantly tear down and build up the foundation that our lifestyles and community need in order to work efficiently.

In the end. You would need to grow and nourish a culture of self sufficiency and logical thinking. Advertising would have to be whittled down to an as needed basis and propaganda would need to be squashed at every turn. These issues don't have as much to do with government as they do with cultural preferences. If we lived a bit more by these guidelines then our governments now would work much more smoothly and we would have less problems with waste management and inefficient lifestyles.

All that said I do think that you are on to something in your OP and you may be right about it being the future of democracy in a technological age. I applaud your thinking process in putting it all together.

a reply to: Xeven

This wont happen cause...

Irrelevant. The point of discussions like these are to look past present constraints and take a few steps back to question the status quo logically and objectively. No change in history has ever happened without an individual willing to look past present constraints. Evolution means getting it wrong along the way.

But yes, I agree, tptb would hate it. They will probably not be willing to give power away without resistance.

a reply to: Quauhtli

Good points.

On the threat of propaganda - I would propose that a space where, say, national/regional decisions are being made, all participants forfeits anonymity. One's credentials, "citizen's record" and pedigree is on display, to be scrutinized and defended. Corporate persons will have a right to display their stance on a particular issue, to be scrutinized and defended. As such, we trust that the most informed opinion will gain exposure concerning any proposals.

Change - I agree that governments is a way of relieving the stress of self-determination, but I believe it was simply a necessity for a period of human cultural evolution. Yes, I agree with you it will require a currently lacking culture of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, but somewhere in the future, we must reach it. Otherwise we deserve the worst distopias dreamt up by the human imagination.

Nonetheless.. It may not have to be an either-or situation. Instead of revolutionary change, we might be able to institute evolutionary change. It may be possible to start such a program in parallel to the existing system, and gradually, as people become ready to participate, representation grows in the existing structure. Imagine there is one representative in congress/parliament, representing opinions as determined in cyberspace. As membership grows, this representation in government grows. Given historically low voting numbers worldwide, the people that actually give a snip, might be able to create a space for themselves within our present political structures. Imagine if activist site Avaaz had representation in our democratic structures. That could be the beginning of a step in the right direction.

a reply to: TheBlackTiger

I thought of something similar a while back, except in this system you have elections for 'seats of influence' for qualified people. Since it is software driven, you can have thousands of representatives, with varying degrees of influence (based on votes) that effect their influence on issues and decisions. Evaluation of candidates should be based on something like a bio/resume so we are selecting people based on qualification rather than popularity.

However even with such a system, I don't see how to prevent certain major problems.

1) People are driven by self interest. People with purely altruistic motives, if they exist, are not as driven.

2) I am not sure any system can prevent the gaining of popularity through financed marketing campaigns.

3) People are too lazy (or don't have the time) to sift through candidates based on qualifications; nor do most people have the wisdom or intelligence to evaluate such qualifications.



Open Source Government

OP,
Here's a little food for thought. It's an interesting video, and though she doesn't really touch on governments, Jane McGonigal does explain the collective power we have for solving global problems. I think her ideas mesh right in with yours.

I appreciate the replies. I'm not allowed to edit my OP anymore, and the alcohol definitely shows. I'm not at all sure why it says "commercial plumbing" at the end. I do work in plumbing, so I must have been thinking about it.

I will be sifting through and begin replying. I really appreciate the discussion in this. You guys are restoring my faith in ATS.

I mentioned the other day that politicians should be chosen in the same fashion that jurors are chosen, simply meaning at random, and have so type of screening afterwards to ensure that the person was not totally insane or something. My reasoning was simple: politicians are the ones seeking office, and seeking office should automatically bar one from every obtaining it. Too many politicians go to Washington to get rich, not to help the nation or its inhabitants, which is what they should be doing. The average person who has no political aspirations will be much more in tune with the general population's feelings, much more than an elected politician. Those guys don't even know what they're voting on half the time. Apparently they don't have time to actually read the bills, which is strange considering their job doesn't entail very much. They spend WAAAY too much time campaigning and working for other personal interests, which takes up time that should be spent serving the nation.

A system like I describe would eliminate many of these negative aspects, and I feel that the negatives that would be created are superior to the negatives that are already in place. With all that said, I have considered your system, and I believe it could possibly be superior to the idea I suggested. But I feel that the only way for your system to succeed is as follows: a citizen cannot vote on any issue unless they have read certain source materials that are meant to educate them, and then they have to pass a small quiz or test on the subject, simply to prove that they grasp what they are voting for or against. It would be pointless to have the citizenry voting on an issue of foreign affairs when they have not the slightest clue on the matter. My point is simply that there still needs to be a screening process of some sort, because the average person is no better equipped than the average politician...lol.

There would be problems with any system, but I feel that the corruption would have to disappear to a large extent. One of the negative aspects would come in how the information meant to educate the voter is presented. It would be easy to sway a voter if you could feed them full of propaganda, cherry-picked facts, and other things of that nature. So there would have to be some type of system to ensure that complete and factual information, and only that, was available to educate voters. Using a social security number would go a long way to ensuring that only a single vote per person was cast. And I think that the software used should be open source, as there would be numerous people who would form online communities and who would improve upon it, and would ensure no foul play was possible. If someone did insert a malicious piece of code meant to cheat or swing the vote, this would be spotted almost immediately, and it could be fixed and the guilty parties punished severely. As that is treasonous. Using public office for personal gain, especially placing personal interests over that of the citizenry, should require at minimum of 20 years in jail. Or if we wanted to get really hardcore we could make it a capital offense for blatantly obvious corruption, or corruption without impunity. Well maybe not a capital offense, but the point needs to be driven home to anyone holding office that we as a people will not tolerate such things.

And new laws could be presented sort of how they are on certain sites like ChangeOrg, which itself says it has 79 million people "taking action" to incite change. If that many people are participating, or even a fraction of that, then I think that the vast majority of the US population would participate in a voting system like you propose, which is excellent. There would be a much greater turnout than that of a presidential election, because it is easier. So I think that such a system is feasible. And it could be slowly brought to fruition. First the system is established, and then it is used to vote on very small things, working its way up to actually replacing other systems. One of the biggest issues would be in educating the people that they cannot always vote to benefit themselves. As it stands now only the rich and powerful can vote to benefit themselves, usually through lobbying and coercion, but this is wrong no matter who does it. The people should show these traitors that we are above such actions. But seriously, that would be a huge problem. Majority rule in itself has flaws, and this is why educating the populace is of the utmost importance for a system of this nature to succeed. We would still need politicians and people to act as managers, but the decisions would be made by the people. Maybe the popular vote could be overridden under certain circumstances as well.

A system like this has not been adopted in the past not necessarily because it is a bad system, but possibly because there was never any feasible way for such a system to be initiated. The internet is what has made something like this possible, as it is the only feasible way to make it work. The more I think about it, the more I see this as the way of the future. The largest obstacle will be found in shifting the thinking that has been engrained in the majority for so long. They think they NEED politicians and government, but they are only right to a certain extent. With a system like this in place, the people would have much more power than they've ever had at any point in history. But we cannot give absolute power to ourselves. But then again, even a monarchy can be the perfect form of government, IF you have the perfect monarch. So perhaps the aggregate of public opinion will act as a moderator itself, meaning that the votes will not be extreme. Anyway, great idea.

It'll be a cross between these two if we don't all die from Ebola.

In looking for a new or next generation government the most critical aspect and top priority is how do we make the best decision?

When comparing the internet hits between the words love and hate there is a lot of good out there in the common sense. But with media manipulation, lack of information, complex issues and conflicts of interest going around it is sometimes hard, long winded and a near impossible task to get to the core matters in a fair, responsible and realistic manner. Information management can so easily and quickly get out of hand in large scale projects.

It is good to see more interest and discussion growing around such important issues.

a reply to: TheBlackTiger

Who would you trust to administer this computer network? They would be the de facto government. You would need to take their word when they announce the results of the polling. Elections would become completely opaque while appearing to be completely transparent.