bloke on Warpcast

bloke pfp

Would government be better off, if we had the opportunity to vote either directly or for representatives in every aspect the government does? Ex. USAID rep, FBI rep, fire department rep, local fire dept rep, water control rep, police, highway rep, etc.

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

I have no good answer for the posed question. Though I do think that there are several ways and setups that would lead to better government over time. 1. We should have a governance framework that allows for governance experimentation. Trying out how to govern something in many different ways across many different iterations would provide us with better ideas. Today, crypto is this laboratory. 2. Governance should have more self-restricting properties. The typical way that nations fail is due to extractive institutions. Government always wants to grow. The cancerous kind of growth must be controlled. 3. Participation does not always have to do with knowledge. Citizens have preferences and the substrate within capitalistic democracies is financial. I pose that we would end up with better governance if tax payers could decide which public goods get actually funded. At the moment all kinds of bullshit is funded, nobody knows where the money goes, and NOT A SINGLE PERSON is happy with this system.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

bloke pfp

How can a governance framework allow for experimentation? By enabling its pieces to be dependency-less and easily swappable. Free. However, there is an inherent problem, even here in crypto. Institutions are incentivized to restrict customer freedom, so that customers are forced to stay with their particular service and its employees can make a living... Which then restricts the ease of swappability. Therefore, customers, ie: nations, large companies, individuals are locked into closed mechanisms. So we have conflicting paths to building - Free - readable, modifiable - ex. Linux OS - Closed - obfuscated, patented - ex. Microsoft OS This spectrum can apply to all things Freedom - Determinism. Which.. we don't want pure freedom, because my level of freedom affects yours. Nor do we want to have zero control over the strings that tie us down. So, what exists between freedom and determinism? Consensus.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

bloke pfp

Let's say we cook up the ideal governance. - We want its mechanisms to be easily swappable - to be sustainable- contributors can make a living - to maximize freedom for its citizens It requires EVERYONE to agree and not only that, to be incentivized to agree to it.. even IF they sometimes have to pay fees / taxes. (because, for ex., an individual can easily pirate free software)

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

I am not sure about any of the above. There is likely nothing like the "ideal" governance model. All there is are tradeoffs unfolding along distributions. I am also not sure if you want to provide "contributors" with any financial incentive. Most senators have already more money than God because they grifted their way through a lifetime of "service". You maybe just want to get the change in that people really care about and not just pay somebody to be around forever. Maximizing the freedom of citizens means different things for different people. For some people that means to have no responsibilities at all. My definition would be the exact opposite of that. I also think that if you need everyone to agree you will be stuck forever. The EU member states operate unanimously and nothing that really matters gets ever done. Same applies to every other institution that was supposed to be relevant. And none of them works well.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction