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

Every federated system has some form of experimentation builtin already. The USA and Germany have states within which state governments can operate independently to a certain extend. The problem often is that power tends to be taken away from the states by the federal government. And then the federal government itself lacks the property of evolution entirely. A more ideal model would maybe look something like Git onchain. You want to change how society works? Show me your pull request. And show me your Git history to see how well you played in the past. With such a verifiable open source model we could use all kinds of threshold dynamics to decide how much acceptance some kind of change requires. We could implement automatic rollbacks if no attempt to law renewal is made. Laws could expire naturally if nobody cares anymore. We know how to build those digital systems. We only need the normalization of blockchain to run our shit on top of it.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction