Politics & Government

Look at the world from outer space, and you'll find a distinct lack of the security walls, border fences or artificial lines that divide us. As hard as it is to tell from down here, a quick look at earth will tell you that our planet is a single system we all share- and a problem in one country almost never stays in one country. For most of human history, that's the way it's been: Humans were nomadic, free to go wherever they pleased. Only at the start of the industrial revolution did nation-states become so firmly established. Sociocapitalism wants to bring back the freedom to move- a freedom that all humans have an inherent right to.

No more passports, no more immigration papers- just get up and go. With free transportation, it will be easy to explore the world. Or stay at home- the choice is yours.

In the 21st century, Large Nation-States as we know them today are totally obsolete. With today's technology, the idea that millions of people should elect a small group of 500 to represent their unique interests is completely absurd. Government, by definition, is a pyramid scheme- one that transfers power from the bottom to the top. We can make voting open and safe for anyone- and give power back to the people. As explained in the technology (link) section, everyone will receive a small, secure voting device which allows them to vote or propose legislation using bitcongress.

Why are we still running the world off of a 17th-century operating system?

Government is supposed to serve the needs of the people first, everyone else second. Today's system of competing governments constantly fighting over land and resources holds us back from reaching our full potential as a species. I'm not proposing a one-world-government, as you will see in a moment.

Countries are really only good for doing two things: Fighting wars, and managing international trade. Because everyone's needs are met in a resource-based-economy, there will be no more large-scale wars. "International trade" today isn't even managed by countries- it's managed by a complex network of treaties, agreements and bodies such as the EU and WTO. In a resource-based-economy, "international trade" becomes much easier to handle because almost all production and recycling are done locally or regionally. The entire idea of "mass production", with it's waste and emissions will become a thing of the past. If you want a new pair of shoes, they will be created for you a few streets away, on demand. No more shipping things halfway across the world from China.

The only thing that will be "shipped" across oceans are raw materials (iron ore, copper, plastics, bulk wheat)- and these take up a lot less space than finished products. With production as localized and on-demand as possible, it simply doesn't make sense to have large, irregularly-shaped governments telling cities what to do- and there's your problem:

Beyond a certain size, democracy simply cannot function. Democracy happens best on a small, local scale- where people are more likely to know each other and understand the daily problems citizens face. All politics are local after all- and cities are the smallest, most cohesive unit of human settlement. Cities are able to innovate and respond to a changing world much faster than central governments can. They're more willing to try new ideas too. For this reason, it makes sense to give cities the authority and freedom to make their own decisions. Still, cities won't be able to do everything on their own- and for regional projects like dams, bridges and electrical infrastructure, voluntary confederations of cities will form to discuss the issues, plan and develop solutions. Confederations could also be created around big topics like agriculture, health, education etc. Cities will be able to join and leave confederations at any time.

Cities won't have much more of a responsibility than to provide security, local planning, basic laws that apply equally to everyone, along with services like trash pickup and courts- everything else will be handled by tribes.

In a resource-based-economy, it's tribes (confederations of individuals) who hold the real power.

Tribes exist to act as a check on the power of cities and large organizations. They are as close to "voluntary governments" (governments you choose to be a part of) as you can get in real life- except they only control the economic and digital sector of life. They provide protection, recreation, culture and a sense of belonging- and like city confederations, one can join or leave a tribe at any time. But unlike city confederations, you can create a new tribe at any time too- if you get enough people to join you. Tribes are global societies that transcend space and time. There's too much to go into here, but if you'd like to take a closer look at tribes, click this:

Groups of tribes organize themselves into a UN-like body, and this body oversees the resource-based-economy, world trade and peacekeeping missions if the need arises. Because people are free to enter or leave them at any time, tribes are more democratic than countries- and it shows. A tribe that put in place unpopular economic restrictions or laws would quickly find itself without any members, money or voting power. Thus, tribes compete and only the ones that serve the people best will survive.

----

Politics

Ultimately, it's today's system of representative democracy that leads to so many problems- the idea of electing people to fixed terms, not being able to recall them, the idea that a few can represent the will of the many- it makes no sense. Even worse, only candidates with the backing of powerful, vested interests get anywhere close to winning elections. On a local scale, it would be a much better choice to replace representative democracy with delegative.

Delegative democracy allows you to choose a delegate who represents you best- and "give" your vote to them. They can then either vote for you, or they can give their collected votes to a third delegate. Votes are individual- so if a delegate wants to split their collected votes between other delegates, they can. The main advantage of this system is that you can take back your vote at any time. If you want to vote directly on a law, you can. If you think that your delegate has not been serving your interests, take back your vote! Try doing this with a parliamentarian and see what happens. The top ten delegates in an area (the ones with the most voting power) could then be selected to run a city council, and the position of "mayor" rotated between them. In effect this is similar to a parliamentary system on a local scale.

When you can take back your vote from a politician at any time, politicians suddenly become much more accountable.

You can read more about elections and democracy in the "Government 2.0" blogpost here