This is Government 2.0- and it's government for the 21st century. One that uses technology to give power back to the people- and one that gives citizens a choice to "leave" anytime they want, without needing to move anywhere.
Government 2.0 is the radical idea that governments should serve their people- not the other way around.
The best way to accomplish this is by keeping them on a short leash. Regular democracy, the idea that you can "vote them out" just doesn't work. Not only do you need the support of vested interests to win elections, elected representatives make hundreds of decisions each term- and you're bound to agree with some of them while disagreeing with others. Why are we voting for people instead of policies?
Until now, there was no way to vote directly for laws- but technology has fixed this for us. "Delegative Democracy" is an innovative concept that lets people "donate" their vote to anyone they think represents their interests. It's like saying "I don't know much about this issue, but my friend does". What's so great about delegative democracy is that your vote is immediately and individually recallable: If you think you want to vote directly on a law, or if your delegate has messed up, you can simply withdraw your vote.
Here are some informative links:
http://bford.github.io/2014/11/16/deleg.html
http://www.shareable.net/blog/liquid-democracy-the-app-that-turns-everyone-into-a-politician
https://makeyourlaws.org/introduction
Of course, today's governments will never allow an innovation like this to see the light of day. It's up to the people to create their own democracies and stop voting for the old ones.
Even if delegative democracy isn't chosen, getting new voting machines into everyone's hands will fundamentally change the balance of power in society. It would be simple to hold elections at any time, and the top delegates could become a parliament of sorts. It doesn't have to be politics, the same ability could be used for other organizations like churches and colleges- and be completely automated. A system would measure the amount of people who are registered to vote, measure the signed-up candidates, races, and automatically assign the proper amount of votes to everyone.
Government 2.0 isn't just about some fancy new voting system- it's about fundamentally changing the relationship between citizens and governments.
As you read with the tribe system, people are completely free to "move" between tribes. What you might not know is that due to competition and the low difficulty to start your own government, only the best tribes will remain, the ones that treat their citizens with dignity and respect. Currently, if you're dissatisfied with your government you have no choice but to leave your home or "vote" them out. In reality, your vote means nothing when there are millions of others to take your place.
This is why small-scale democracy is so important, and why cities must remain independent. At a small scale, it's easier to get people to talk. Mayoral elections in the USA are mostly nonpartisan, and for good reason: More gets done that way. When governors and the governed are close together, the relationship shifts. It's ridiculous to think that people should be forced to follow random edicts from 3,000 miles away- what do they know about local issues!?
With personalized politics, you choose your leaders- and you get to see what they're doing behind the scenes. Something like the NSA surveillance fiasco couldn't happen, because you would be able to see when anyone was accessing your data- and if it was done inappropriately you could get them fired. Estonia already has a similar system in place, and they are a "leader in e-government".
We can go one step further: Estonia is still a country that people are born into, and countries are often hard to get out of (you have to buy a passport). What if, instead of getting a specific person fired you could drop the entire organization and get your government services elsewhere, without moving? That's the sink-or-swim motive that will drive tribes to innovate and create new ways of ensuring data safety. Currently, governments don't have a competition motive. Like any other business, this causes quality to drop over time and service providers to become lazy since their customers are locked in. You wouldn't accept this in any other field, so why government? It would be like all car dealerships saying you had to buy Toyotas, and they had to be pickup trucks- even though you might want an SUV. All this because you lived in a town who's name started with a "T". You can't control where you were born, so this is a completely arbitrary decision to base someone's entire life off of- and it's inherently unfair. The exact same person, one born in England and the other in Ethiopia will have wildly different chances of survival. Wouldn't it be better to allow people to choose the government that represents their interests best? Over time, with each generation of societies, government would improve and get better for everyone.
Overall, Government 2.0 exercises stewardship over people and not land. Land wars are so 20th century- With the wristband, much crime can be virtually eliminated, and help will always be a button away. People will live longer and healthier lives- and be free to go wherever they want. Government shouldn't be an enemy of the people- it should be a helpful friend who takes care of them. The problem isn't that government exists, it's that we don't have enough control over it.
It's time for a new social contract.
No comments:
Post a Comment