Government / policing app thoughts


#1

If the world switches to SafeCoin / crypto, that will be a huge hit to all the centralised governments which run / distribute / profit from fiat currencies. Will be a huge huge power shift with major repercussions.

What are your guys thoughts on sustainable, safe, scalable government systems for the future? Like sovereign, democratic Apps?

My gut common sense answer is opt-in governments with donation-based public services. An app or address that a community sends escrowed money to, for a group to fill a required service. Example: community wants a police force. Community donates money to an escrow address for it. A police group bands together and takes the job. As they fulfill it and provide security, the money is released over time. If a competing police group comes and can make things safer (or cheaper), community donators can vote to keep or replace with the new group.

This system can work for:

  • making roads
  • fire :fire: fighters
  • public libraries
  • schools of all levels
  • anything a community could possibly need
    in a completely decentralised way.

So what do you guys think? Replacing all centralised governments with opt-in, need-based democratic utilities / crypto apps?


#2

My first thought is there is already a project for this, it’s called Bitlaw and we are already on part 2 of the conversation. Part 1 was so long it had to get split up (it’s like 400 posts long).

Second thought is government in general is obsolete but if you just mean a system for people to form consensus groups about mutual values, policies and responses I’d say that’s where polycentric law comes in.

Third I for myself think that things should be decentralized as much as possible. Schools should be abolished as they are just a form of social engineering and have little to do with education. They were designed from the get go to prevent rebellions by instilling in the populace a fear of authority and the state. Libraries, public information access points and academic institutions where people share knowledge is a different question entirely. Mentorship and apprenticeship should be encouraged as should self directed education. But I don’t believe in compelling people to learn anything nor do i believe in modeling learning after the factory. It should be a ludic experience not a stressful one.

Human habitats should be self sustaining. This means power, food, air, water and waste reclaimation should be built into the habitat not externalized in a specialized unit. Homes should be self sustaining. Public institutions like hospitals or other such places DEFINITELY should be self sustaining. Hospitals should have a fully functioning garden and be self sustaining, no question as well as a lab to synthesize it’s own pharmasutical drugs. Grow the plants yourself and process them on site, no point shipping them across the country. Develop new medicines and do research locally. This also reduces the chance of infection and if the hospital is self sustaining it won’t be paying money out to a power and water facility, or risk having the power cut in case of disaster.

Police? 1. People should be able to be armed and defend themselves. 2. If we’re talking champions to defend those that can’t defend themselves I think it should be crowdfunded but more importantly the motive of such people should be carefully considered. Such people should be primarily concerned with protecting others, not with the wielding of power. The role of a champion is to protect, not to be a bully or a thug. 3. Money NEEDS to be decentralized. It can’t come from one single source. It needs to be crowdfunded so that no one person can control or manipulate said champions. 4. No quotas. No saying you need to catch or arrest x amount of people. This again is where motive comes in. If you’re not motivated without the money you don’t deserve it in the first place. 5. Besides I think mercenaries and private security should be another option for individuals but in that case it’s a clear contract which can be facilitated with code.

I don’t believe in having laws where there is no victim so how could there be a law broken if there is no one to defend?

Emergency services should be crowdfunded and voluntary. If you don’t believe in funding them it’s your own fault if you don’t have them when you need them.

An app could be written to automatically donate a certain amount of safecoin at a certain time to various institutions at a certain time or perform a “trickle” donation as one mines safecoin. That is as new safecoin is mined a percentage goes to various entities on a list. This way the user just has to set it and forget it, maybe tweak it once in awhile when their values change.

I’m not a big believer in democracy. I’d prefer self determination as much as possible. Vote with your money and what services you use.


#3

If I were to modify representitational democracy of today I’d say that one could opt to follow whoever they wished to rule over them but did not have the right to force their party rules on others. So let Liberals be ruled by liberals, let Conservatives be ruled by conservatives, let anarchists be self determined and let none force the other to jump camp or policy against their will. The policy of one tribe wouldn’t affect the policy of another tribe and one could freely switch tribes or form their own without recrimination. As I said I’m more partial to polycentric law rather than geocentric law.

Here are a few topics to check.

In programmming the whole notion of representational democracy becomes moot because we can simply select values we prefer directly, there’s no reason to have a third person as a symbolic figure of our ideologies.


#4

Sorry I just had to laugh at the word “rule”


#5

I’d suggest the best place to start working out what useful government and policing apps to develop is to first examine just what governments and nation states are and from whence they came. From my knowledge of history they all came into existence as warriors, pirates, military forces or by trickery, graft or corruption against the will of the vanquished. The conquers then set about creating the means by which to continue their subjugation, firstly by crowning themselves with authority as a legal fiction which is unlawful when judged by the immutable and permanent natural law. So there you have it! Want proof? Read Thomas Payne on the “Rights of Man”, Lysander Spooner on ''Natural Law or the Science of Justice", Ludwig von Mises “Human Action” and the many works of Murray Rothbard on the subject.
For replacement of government “services” - defense, policing, intelligence etc read Hans Herman Hoppe’s work available from Mises Institute.
On the subject of money for a common global and local trading facility for all commodities, goods and services I’d suggest that a simple debit and credit with no counter party would be the most convenient. Money belongs to the people; not governments or banks. And don’t forget that the debit/credit unit needs to be anchored to a fixed scientifically defined commodity, physical gold is best.
Finally, no project can achieve critical mass acceptance unless it is inclusive of open source media to counter the power of propaganda, fake news, and false flag events staged by mainstream media and governments.


#6

Let what ever structures arise be completely transparent and inclusive.

And find a way to consider things on the stength of ideas wholly separate from identities, chrisma and personalities- and do this in a deliberative but real time fashion, interative and unending.

And let me add, its a complete miracle this world works as well as it does or that we are even in a position to contemplate a better one.


#7

interesting to hear people’s views, thanks.

Looks like maybe we won’t need govt after all, and free people with proper access to SAFE technology can govern themselves :slight_smile:


#8

That wouldn’t work. You can’t have two different legal systems governing the same geopolitical space.


#9

At last - some sense on this topic. Thank you


#10

(edit: this quote is originally from @blindsite2k)

I’m guessing there would need to be a hefty price to switch from a low tax option with little welfare state, to a comprehensive welfare state option, otherwise people would just switch when they came upon hard times.

How might that be managed without people ‘having their cake and eating it’?


#11

That would be one of the many problems.

Another: what would happen if, for instance, you committed an act against me that was legal in your jurisdiction but illegal in my jurisdiction? Whose law would we appeal to in order to identify if a crime has been committed?

How would businesses that are acting under two different regulatory frameworks interact? International trade either has to harmonise regulation or forgo trading, so in a local marketplace there would be significant barriers to trading with your neighbours.

As I say, it wouldn’t work.


#12

Why? Our legal fictions are just labels after all. So if user a is clearly defined in one jurisdiction and user b is clearly defined in another what does it matter what meatspace they occupy? It’s not like the human being is being considered here, just the legal strawman attached to it.


#13

Same thing Trump is doing what with refugees flooding socialist countries. Some jurisdictions would close their borders to new applicants and/or place restrictions upon joining.

What happens when the national of one country kills the national of another? Either the offending nation diciplines it’s own, or has policy in place to handle that to prevent international incidents or it means that the two tribes end up going to war. Therefore any tribe that would survive long term would need to consider how to maintain peace with other jurisdictions to prevent eliciting hostilities. As for what juristiction you’d fall into I’d say your punishment would fall under you own tribe or legal system. The response of the offended party would fall under theirs.

What you’ve never heard of trade negotiations? If your legal code allows for trade negotiatons you can make trade deals. If not then you’re limited to those that you can accept your regulations. Yes in a local marketplace if everyone was of different trading agreements they’d likely have issues but in a local market place people would either adopt similar or compatible trading agreements or they’d form different markets. Don’t want to consent to buying GMO? Go shop at the organic market then.

And sure it works. It would work as well as shopping at a grocery store or farmers market works.


#14

Yes, so the following wouldn’t be the case:

[quote=“Blindsite2k”]
one could freely switch tribes or form their own without recrimination.[/quote]

When you say close their borders, I guess you mean borders figuratively, as they’d be within the same physical borders?

I like this concept in general, and where it could work, I think it would be good. There would be many challenges, and probably limitations, but I like the idea of giving people more choice in general.

A big concern for me is that people will in general choose to opt out of helping the vulnerable in society, which welfare states do help to a degree, but new structures could develop to fill the gap (e.g. insurance to cover switching to a jurisdiction with a better welfare plan if necessary, and family & neighbours/social groups taking more responsibility for need closer to them).


#15

The offender is prosecuted in the jurisdiction under which they committed the crime.

That already happens. They’re called countries.

And consumers already have the freedom to buy the goods that they wish to consume.


#16

I think these questions and answers illustrate the difficulty here, and why ultimately we have the system of countries, governments, laws, armies etc that we do.

For example, in an extreme case anyone can declare their own law and that everything they do is legal under it. This is bound to fail as soon as they infringe significantly on any stronger jurisdiction. Their own law will be irrelevant, and they will be subject to the will of any stronger jurisdiction that chooses to impose on them.

This is because anywhere that two jurisdictions interact is necessarily subject to either mutual consent or rule by force.

This logic quickly extends beyond individuals to any size of grouping under one jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction is sustainable only as far as it is allowed to by all the others. This is no different in quality than what we have now, except that the current system relies heavily on geographical boundaries that have become recognised by historical precedent and on a mutually assuring basis in law and convention. They are also often characterised by deliberative and helpfully slow systems for altering themselves and the boundaries and interactions with others, fascism excepted.

There is nothing wrong with trying to establish alternatives that are not geographically originated and constrained, and I think in principle this is both desirable to some extent, and likely inevitable because of that.

But it is no simple matter to throw off the geographical aspect, and would I think this would be heavily resisted by the existing entities and systems. So it will probably only exist in exceptional circumstances (that I find hard to imagine right now) or in quasi government - contract law for example - and therefore under and within the legal frameworks that we already have.

Perhaps when most things have moved into the quasi government realm there would be a possibility to go the whole hog, but I think it would likely leave (and quite likely require) to exist within a stripped down but still geography based framework of laws, enforcement, and boundary protection that was called upon to administer these functions in behalf of the quasi government systems operating within them.

If so, this really is little different in principle than the relationship we have between contact law and government today. Though over time it could I think be so different n operation and effect as to be almost unrecognisable a compared to what we have now.


#17

I wasn’t trying to talk about a whole moral / legal system,

Just a system for us to have p2p public utilities through optional SafeCoin donations, after our crappy current govt systems crumble :smiley:


#18

Well by that point hopefully the network will be running and bitlaw, project decorum and a crowdfunding app or two will be in place.


#19

That sounds awesome, and will cover all the bases / necessities :smiley:


#20

I think the divide between left and right is more of a cultural divide than it is a difference of a desire to help the needy. I think it’s universally accepted the needy need to be helped. What’s debated is how. I’d argue that throwing money at them in the form of cheques is not a permenant solution. Nor should such a thing be forced using violence. It’s not sustainable. Solve the problem at it’s root. The needy need food, power, shelter and clean water as does everyone else. So solve that core issue by promoting urban agriculture like community gardens and food forests where food can be grown and harvested locally. Build homes for the homeless, not temporary shelters but actual homes. Or better yet teach them how to build homes for themselves using natural resources that can be found in the local area. (In a city shipping containers could be converted into housing. In rural areas you could make long term housing out of cob or wood. A cob home can last a couple centuries. You might consider starting a bamboo plantation.) Seriously look at cleaning water using plants. It’s cheap and sustainable. Provide homes with their own water reclaimation systems and composting systems to recycle waste into usable soil and drinkable water. Use solar and wind, or other green energy for power. It might seem like a big expendature but consider how much money is spent year after year, decade after decade on providing a social safety net for the impoverished. Better to simply give them a way of meeting their base needs in a sustainable manner that doesn’t draw upon the system and could be expanded to create a surplus for the community.

I don’t think people should be forced to help those in need. But consider if you start providing those in poverty the ability to sustain themselves they’ll also develop marketable skills. More than likely they’ll also get involved in community projects to further advance their own independence ans self actualization. What happens when one starts producing more power or food than one needs? What happens when one starts becoming really good at treating water? What happens when one has time to create art and literature? Businesses can develop which means money. So even if one doesn’t care about helping those in need one should care about the result of helping those in need. And ultimately I still think taxation is more detrimental than it is helpful because even if you gave someone in poverty a plot of land to grow things on if they need to pay land taxes they’re still operating at a loss unless they can produce a significant surplus beyond what they themselves use.

If you’re constantly dishing out money to help those in need then something is systemically wrong with the system. new loops need to be established for dealing with the issues. I don’t think at this point in our development we have any excuse for a welfare system. We have the technology to make every home and every community self sustaining. I don’t think thee is any reason for taxation or for anyone to go hungry. Between crowdfunding and local production this shouldn’t be a problem. But it is because we aren’t effectively using the technology and biology we have at our disposal.

Borders are simply boundries. There are like one’s personal space or limit of tolerance. What will you accept and not accept. What will you consent to? If a trade deal is not acceptable then you do not trade with this other entity. If this entity attempts to force the issue then conflict arises. What would happen if say China attempted to force the U.S. to accept an economic trade policy using military force? War would be declared most likely. What happens when the U.S. attempts to strong arm a smaller nation? The smaller nation may or may not submit but the U.S. is viewed by the rest of the international community as a bully. So why would it be any different on an individual level? If a trade deal is forced it’s no longer consentual. Do you want to do business with a country that attempts to force their business on you? No. Loss in reputation. Do you want to do business with a person that does that? Not really. Especially if acting nonconsentually is immediately met with community hostility and ostricization.