Pods...

The following post comes from a reader of the blog and can be read in the comments section. I will respond in future post:

Anonymous said...

Ok... so I’m not really a revolutionary, my mortgage is too high. However, I do have thoughts about what will happen after the revolution. What kind of government do we want? I talk to a lot of people about the American Government and one consistent message that people agree upon is there is something seriously wrong with the system. It isn’t a party or a person but this form of institutionalized bribery that we have somehow developed. I know our founding fathers didn’t intend this mess of government contracts running political agendas or special interest groups funding campaigns to control our representatives. Basic point is that our representatives don’t represent the citizens anymore. The debt the US owes is off the charts and no plan in sight to even stop going in debt much less pay off what we owe. I could go on about all the issues today but it really is pretty obvious that we are heading towards a bankrupting state on monetary and ideological basis. By the way, I’m not address State Governments at this point. Not that they don’t have their problems but nothing like the screwed up Federal system.

When the revolution comes and I’m asked what we should do I’m proposing a new flavor of democracy. I’m calling it “Group Democracy”. Our current system had 200+ years and this is where it got us. It is time for Democracy 2.0. Here is the basic premise:

· The more people you add to a group the dumber they get. Take a look at our congress. We need to keep groups small and conversations relevant in those groups to the real issues in the world today.
· Representation creates a level of abstraction that allows our congress/president/supreme court make decisions that are not fiscally responsible (I would even go so far to say ‘evil’ at times). To fix this problem the only way forward is citizens taking back our country.

Group Democracy:

· Create voting pods of 10 citizens each that vote on every issue/bill/resolution on Federal issues. Each pod gets to cast one vote. If there is a deadlock in the pod then a vote isn’t cast for that Pod.
· Federal Government is relegated to preparations for weekly Pod voting on issues.
· Bills are created by anyone from any Pod. Even special interest groups (which are pod members) can introduce bill/legislation into their Pod. The point is that a Pod has to introduce a bill. Your Pod needs 100% consensus on any bill submitted to your timezone for review.
· Pods are organized by time zone – Pod members can live out of that timezone (for instance if they move out of the timezone during their Pod tenure) but when Pod assignments happen it happens within that timezone. This allows for ease of Pod meetings and other organizational issues.
· Bills/Legislation are reviewed and voted on to move forward to National voting by all pods in the timezone that bill was introduced. This puts structure in place to stop final votes on issues happening without a review process at the timezone level.
· Pods are selected at random by people’s social security number. They are not tied to any location, race, age or any other traditional grouping other that at original assignment (every 2 years) they are assigned within a timezone.
· When people turn 18 years old they are assigned to their first Pod.
· Pods are changed up every two years.
· Pods communicate via whatever means required. Suggestion to meet once a week for 2 hours to cast votes.
· Random selection of pod members means that lobbying has to be done by pod members to convince other pod members to vote on their issue.
· Special interest groups are then forced to lobby to Pods.


There is a lot more to this and I’m sure there are issues I haven’t envisioned but really how much worse can it be than what we have?

Now there is an alterative all we need to do is wait for the revolution!!!!

peace
b.

Why do we need a daddy?

Sure, in a family unit it makes sense. But why would we need a daddy on the level of a nation-state? In other words, why do we need a dictator...or president. Or perhaps the president should only enforce the laws, and not lead us.

A leader in battle is one thing. A leader in our day-to-day politics? A leader to set our budget?

One question I often ask those who are for a strong executive: do you need someone to tell you what to do? Strangely enough, they all answer no...but they think the american public does need such a leader. I've got a word for that:

hypocrisy.

Coming back...

Whew. Haven't been posting because of a big push at work, though it won't be ending soon. Also, so disgusted about current state of politics that I find it hard to face the future, or even writing about it. Going to take a couple days on the cape to blow out some cobwebs, we'll see where I am upon return...

Transformers Movie

We surf a standing wave of nostalgia. Because we have no future, no shared myth of a past, we cling to the small stories from our childhoods, simple good vs. evil. And then we remake these stories as live action epics. Instead of new stories, people want to hear the same stories, over and over again, like children.

This movie blew.

Objectivist GG? Human Bondage?

First, take a look here...love the govt/sex analogy.

I have mixed feelings about the entire Rand/Objectivist position, but I don't think it is necessarily dis-congruent with GG. In fact, I would argue that a GG would allow men to not be subjugated to the whims of other men - to fight for their own individuality. I think current systems give you neither collectivism nor libertarian-style freedom of choice. Instead, entities and individuals are able to hijack the government to serve their own ends.

From that essay: "each of us must pursue our personal happiness, without forcing (infringing upon the life, liberty and property of) others." That's really along the lines of what my favorite political philosopher John Stuart Mill always advocated. I think what we should recognize is that what keeps us from this is not simply human nature, it's the bad technology of an archaic system of government.

Quick Thoughts...

Question: would a GG ever actually replace all the functions of our current govt?

Answer: No. Anytime you have an emergency you're going to need instant command and control structures that are top-down. So, in the military or disaster recovery space you're not going to see GG making a big impact at first. However, it would be hoped that an electronic democracy would put the best people in positions of power. Our current system emphasizing who was best at being a roommate in college (great job, Brownie!).

Question: Would a GG ever be for-profit? Meaning, will people who participate in them get paid, and will the system itself make money?

Answer: Why not? Isn't our current system for-profit (excluding huge national debt)? Maybe a future government has an advertising based rev stream? The non-profit approach to government has allowed the military industrial complex to tempt those in power with what they don't have, money. I think what's so great about GG's is if the system is created correctly, some of them could be for-profit and some wouldn't, and we could choose which ones we want to live within. Like choosing to have ad-banners on a website or not.

Imagine...

Imagine...instead of opening up a browser in the morning and reading about a failed presidency and a failed war, we could log into our GG and start participating in building a better world from the local level on up. Instead of posting our thoughts our into the ether, hoping that a meme strikes a fancy with a few other like-minded individuals, we could meet in virtual spaces to take action on initiatives that interest us. Not fundraising for a candidate, or working for a non-profit, but working directly within a system that empowers the people.

Maybe then Mondays wouldn't suck so much.

Link for the day:

Wars between Democracies?

More on War and Democracy...

This is what happens when you google e-govt!

HA!

A Great Rant on e-Govt

This is a must read by Mitch Kapor.

a choice quote:

Transparency is not a new concept to self-government. In fact it's an essential component. Yet our government practices have become increasingly opaque. For example did you know the final draft of the Patriot Act was introduced simultaneously with the vote?

But...it's facism!

The most fascinating response I get to the idea of GG (Google Govt. by the way, like how I just slip into the acronym?), is that "it's fascism!". Strangely enough, I have heard this from 2 libertarians.

"But how can a system that provides more control for the people be fascism?" I ask?

Their fear is that a corporation would control the votes and the decision-making, and that this amounts to fascism. My response is: this is valid fear. However, the nation-state has failed us, and has resulted in actual fascism many times in history. And a GG system, by empowering the people in a peer-review process, would be far less likely to commit the sins of a fascist regime (ie. unjust wars).

But, let's dispel the fascist myth of a GG by hypothesizing how it would actually work.

Let's assume the following:

1. Everyone has a vote.
2. Votes are not all equal.
3. Everything is open source with complete transparency.

Let me speak to point #2, since this is where the cries of "fascism" arise. In a representative system, votes are not equal at all. I have a vote to elect a representative, but hers is the only vote that counts on legislation (excluding ballot initiatives, which can be easily ignored by the state and federal governments). Then, it takes 4-6 years for my vote to matter again, while in the meantime this representative can do all kinds of idiotic things in my name, with my initial vote backing them.

Bad technology.

A Google Government would balance this by having a weighted voting system, in effect a "multiplier" on your vote that is adjusted, in real time, based on your level of respect within the system.

So, let's say you're Jane Bloggs and you decide to start participating in the GG in your town. the issue is garbage pickup, and you think it should happen twice a week. So, you sign onto your town's GG and you see all kinds of people talking about all kinds of issues (I'm assuming here these people are using asynchronous video posts to discuss issues...I'll get into why I think this is the best system in a later post. Probably in video). At this point, you have 1 vote with no multiplier (let's call them credits for the sake of argument).

Now, you start posting about this issue (Garbage pickup) and people start saying "Hey, Jane knows what she's talking about!". They begin to give you credits for your speeches on the issue, in effect "applause". Eventually, you become a recognized voice on this issue, in effect your advocacy and knowledge have given you standing within the GG on this issue, and you're able to call for a piece of legislation to start double pickups, form a coalition of supporters, and get funding approved for the increased garbage handling. You've become your own senator!

Now, however, let's say you start talking about other issues about which you have little knowledge. People start saying "hey, Jane did a good job on the garbage issue, but maybe Jane doesn't know too much about Health Care". You lose some of your credits; you aren't able to get support for your bill to give teddy bears to everyone in the emergency room.

A good GG would be able to reflect the intrinsic value of a meritocracy: efficacy. People should be rewarded for what they are able to do, for how they benefit the community, not for what their name is or how well they fundraise.

Ah...one other thing I'll get to. A good GG would also be able to be adjusted on the fly to help balance the system and improve the output. In other words, you wouldn't need a constitutional convention to change the parameters of the system. A good GG would allow you to run a socialist-style government in one town, and a more fiscally conservative government in the town next door. And, be able to compare and contrast the two.

Doesn't sound like fascism to me. Sounds like the liberty bell ringing.

Avoiding gridlock...with software.

Interesting...

"...University of Arizona engineer Yi-Chiang Chu is developing a software package that could smooth out the evacuation process. Working from real-time data collected by city and state transportation departments, the software suggests the best options for re-routing the cars and ensuring that everyone can get out of town as quickly as possible.—Gregory Mone"...

Of course, I don't think that GG will somehow automatically be able to decide the best direction for people to take in their own governance, at least not to start with. But why do people think they are better at governing themselves than machines could possible be (note, I said possibly...I certainly don't want my PC telling me what to do circa 2007, since it would probably tell me to take a nap while it rebooted itself).

The point is not to ever give machines control of our govt...the idea behind GG would be to build a better tool. Perhaps one that wouldn't get us embroiled in unjust wars, allow oil companies to dictate environmental policy, and place a bunch of reactionary religious bigots in charge of all of our destinies. But I digress.

I think it might be worth it to respond to some possible criticisms of GG...next post.

Google This...

Let's start with a little background, about myself and this idea. I've been kicking the general concept of peer-reviewed software-assisted government around and in the faces of dear friends for at least 5 years. I think it was initially provoked by a series of discussions I had with my friend Thomas about the possibilities of creating a new monetary system on the net. He thought I was crazy, and upon further review, I probably was.

Not that I think it's too likely in the near term to create a completely meritocracy-based monetary system, but thinking about it made me realize that money is only part of the problem...trying to improve the technology of money without changing the structures that determine the value of money is pointless. Besides, we already have a great model for new forms of money: credit. The only problem is, the model is only great for large credit card companies, not so much for us little guys wading in debt-infested waters.

But maybe, just maybe, if we all put our heads together we could come up with a web-based system of government that was open-source, adaptable, and equitable. Sure, but who could do it?

Well, certainly the success of Linux is a good model for how you can subvert the norm, and overcome it, using the power of individuals working toward a common goal. ..but that's just one operating system replacing another one, right? It's just a metaphor, right? A new form of government couldn't possible replace our old, almost perfect form of American Representative Democracy. Right?

Maybe not...we'll see as we further explore this premise. But first, a quick 5 points about me...

First, I don't work for Google. I do use their products and I'm also a fan of the company. 2nd, I am a programmer, and the CTO of a media company. 3rd, I've (obviously) fallen out of love with our current form of democracy in America. 4th, I'm an optimist. and 5th, I don't think technology cures all our problems out of the box, but it does provide new ways to think about our world, which can lead to new types of solutions, practical and philosophical.

For instance, telescopes allowed Galileo to make the observations which became the basis of his later theories of gravitation and planetary motion. The movable-type printing press gave Protestants the platform to spread anti-Papal ideas during the Reformation. Early computers allowed us to break the Nazi enigma code and bring about an end to their campaign of terror in the North Atlantic. The Atomic Bomb changed everything we know about large-scale conflicts between nation states.

And the Net? So far, great porn. Certainly has changed the way people have sex. With themselves. Also, great vehicle of commerce. Video. Music. Wikis. Govt.?

Google Govt...

This will be a collection of musings about the possibility of a code-based system of government that will augment, enhance, and possibly supplant traditional forms of representational democracy.

Nothing like this has existed in human history, and I realize from the first note of this conversation that discussing the creation of such a system on July 4, 2007 is akin to discussing the possibility of a movable-type printing press (In 700 B.C.). But technology can do some pretty incredible things. 100 Years ago airplanes were novelties. Today, they are highly sophisticated terrorist weapons.

My point being...that 100 Years for now, we may laugh at the idea of trying to establish an equitable, stable government without the aid of a reliable software platform to run it on.

So, what I'll try to establish is the following:

1. The current system (The american republic as derived from Constitution and laws thereof) is not built to handle the current world state of affairs and technology.
2. Instead of trying to fix this system, we should scrap the code and build better systems of control.
3. A better system of control and govt. management will be able to outperform traditional forms in the marketplace, so no violence will be needed to overthrow the current system.
3. It is logical to base the technology of these new systems on the technologies of the Net and personal computers, for a variety of reasons that will be spelled out in detail later.
4. We need someone (ie: Google, but not necessarily them) in the private sector to build these system for us.

I will spend the next few posts elaborating on this theory and other aspects of a decentralized, net-based, adaptive, peer-review democracy.

stay free.

c