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.