The Online Nation

[cal]

I'm sorry that it's not clear what we're asking about here, but in your response you indicate a few assumptions that are germane to the issues we're talking about that have little to do with an "internet based direct democracy", so it might be best to take these in small chunks.

You asked why anyone would find it important and what purpose it was supposed to carry out, I answered those >.>

 

 

Let's start with this: you say pretty directly that this is intended to be a world government and you seem to be implying that the 99% of everyone in the world would want this if we could just get the rich and power-hungry overlords out of the way.

I say it is a viable platform for a world government to work off of. I'm saying 99% of the people on the planet are not the power-hungry rulers that are causing war and unethical stuffs. I'm not saying everyone would want this, I'm saying in any province that this government is implemented in, that 1% of power hungry people have no power to feed off of that every other citizen doesn't also have, read the constitution, there's no allowance for anyone to rule anyone else under this government. My point was that the 1% that is causing all the problems no longer has any power to cause problems by under this system.

 

 

Can you think of any issues that might be an obstacle to that concept? Or is it "obvious" that everyone would think that if they just "thought about it for a while"?

Not at all, there are plenty of conceptual issues with this government that have been presented here, look at the rest of the thread. I think I should stop replying for a while though, release a bunch more of the constitution and then let people see that most of the suggested issues are already covered and accounted for, fixed more or less. I don't think any of this system is quite obvious to most people, otherwise it would already be used somewhere, right? I think this form of government is a fair compromise between exactly what we have now, and no government at all. It's the counter-intuitive thinking that makes it better in the first place, because it is our right as super-sentient consciousness to have direct access to that which governs us, is it not?

 

If there's anything that's obvious that people need to think about for a while, is the question of why we don't have a unified planet, I mean it's really hindering for us to all be separated like this...

 

 

If you can find something everyone agrees on, it's wrong, :phones:

2 + 2 = 4

 

=D

[blamski]

the people you are hoping will sign up to the online nation are exactly the same people that form the current world's physical nations, right? why will these millions and millions who are notoriously incapable of finding agreement on any one issue suddenly going to be able to in your system? i'm talking about basic but fundamental idealogical disagreements here. even the various flavours of liberal, social anarchist, green marxist etc etc alternatives to conservatism and other forms of capitalist dogma could argue amongst themselves until the end of the world. how do you propose to unify all these people?

[LaurieAG]

You can have your magic beans Jack,

your children are hungry and we need the cow back.

 

The lack of just terms and equitable or fair pacts,

expose all crooked beanstalks to concerted attacks.

 

Unless obsessive cycles are stopped in their tracks,

our towns will again be as flat as tacks.

 

You have been too trusting Jack,

your children’s futures remain black,

while current problems compound through lack.

 

Struggle earnestly against the pack,

repudiate rights to depreciatingly retract,

as giants fortress lie ripe for sack.

 

For only fair shares of the golden goose Jack,

will save beanstalks and giants from the axe.

[cal]

the people you are hoping will sign up to the online nation are exactly the same people that form the current world's physical nations, right? why will these millions and millions who are notoriously incapable of finding agreement on any one issue suddenly going to be able to in your system? i'm talking about basic but fundamental idealogical disagreements here. even the various flavours of liberal, social anarchist, green marxist etc etc alternatives to conservatism and other forms of capitalist dogma could argue amongst themselves until the end of the world. how do you propose to unify all these people?

I don't? How much more should I stress that this is very very incremental and that everyone chooses if and when it goes global? Not everyone outside the system has to unify, that's just my dream, what this platform allows is for everyone to do it if they wished.

 

I guess even if they have very different political views, if they don't want equal say in their government, they will have the option to get rid of it by passing a constitutional amendment, but that would be perverting the logic they used to get there, right? How can you say that it's wrong to have equal political power, and then use that equal power to get rid of it? You'd be committing what you said was wrong.

 

I guess it's not that biggy, if we only get 30% of the planet, then we've achieved the largest unification ever, right? And once we get a single province, we can at least say we've been established as a legitimate government system.

 

I should also re-iterate, as I assume most of you didn't click the links, which answer most of your questions btw, in the other thread that started this it is made very clear that this will initially just be an experiment, only after we've worked out any kinks of the experiment members will we move it to be open to the world. I'm glad you're skeptical, but I think our little study will bring results of efficiency and unparalleled collaboration, alleviating your skepticism.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Snax

[cal]

Hello again peoples, here's an outline of some of the money-management tactics that this government system uses. FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED! I also realize that I said there wouldn't need to be any taxation in this type of government, but that was just me talking out my *** before I crowd-sourced the constitution a little, so now we have a way of dealing with taxation properly and efficiently in the least intrusive way possible by an online government:

 

- Baseline Flat Shared-Pool Tax Rate for all citizens (F-C tax), never exceeds more than 20% of annual income (the specific percentage of which, 0.1%-20%, is regulated by algorithmic means to balance economy). Whatever the Baseline Flat Shared-Pool Tax Rate is for citizens that year, it is multiplied by 1.75 times to establish the Baseline Flat Shared-Pool Tax Rate for all businesses (F-B tax).

 

- Shared-Pool taxes are used for anything ran or funded by the government system that is underfunded because of Citizen’s choices to not pay taxes for those programs (explained later). When the Shared Pool collection exceeds the amount needed to fund all other areas of government programs combined, the extra is moved to an overflow account, also contained within the government system, pending destruction, to algorithmically eliminate inflation.

 

- All other areas of taxation (public education, roadwork, health services, etc.) are categorized as "Non-F-C" taxes, with sub categories titled as such in the parenthetical, and these Non-F-C taxes are made optional to the citizens. For example, if you don’t support America’s wars in the Middle-East, you shouldn’t have to pay the percent of taxes that funds the wars. So the individual taxations on the citizens is given as option, as per means of freedom of choice and information. The F-C tax would be optional as well if such a thing wasn’t necessary to sustain an efficient relationship between government and economy, or by extension, an orderly society.

 

- To preemptively avoid abuse of optional taxpaying, citizens will not be permitted to decline from paying all taxes other than the F-C. Instead, the number of categories they must pay taxation on as a minimum goes as follows:

{Lower End} Citizens assessed to be in the lowest third of national average income only have to pay ⅓ of Non-F-C taxes. This means that if there are six categories of Non-F-C taxes, they must select two categories in which they must pay taxation on, the other four categories being optional.

{Lower-Middle} Citizens assessed to be in the lower half of national average income, but above the lowest third, have to pay ½ of Non-F-C taxes. This means that if there are six categories of Non-F-C taxes, they must select three categories in which they must pay taxation on, the other three categories being optional.

{Upper-Middle} Citizens assessed to be in the upper half of national average income, but below the top third, have to pay ⅔ of Non-F-C taxes. This means that if there are nine categories of Non-F-C taxes, they must select six categories in which they must pay taxation on, the other three categories being optional.

{Lower-Upper} Citizens assessed to be in the uppermost third of national average income, but below the top 2%, have to pay ⅘ Non-F-C taxes. This means that if there are fifteen categories of Non-F-C taxes, they must select twelve categories in which they must pay taxation on, the other three categories being optional.

{Upper-Upper} Citizens assessed to be in the top 2% of national average income have to pay all Non-F-C taxes with the exception of one category of their choosing. This one category is left as optional to retain some choice left to the taxpayer, but only one category is optional to show that the highest national earners have an obligation to support their fellow human. Why else have all that money if not to increase quality of life?

 

- If a Citizen falls into a national average income bracket where the described fraction of non-optional taxation equates to a remaining half-category then the number of categories required to pay taxation on is rounded up. That means that if there are four categories, a Lower End bracketed Citizen must pick two categories instead of just one out of the four total. This difference becomes much less significant when the number of Non-F-C tax categories rises.

 

- Businesses do not have to pay any Non-F-C taxes and there are no "Non-F-B" taxes. Businesses are only subject to the standard F-B tax that automatically takes into consideration the extra taxation needed by the government.

 

- When creating a new program that enacts a Non-F-C tax on citizens, National programs must not require a tax percentage higher than 1%, Provincial programs must not require a tax percentage higher than 2%, and Area-Specific programs must not require a tax percentage higher than 5% of the citizen's annual income. The aggregate sum of Non-F-C tax percents must not exceed 40%, meaning the total possible tax on a citizen's income can only be 60% of the annual total. Provinces and their Tax-Assessors must take this into consideration when creating province-funded programs, as will Area-Specific Tax Assessors for Are-Specific programs.

 

- This new form of taxation and systematic regulation of the governments' internal-economy is not only much more efficient than any currently instantiated system on the planet, but it also leads to a much more stable citizen-capitalist economy without any direct regulation on market by the government itself.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Snax

[Rade]

Please explain again why the Online Nation would need taxes, why not use donations ? You would need money to maintain a rather complex internet server, pay some salary for data management, etc., but these costs seem to be so minimal they could be gathered via donations, similar to the money cards that churches send in the mail 3-4 times a year. Do you have a Online Nation annual balanced budget document to share ?

[cal]

Please explain again why the Online Nation would need taxes, why not use donations ? You would need money to maintain a rather complex internet server, pay some salary for data management, etc., but these costs seem to be so minimal they could be gathered via donations, similar to the money cards that churches send in the mail 3-4 times a year. Do you have a Online Nation annual balanced budget document to share ?

I'm sorry, do you not want government provided road work, and public education, and public health care, and all the other stuff provided by governments? How are all those going to be funded on donations? I don't see very many people donating to our current government... And please, don't mock me by comparing this to a religious institution.

[CraigD]

Hello again peoples, here's an outline of some of the money-management tactics that this government system uses. FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED!

Designing tax codes is fun! But, like any algorithm, a tax code must be explicit. I can’t find some key information in your post on the subject, Snax, so have some questions:

 

Baseline Flat Shared-Pool Tax Rate for all citizens (F-C tax),

As it’s wikipedia article illustrates, “flat tax” can describe many very different codes.

 

Is the F-C portion of the code you’re proposing a true flat tax on income, or does it allow exemptions or deductions?

 

Whatever the Baseline Flat Shared-Pool Tax Rate is for citizens that year, it is multiplied by 1.75 times to establish the Baseline Flat Shared-Pool Tax Rate for all businesses (F-B tax).

Is its tax calculate by multiplying the F-B tax rate by the business’s revenue (income), gross profit, or something else? If something else, how is it calculated, precisely?

 

When the Shared Pool collection exceeds the amount needed to fund all other areas of government programs combined, the extra is moved to an overflow account, also contained within the government system, pending destruction, to algorithmically eliminate inflation.

As you propose it, how, on a high level, does a government, bank, or other money-managing actor “algorithmically eliminate inflation”?

 

{Lower End} Citizens assessed to be in the lowest third of national average income only have to pay ⅓ of Non-F-C taxes.

...

Is the code you describe here a progressive tax, or not? Why or why not?

 

Finally, a question unrelated to your proposed tax code, Snax: have you read the novels Snow Crash and Diamond age?

[C1ay]

This proposal sounds like a system based on a true democracy. I think as the founders do, that a democracy is a bad idea.

[cal]

Is the F-C portion of the code you’re proposing a true flat tax on income, or does it allow exemptions or deductions?

The F-C portion of the code is a true flat tax, it does not vary from person to person. What I've proposed above is still an outline, and changes can be made. That being said, I will not change the true flat tax part, but when the F-C rate changes (0.01%-20%) as described in my previous post, can be modified, meaning the flat tax everyone pays may fluctuate annually or every financial quarter, or every month. I have yet to test which would be more efficient. Input on this is also appreciated.

 

 

Is its tax calculate by multiplying the F-B tax rate by the business’s revenue (income), gross profit, or something else? If something else, how is it calculated, precisely?

I'm pushing for the calculation to be based on Revenue, but this is also up for discussion. I am trying to get as much input on this as possible, partly because I am not an economist, and partly because many people have many theories on how money should be managed.

 

 

As you propose it, how, on a high level, does a government, bank, or other money-managing actor “algorithmically eliminate inflation”?

Thank you for asking, this system (and I really don't know what else to call it besides a "system" because I'm talking about the government and the economy at the same time, both of which are new ideas) doesn't use hard currency. I mean our current government which does use hard currency could theoretically halt inflation by ceasing to print money, but then the physical currency would deteriorate because paper doesn't last forever. So after enough hard currency becomes unusable, you get the opposite of inflation, deflation, which arguably can be just as bad as inflation. If our current government wanted an ideal system, for all the money they print, they should also have to burn. It's that middle virtue I'm going for, where expansion and contraction are always elastically brought back to a median. With a system of crediting like the one I've proposed (and I realize a lot of the documentation on it isn't here, but it's for good reason, I'll be putting it up along with other stuff periodically), the "money" is handled by the government, which it can both create and destroy (in it's own accounts, not the citizen's accounts), it has the potential of monitoring the value of the single unit "credit". If credits are created and inflation occurs, where the value of the single unit credit goes down, then the overflow account is gradually destroyed, the credits are literally deleted.

 

You might say, what if there are ten members with ten credits, and then a thousand new members joined. Wouldn't that unbalance the value of the credit because the 10 credits would be spread amongst 1,010 people? It would if the new members weren't also started off with a credit each to their own account. This is why this government is allowed to create credit, to allow for new members into the system. What this means is that the value of the single unit credit stays proportional to the number of citizens that are governed. As far as I can tell it's perfectly elastic. There are probably flaws with this system, but I know there aren't half as many with it as there are with our current system. Not to mention, fixing flaws with a digital crediting system is as easy as a programmer re-writing code, but in order to fix problems with our current hard currency system, you have wait a few years for laws to be reviewed and a few more for them to be passed and then usually a decade long plan for them to be fully enacted. It's simply not efficient enough for society to advance at the rate we should be advancing at. I'm probably getting off track, but I hope this answered your question.

 

 

Is the code you describe here a progressive tax, or not? Why or why not?

I compromised. There is a true flat tax that everyone must pay, but there is also a progressive taxation being used outside the flat tax -> the Non-F-C taxes, which is scaled based on income bracket. The Non-F-C taxes are essentially where the deductions and whatnots are going, if that makes sense. Does that make the entire tax system just a "progressive tax" system? I think I am defining it wrong. I also have not adequately tested the Income Brackets with Non-F-C taxes based on a large quantity of income types, so the scaling might be a little disproportional, but the bottom half of my described brackets will not change, I know that much.

 

 

Finally, a question unrelated to your proposed tax code, Snax: have you read the novels Snow Crash and Diamond age?

No I have not lol, but they look badass. I have such a huge backlog on my reading list it's upsetting, but I'm definitely adding those.

 

 

This proposal sounds like a system based on a true democracy. I think as the founders do, that a democracy is a bad idea.

They thought it was a bad idea because they knew the average American was too stupid to make educated decisions when it came to voting. They were right, and at the time most Americans were farmers. The internet is available now, and so will all the proposed laws and top-voted pro and con arguments that exist within this government system, because it's totally transparent. On top of that, if citizens still can't make educated decisions after reading all the proposed laws and all the discussion held on said laws, there will also be literacy tests and law-specific tests that will need to be passed before a citizen is allowed to vote on a law. I think a well-regulated voting system based on the education of the community as a whole solves the problem, but we'll have to see when it's actually implemented whether or not my predictions are accurate. Oh, I probably forgot to say this anywhere because I'm stupid like that, but the most important and core role this government is supposed to have in relation to direct involvement with society is education. Education is the most important thing this government actively takes part in, it's where most of the government funding will go, because this government is based on the principles of freedom of information. So yea, I need to upload all those pages into the google doc haha...

Edited April 21, 2013 by Snax

[C1ay]

They thought it was a bad idea because they knew the average American was too stupid to make educated decisions when it came to voting. They were right, and at the time most Americans were farmers. The internet is available now, and so will all the proposed laws and top-voted pro and con arguments that exist within this government system, because it's totally transparent. On top of that, if citizens still can't make educated decisions after reading all the proposed laws and all the discussion held on said laws, there will also be literacy tests and law-specific tests that will need to be passed before a citizen is allowed to vote on a law. I think a well-regulated voting system based on the education of the community as a whole solves the problem, but we'll have to see when it's actually implemented whether or not my predictions are accurate. Oh, I probably forgot to say this anywhere because I'm stupid like that, but the most important and core role this government is supposed to have in relation to direct involvement with society is education. Education is the most important thing this government actively takes part in, it's where most of the government funding will go, because this government is based on the principles of freedom of information. So yea, I need to upload all those pages into the google doc haha...

 

I'd say most average Americans are still not educated enough to make decisions that may impact them personally in a negative way. Those that are currently dependent on the system because they like it that way are not going to vote for anything that forces them to get a job and take care of themselves. Many of these people are not illiterate or stupid, they just don't understand that a minority of society cannot support a majority for the long haul. They don't understand the macroeconomics of devaluing our currency by simply printing more of it and the average person shouldn't need to, but our representatives should.

 

Historically all democracies have failed. How can you prove this proposal will not?

[cal]

I'd say most average Americans are still not educated enough to make decisions that may impact them personally in a negative way.

Awesome. I mean hopefully I won't be having a lot of Americans becoming citz in this system. Mainly I'll be marketing this government to Canadians and Scandinavians, possibly Aussies as well. After we get lots of them (and by lots I mean enough) to officially say the government exists and people follow it, we'll get them to be the initial law-makers and program starters, so the transition into accepting citizens from idiotic countries like America will be smoother.

 

 

Historically all democracies have failed. How can you prove this proposal will not?

How can you prove this proposal will? Not all democracies have failed, or any. None of them have failed if we're talking about pure democracies, which is what this is.

 

If you're talking about pure democracies, historically only a couple have existed, and they shifted their direct Athenian-like democracies into representative republics, but no pure democracy has just "failed". I mean the occupy wall street people even use direct democracy and they get **** done because of it. I think the reason direct democracies get demoted to republics is because when they get too large it becomes more difficult to have everyone meet up in one place every Saturday for a vote. Despite what Buffy says, the internet has changed communication. With an online government everyone can vote from the comfort of their homes, any day of the week, and it doesn't matter how many of them there are.

 

I've said this a few times now, and it doesn't stop being true, the internet is too self-healing to let the will of people stop it. A government based on this platform cannot die.

[C1ay]

Not all democracies have failed, or any. None of them have failed if we're talking about pure democracies, which is what this is.

I bet you can't support that claim with evidence.

 

I've said this a few times now, and it doesn't stop being true, the internet is too self-healing to let the will of people stop it. A government based on this platform cannot die.

When the will of the people is to survive on the public treasury your system will crash.

[Buffy]

I mean the occupy wall street people even use direct democracy and they get **** done because of it.

Occupy Oakland devolved into a horrible mess when the it got invaded by the Anarchists and Trotskyites, who shouted down the folks who had reasonable goals and political smarts. Jane Hamsher was one of the last holdouts among the Progressive blogosphere to keep supporting them (because she supported the movement more strongly than anyone), but the hard news from the front finally withered even her support.

 

The problem with direct democracy is that the people with the most time to devote to both casting votes and lobbying come from extremes (usually single issue, but not always), and their rise in control causes apathy to increase leading to government decisions that have little resemblance to the will of the people.

 

Unlike OWS where the list of decisions was short and focused on relatively straight forward issues (what the Message Of The Day is, where to move the encampment), governing an entire society is complex and requires a significant permanent labor force to at least administer it, but also to do the decision making:

 

I think the reason direct democracies get demoted to republics is because when they get too large it becomes more difficult to have everyone meet up in one place every Saturday for a vote. Despite what Buffy says, the internet has changed communication. With an online government everyone can vote from the comfort of their homes, any day of the week, and it doesn't matter how many of them there are.

 

I've said this a few times now, and it doesn't stop being true, the internet is too self-healing to let the will of people stop it. A government based on this platform cannot die.

 

Let's take just one timely example: Should we put fertilizer plants with large quantities of anhydrous ammonia next door to schools? What should the minimum distance be? What should the threshold amount of anhydrous ammonia be for a given distance? Should we require builders of plants to register with the government to record their compliance? When should they be required to file their registration? Should there be public notification and a review process that's open to public comment? Do we have a board to review registrations? Should we inspect plants to make sure that they aren't exceeding the limits they registered? How often do we inspect them? What should the penalties be for fining non-compliance? Should we require them to have safety systems in place like sprinklers or emergency pressure release valves, and if so what devices and where are they going to be required? Should they be required to have emergency response staff (firefighters) on premises? If not, do we need to hire/support additional public emergency response facilities? If it blows up and the insurance limits set turn out to be inadequate, who has the liability for any damages? Should we require the plant to maintain liability coverage? How much coverage should they be required to have? ....

 

In a true direct democracy, every one of those questions (and the multitude of additional ones just on this one issue excised for brevity) would have to be put up for a vote, because all of them have potential impacts on every citizen. And a lot of the answers are not "yes/no" they're "500 feet/1000 feet/12,932 feet..." upon which your average citizen needs to be extremely engaged in order to have a clue as to the answer (a point where I agree with C1ay).

 

It's this gradual march from delegating decision making on extremely technical questions that ultimately puts us right up to the high level threshold of representative democracy where the citizen gets asked "Should we try to make sure that dangerous manufacturing facilities are regulated so they don't kill a whole lot of people? Yes/No" and even then, most of them are overwhelmed and it's the small minority of people who care about that specific issue that decide for the majority who mostly say "I dunno."

 

The point here being that it really doesn't matter how easy you make it to vote--heck, let's go ahead and plant a voting chip directly into everyone's brain at birth--direct democracy makes it easier for the crazies to overrule the majority because most people really don't have the time for the overwhelming number of issues that a government has to deal with (cue Winston Churchill quote on democracy here).

 

One last interesting thing to think about: Although OWS emphasized direct democracy, I've made the argument that the big problem with the current state of our US government is that in a way, we've moved back to direct democracy already: with the concentration of wealth and the subsequent and growing apathy toward government's ability to do anything other than cater to the 1% (which I think is really the motivation for your proposal), we've ended up in a situation where the crazies at the top now can directly vote with their money because every pet issue is Payola. And the only solution is for groups in the 99% to band together behind representatives that can make things happen by pooling money and resources (remember that OWS has no spokesmen? :o no wonder it's fizzled...).

 

 

It's not a question of where he grips it, It's a simple matter of weight-ratios: A five-ounce bird could not hold a one pound coconut, :phones:

Buffy

[cal]

I bet you can't support that claim with evidence.

Let's reverse it. I bet you can't support your dissent with evidence.

 

When the will of the people is to survive on the public treasury your system will crash.

Why and how? I don't think there is a public treasury in this system...

[C1ay]

Let's reverse it. I bet you can't support your dissent with evidence.

Let's not. Having dug a little further I couldn't find any evidence of any true democracies. Athenian was the closest and it failed but it was not even a true democracy since only the elite were allowed to participate.

 

Why and how? I don't think there is a public treasury in this system...

So there will be no central point of funding for public services likes schools and highways? Emergency services like police, fire and rescue? There will be no government provided services of any kind?

[LaurieAG]

Hi C1ay,

 

Let's not. Having dug a little further I couldn't find any evidence of any true democracies. Athenian was the closest and it failed but it was not even a true democracy since only the elite were allowed to participate.

 

So there will be no central point of funding for public services likes schools and highways? Emergency services like police, fire and rescue? There will be no government provided services of any kind?

 

Your two points are interesting in the context of Herodotus 'Histories', Thucydidies 'History of the Peloponesian War' and Xenophon's 'History of My Times' which took off where Thucydidies left off.

 

Over a period of 40 years or so the executive had many forms and was originally called the 'rule of 4,000' where every Athenian family played a part and public offices were usually chosen by ballot. Just before the Athenians lost the war against the Spartans the people were induced to change their executive into the 'rule of 400' which were basically a group of mercantile oligarchs who put their own and the Persian interests ahead of the interests of the peoples. Finally, after losing the war, the executive became the 'rule of 40' which although nominally an oligarchy, was more like a collective of tyrants intent on oppressing their own people for direct personal gain.

 

The interesting thing is that in the first 2 structures all males had a democratic vote on the motions put forward by the executive and in the last two structures (the second due to the war) the public services were deficient as all public monies were either dedicated to the war effort or, in the final structure, dedicated to suppressing the people.