As kids, we’re told only people who go to college/university for politics/economics/law are qualifiable to make/run a country. As adults, we see no nation these “qualified” adults form actually work as a nation, with all manifesto-driven governments failing. Which to me validates the ambitions of all political theorist amateurs, especially as there are higher hopes now that anything an amateur might throw at the wall can stick. Here’s my favorite from a friend.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is not an idea I came up with, but I haven’t seen it anywhere else and I don’t remember where I heard it.

    Basically the rules are:

    • Every vote on every question is handled by direct democracy
    • But, you can assign your vote to another person at any time. ie Give them your voting power so now they have two votes on any topic
    • Furthermore, a person to whom you’ve assigned your vote can in turn assign it to someone else.
    • You can always see who’s wielding your vote power, you can see who assigned it to whom
    • Any time you want, you can take your vote back

    So basically I can assign my vote to Bob because I trust his judgment. Bob can assign mine and his own to Alice, because Bob trust’s Alice’s judgment.

    I can check what’s happening with my vote, and see that it’s been assigned to Bob, who assigned it to Alice, etc.

    There is no limit to the number of reassignments that can happen.

    Basically it’s direct democracy by default, but with an infinitely and dynamically scaleable structure of delegation layers in between.

    A person can be as involved or uninvolved as they want. Their minimum involvement would be choosing which friend they trust to handle their vote. Maximum involvement could mean seeking to convince millions of others to trust you with their vote. Or getting thousands of intermediate delegates to delegate all their voting power to you.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I feel like we’re in the garbage-age of MMOs, but when the next golden age of MMOs happens, I want to see worlds where these experimental forms of government are attempted. At least digitally.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The problem with experimenting with government in video games is there’s no death in video games, and handling death is one of the most important roles of government.

        • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          That is an interesting thought. If humans were immortal, would we have any government?..hm, yeah, I believe we still would. I think it’s less about the threat of death for an individual and more about the management of resources for a population.

          But the intent would not be to see what works in a video game and try to use it IRL, the intention is to see where these systems breakdown in unforeseen ways when implemented at scale.

          But mostly, I just want to see new fun ideas in the genre. There are no new MMOs willing to take the risk of letting one player’s experience be dependent on the behaviour of another player, let alone allow a fully player-managed government. For now we live in a world where Destiny 2 is what qualifies as an MMO. But I digress.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Possibly.

            I think that one of the basic laws that “governs” people is that if you hurt someone, they’ll get mad and be motivated to hurt you back.

            But if you kill someone, they can’t retaliate.

            Then it’s up to their kin, their friends and family, to avenge them.

            I think government somewhat becomes necessary when societies get large enough that one’s kin network can’t find their cousin’s killer. Then we get police, whose job it is to find that killer and punish them.

            I know that’s an oversimplified, single-dimensional model of government. But I feel like when people are facing, en masse, the horrific void of death, not just in terms of murder but also in terms of war, that government really becomes a compelling idea.

            Death is like a black hole that nothing echoes back from. Government helps us deal with that void by creating a virtual person who can still play their “next move” even after they’ve passed through that doorway.

            Of course video games have their own forms of “death”. Spawn camping for instance takes a player out of the game. Surrounding a person’s bed with lava can “permakill” them in Minecraft.

            It’s just that video games sort of have “government” built into the game mechanics. Respawning is a solution to the “no retaliation after death” problem. Anti cheat stuff. Inventory that literally cannot be accessed by anyone other than the player solves theft.

            Games are designed to be fun, which is kind of what government does to reality. It redesigns reality to be a playable, balanced game.

            I would love to see more games with less balancing, where the balancing comes from player experimentation with governing agreements.

            But government’s largely a solution to aspects of reality that are truly, horribly, “not fun”.