Wiki Wiki Government

Upside Down Sovereignty: Jurisdiction is scoped to promote social diversity:
- participants are free to join any house that will admit them, or to form their own
  - each participant can only join one house
  - a house with just one participant is permitted
- houses interact by electing representatives to cantons
  - houses are free to join/form any canton that will admit them; each house can only join one canton
  - a house representative can be removed from a canton at any time by the house they represent, but only by that house
- cantons interact by electing representatives to nations
  - cantons are free to join/form any nation that will admit them; each canton can only join one nation
  - a canton representative can be removed from a nation at any time by the canton they represent, but only by that canton
- nations interact by electing representatives to the WorldGovernment
  - a national representative can be removed from the WorldGovernment at any time by the nation they represent, but only by that nation
- A house's SocialContract takes precedence, for interactions between its participants, over the SocialContract of its canton.
- A canton's SocialContract takes precedence, for interactions between its families, over the SocialContract of its nation.
- A nation's SocialContract takes precedence, for interactions between its cantons, over the SocialContract of the WorldGovernment.

This, of course, resembles the class hierarchy of an ObjectOriented system. If you don't want to go into all that JohnRawls bumf you can simply regard a SocialContract as a system of laws scoped to a particular scale of community. It's in the tradition of the SwissCantonSystem?, the principle of NonInterference, and US Indian nations.

Social Money: a cantonic StoneSociety:
- every participant is doled 1,000 socdollars every day
- the votes expire every day - they can't be saved up and there can be no vote-debt
- votes can be traded freely for goods and services. Pre-existing monetary tokens are simply treated as goods.
- votes are used to elect representatives.
  - A house's representative uses all the votes cast for and against their own election every day to vote for the canton's representative
  - A canton's representative uses all the votes cast for and against their own election every day to vote for the nation's representative
  - A nation's representative uses all the votes cast for and against their own election every to vote for the WorldGovernment representative

The reuse of the votes means it doesn't matter what population each collective possesses.

to clarify: socdollar == vote? So every day each participant is given 1,000 socdollars which they can either spend, use to vote or allow to expire worthless?

SchoolsForCivilization to promote the thing ...
- Start it at a grass-roots level in multiple localities throughout the world.
- Start a ProgrammableWiki to support the idea and see what happens.
- Use it contractually to moderate the activities of conventionally elected local officials

Anyway that's my idea of an ideal NewWorldDemocracy. Shoot me down. --PeterMerel.

Well, for a start:

One man could form his own house, which could form its own canton, which could form its own nation, and so make that man a representative in the chamber of the WorldGovernment. Sure he'd have no significant voting power but he'd have a hell of a soapbox. Heck, everyone would do it - you'd be back to a free-for-all. To a lesser extent this seems a problem at every level.
- This only becomes a problem at the WorldGovernment level. So it would have to have a quorum requirement - framing based on a minimum amount of social money in your canton.
I like the upside-down jurisdiction thing, but why this particular number of levels of hierarchy?
- People aggregate this way. Family, tribe, nation, known-world - a natural hierarchy throughout human history.
What's wrong with being in more than one canton/house/thingy? Lattice structures should work fine given the social money mechanism. Anyway weren't you the bloke who said MultipleInheritanceIsNotEvil?
- Sounds reasonable - again, quorum levels may be important. If you're not contributing at least a single socdollar to a house, why should it have you?
Why use SocDollars?? If SocDollars? are for sale anyway, why not use real dollars?
- Very good question! Real dollars have lots of extraneous ontologies we don't need here - debt, interest, derivatives, exchange rates, and so on. Nevertheless there is a way to define a SocDollar? in terms of a real dollar: one socdollar is the investment of one real dollar for the period of one day. Normalize it to the BitStandard and you have HyperCurrency ... or maybe ditch the tokens and use SwapDollars instead.

Where this page differs from the StoneSociety idea is that it specifies a particular social structure and purpose. It also ditches a lot of the StoneSociety mechanisms for compositing societies. The StoneSociety idea was to avoid representatives altogether and use a kind of Auction instead. The idea here is to use representatives for decision making but to scope them in time and power. The StoneSociety needed some kind of admin/adjudication/representation function anyway - I just shuffled all that off into StoneCharter? to leave the thing as open as possible. If you like, StoneSociety is a generic, abstract social mechanism; WikiWikiGovernment is a specific proposal for a concrete NewWorldDemocracy.

Necessary Systems & Mechanisms:

StrongCryptography? to authenticate and authorize the votes
- Strong crypto isn't enough to authenticate a person, only a message. You'll need credit cards or something similar. But that's vulnerable to hacking by banks, governments, etc ...
Others?

CategorySociety CategoryVoting CategorySpeculative