4 ms·

I agree about the existing governments point. That's pretty much the major antagonist issue to all of this. I've considered that the only way to beat that would

I agree about the existing governments point. That's pretty much the major antagonist issue to all of this. I've considered that the only way to beat that would be to simply be better. With enough "citizens"/supporters I'm wondering what the established governments could do other than using armed force, which would look very bad and may even have the opposite effect from what they want. This of course still needs more brainstorming which is the point of this post. "Tax"-wise would be almost the same as other governments but more streamlined I suppose. Thinking of this as just a collection of digital/online services/resources would be the best way of looking at it. You pay your monthly/annual fees/"taxes" and get access to the services. - Schooling/education would be done through a MOOC (ex. Coursera, Stanford Online) that would be then be open and "free" for users. - https://e-estonia.com/component/e-school/ https://e-estonia.com/component/e-school/ - Healthcare would have 1-on-1 conferencing with doctors/medial professionals when needed, and maybe have some sort of partnership with existing clinics/hospitals. Prescriptions could all be done online as well - https://e-estonia.com/component/e-prescription/ https://e-estonia.com/component/e-prescription/ For all laws and policies they would be directly voted on by the community, but with a base set (constitution) set in stone, basic freedoms etc. This would be a very progressive/modern society with all the freedoms and protections that comes with, but if something like 90% of the citizenry decided to vote against one of those, then the leading committee would review it.

joeclark77 11y ago
When you talk about services offered for a fee, okay, but how would you offer "protections"? What if one of your citizens is physically located in Europe, for example, and the local warlord tries to interfere with his right to free speech, or his right to bear arms? Will you draft an army and bust him out of prison? What if he missed his "subscription" payment the previous month? Does he lose his fundamental human rights until he's paid up?
- starshadowx2 11y ago
  I was thinking more of just international lobbying, even though that sorta sucks and doesn't work (ex. Syria). We would hopefully be able to use the ICC and international law to help our rightful citizens. I can't think of a better solution to that yet, and there may not be one. And no, you would still be a citizen without paying taxes, but you would lose access/be restricted from all services.
  - joeclark77 11y ago
    You ought to know that it's pretty radical to think of "government" as an entity that spends your money for you. Before the 1900s it was hardly imagined, and I think the jury is still out on whether it's an effective model. What has always been understood is what's written in the Declaration of Independence: that the purpose of government is to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. You're proposing to discard that old purpose entirely, and just focus on providing services for money. I don't think I'd call it "government", myself. Not to discourage you, just want to point out that you've got a lot of work to do to convince people that the thing you're describing is actually capable of being what you think it is.
    - starshadowx2 11y ago
      I'm not American, so I actually don't know the DoI very well. I still think people need to be protected, but the world is a lot different from what it was back then. International law needs to be changed, government needs to be more digitally connected with it's citizens, and the idea of governments and nations need to be revised for the modern world. For the record, I didn't really think of this as a complete replacement for physical governments, but more of an overarching one that would protect your rights and freedoms using an international legal system while also providing services that some established governments might not be able to. This would probably be more like a global NGO with a membership I guess. Or it could be like a citizen-based lobbying group. If enough people are a part of it, voting for the rights and laws they want it could make more politicians take notice.
      - joeclark77 11y ago
        Sure, but you obviously can't "protect your rights and freedoms" without armed forces, police, and prisons. A "legal system" with no power to enforce its laws and judgments is useless. All you are left with is an organization that collects money from its citizens and then spends it for them.
        starshadowx2 11y ago

joeclark77 11y ago

When you talk about services offered for a fee, okay, but how would you offer "protections"? What if one of your citizens is physically located in Europe, for example, and the local warlord tries to interfere with his right to free speech, or his right to bear arms? Will you draft an army and bust him out of prison? What if he missed his "subscription" payment the previous month? Does he lose his fundamental human rights until he's paid up?

starshadowx2 11y ago
I was thinking more of just international lobbying, even though that sorta sucks and doesn't work (ex. Syria). We would hopefully be able to use the ICC and international law to help our rightful citizens. I can't think of a better solution to that yet, and there may not be one. And no, you would still be a citizen without paying taxes, but you would lose access/be restricted from all services.
- joeclark77 11y ago
  You ought to know that it's pretty radical to think of "government" as an entity that spends your money for you. Before the 1900s it was hardly imagined, and I think the jury is still out on whether it's an effective model. What has always been understood is what's written in the Declaration of Independence: that the purpose of government is to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. You're proposing to discard that old purpose entirely, and just focus on providing services for money. I don't think I'd call it "government", myself. Not to discourage you, just want to point out that you've got a lot of work to do to convince people that the thing you're describing is actually capable of being what you think it is.
  - starshadowx2 11y ago
    I'm not American, so I actually don't know the DoI very well. I still think people need to be protected, but the world is a lot different from what it was back then. International law needs to be changed, government needs to be more digitally connected with it's citizens, and the idea of governments and nations need to be revised for the modern world. For the record, I didn't really think of this as a complete replacement for physical governments, but more of an overarching one that would protect your rights and freedoms using an international legal system while also providing services that some established governments might not be able to. This would probably be more like a global NGO with a membership I guess. Or it could be like a citizen-based lobbying group. If enough people are a part of it, voting for the rights and laws they want it could make more politicians take notice.
    - joeclark77 11y ago
      Sure, but you obviously can't "protect your rights and freedoms" without armed forces, police, and prisons. A "legal system" with no power to enforce its laws and judgments is useless. All you are left with is an organization that collects money from its citizens and then spends it for them.
      - starshadowx2 11y ago