Could Human Networking eventually replace the need for government?

Fyxe wrote: OMG!! your ideas go far beyond socialism deeply into totalitarianism where individual and group opposition is restricted to the extreme and every human is babysat by a ruling party that will exercise an extremely high degree of control over everyones public and private life. yes things are better now but what you are talking about is the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism!!


and my other comments above were not about predator and prey. they are actually more fundamental than that. ascension is a dual path state. There is the path of acceptance and the path of rejection. and the free will we have as a species allows each of us to choose which path we take in any walk of life. what you are talking about is the complete rejection of one path in favor of the other just because you think its the better path. that is not how the world works and its not how our species works. The tighter you grip your fist Grand Moff Tarkin, the more systems will slip through your fingers! a relevant warning indeed!

How so? Because I said you needed the app to buy a gun? Don't you need a license to buy a gun now? Aren't there background checks? You do realize we have a whole FBI that looks for domestic threats and often stops people before they do anything, right? You can just think of the app as a digital smart license. I don't believe everyone needs a gun. We are a society (in the US) that believes this because of how dangerous we are towards each other. But that danger is also a result of money that isn't circulating thanks to the wealthy owning almost everything.

And when the US got attacked on 9/11 air port security measures went absolutely nuts. They almost check everything, including your nuts, just to fly somewhere. So why not have an app, using rules created by the people, a digital smart app, that is and maintains your license to fly... or drive?

It's funny how free people think they are when you're not talking about an extra layer of security or scrutiny. The reason I keep saying open source is because it isn't owned by anyone. Because its not owned there isn't one party that gets to rule over that thing and control it. If the majority want something and someone can make it, they get it. Period. You can't have totalitarianism without someone calling all the shots. What I'm talking about is closer to the Star Trek economy.

No you do not need a licence to buy a gun. All that is needed for a commercial sale is a background check and after that nothing is tracked. private sales dont even need a background check. and I dont need a licence to fly either. its called freedom! I need a license to drive as a civil statute to meet minimum requirements of the road for safety purposes and to help get funds to maintain the roadways for the state.

if your "smart system" is not "owned by anyone" then who writes all these rules and implements all these controls and enforces all these regulations you have built into the system. Thats right, the totalitarian state will do these things for us. Its the only way to get (read as FORCE) all people to comply to the rules that are created.

Fyxe wrote: No you do not need a licence to buy a gun
In some states you do in fact need a form of licsense. In IL I need what's call a FOID card to own my weapons.

. All that is needed for a commercial sale is a background check and after that nothing is tracked. private sales dont even need a background check. and I dont need a licence to fly either. its called freedom!Yes, you do need a background check for a private sale in most states to a non-family member (legally anyway). Um, pilots license........unless you mean you don't need a license to jump off a room which well yea you don't

I need a license to drive as a civil statute to meet minimum requirements of the road for safety purposes and to help get funds to maintain the roadways for the state.

if your "smart system" is not "owned by anyone" then who writes all these rules and implements all these controls and enforces all these regulations you have built into the system. Thats right, the totalitarian state will do these things for us. Its the only way to get (read as FORCE) all people to comply to the rules that are created.
I actually agree with all of this in principle though, just letting you know the correct information because what you are talking about can actually land you in huge trouble.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I think a problem with this is it just starting again.

lets say we agree it won't work (straight away) on a global, national, or even state level - so we'll do it by small communities.

Maybe a few hundred to a few thousand people who live in a common area with common goals - they all agree that the roads need to be maintained, rubbish needs to be collected, transport for schools available - well it all gets too hard after about 15 minutes to have a giant calendar and schedule (on paper or in an app, it doesn't matter much at this point) where we all share the load equally, so we nominated small teams to deal with each issue, then keeping track of all the time and resources each team needs gets tricky, so we nominate someone to keep tabs on that, and then we need someone to make sure that everyone is being honest with the time and resources, so we have an independent overseer...

oh hey, I just invented local councils/governments.

Hmmm....




There is certainly "room" for a networking/share economy/gig job type thing, but I think it's a limited room, and it's up to the higher government to decide where that room fits in the bigger complex of buildings.

I'm sure as hell not organising my next surgery on fiverr.....

Kobos wrote: Um, pilots license........unless you mean you don't need a license to jump off a room which well yea you don't

Well I was thinking about a passport but that's also true if you're an actual pilot. The point was that we already need permission from authority to do certain things.

Kobos wrote:
if your "smart system" is not "owned by anyone" then who writes all these rules and implements all these controls and enforces all these regulations you have built into the system. Thats right, the totalitarian state will do these things for us. Its the only way to get (read as FORCE) all people to comply to the rules that are created.

"open source" means that people can contribute. It's kind of like how, in Death Stranding, a bunch of different players can contribute resources to building the same road that they all get to use. So if you're asking who will enforce then I would answer with an "open source" police force where citizens create the rules and regulations for people who want to be police officers, to follow. This system doesn't assume that the jobs and positions would all go away, but rather who gets to control them becomes a more collective effort. People in a local area could follow a template to a degree but their needs might be different from another community. So maybe they want their police force to follow a few different regulations. Maybe the people who vote for a certain idea have to fund it (like kickstarter) and so if they want the police to wear body cameras then as soon as they have the votes and crowdfund the money then the police would have to wear body cameras. And the footage would be publicly available while they're on duty. I'm not suggesting there be some private ninja force that jumps out and slices you if you violate these rules.

JamesSand wrote: I think a problem with this is it just starting again.

lets say we agree it won't work (straight away) on a global, national, or even state level - so we'll do it by small communities.

Maybe a few hundred to a few thousand people who live in a common area with common goals - they all agree that the roads need to be maintained, rubbish needs to be collected, transport for schools available - well it all gets too hard after about 15 minutes to have a giant calendar and schedule (on paper or in an app, it doesn't matter much at this point) where we all share the load equally, so we nominated small teams to deal with each issue, then keeping track of all the time and resources each team needs gets tricky, so we nominate someone to keep tabs on that, and then we need someone to make sure that everyone is being honest with the time and resources, so we have an independent overseer...

oh hey, I just invented local councils/governments.

Hmmm....




There is certainly "room" for a networking/share economy/gig job type thing, but I think it's a limited room, and it's up to the higher government to decide where that room fits in the bigger complex of buildings.

I'm sure as hell not organising my next surgery on fiverr.....

LOL, that's why I said open source applications... meaning that the organizational part also uses connected technology. You can easily have a database that has "rooms" for all these different "teams", "jobs", etc. And if you don't have a job you could do a search for which team has an opening. Hey... I just invented an online forum! Sorry, I had to make that joke. But in reality, our government is benefiting from converting a lot of its organization to database driven models. I remember when I was arrested because one arm of the local government didn't know I paid another arm. So what we are/were doing is using humans to take these organizational roles that are actually better suited to applications. That's why most states let you renew your driver's license and tags online... using.... an application. The application is free to use because everyone in that state who pays taxes, paid for that system.

No, you wouldn't organize your next surgery on fiverr, funny, but if there was a type of fiverr for medical professionals, a doctor could use that version of fiverr to located different specialists and they could all come together to take part in your surgery. Otherwise, you're counting on the hospital to use whoever they have available and that may not be the best idea either which is why malpractice insurance is a thing.

The same way automation is already taking jobs at factories, I see no reason to pretend that technology cannot be a substitute for jobs in the public sector as well. It already is. Offices are using more technology and cutting down on the number of people they need. While this sounds bad on one hand, it is more efficient and saves taxpayers more money that can be used for education and other social programs.

Kobos wrote:

Fyxe wrote: No you do not need a licence to buy a gun
In some states you do in fact need a form of licsense. In IL I need what's call a FOID card to own my weapons.

. All that is needed for a commercial sale is a background check and after that nothing is tracked. private sales dont even need a background check. and I dont need a licence to fly either. its called freedom!Yes, you do need a background check for a private sale in most states to a non-family member (legally anyway). Um, pilots license........unless you mean you don't need a license to jump off a room which well yea you don't

I need a license to drive as a civil statute to meet minimum requirements of the road for safety purposes and to help get funds to maintain the roadways for the state.

if your "smart system" is not "owned by anyone" then who writes all these rules and implements all these controls and enforces all these regulations you have built into the system. Thats right, the totalitarian state will do these things for us. Its the only way to get (read as FORCE) all people to comply to the rules that are created.
I actually agree with all of this in principle though, just letting you know the correct information because what you are talking about can actually land you in huge trouble.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Actually only 3 states require the sort of license you are speaking of and one of those states is just for handguns. And as for private sales only 25 states have any requirements on private sales and not all 25 of those even require background checks. Some states its just for pistols and others its just a requirement that a sheriff supervise the sale or stuff like that. I have never lived in any of these states. The flying I was talking about was boarding a commercial plane and riding it somewhere.

Someone has to hold the keys, and that body or system exists no matter whether it is behind a paperwall or smartphone screen. I'm not sure how that translates to dispersal of power to the people.. more risk of the opposite BUT it could be more efficient at the risk of totalurian abuse or security breaches. The Chinese government is doing this, but going further and using facial recognition :whistle:

who decides what rules there needs to be anyway? like is there an app for that! LMAO. and if there is an app for that is it a simple strait vote? and if it is a simple straight vote how is that not mob rule... ya know the old addage of two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner?

Actually only 3 states require the sort of license you are speaking of and one of those states is just for handguns. And as for private sales only 25 states have any requirements on private sales and not all 25 of those even require background checks. Some states its just for pistols and others its just a requirement that a sheriff supervise the sale or stuff like that. I have never lived in any of these states. The flying I was talking about was boarding a commercial plane and riding it somewhere.

Well that can't be right, because there are at least six states and two territories in Australia that require safety courses, background checks, licencing and all firearms to be registered in their state of use/storage - with escalating requirements/justifications for perceived "higher risk" firearms (ie - pistols or semi/automatic)

I'm not saying one system is better than another, just that, y'know, this website, and the grassroots anarchy system proposed...are global....

JamesSand wrote:

Actually only 3 states require the sort of license you are speaking of and one of those states is just for handguns. And as for private sales only 25 states have any requirements on private sales and not all 25 of those even require background checks. Some states its just for pistols and others its just a requirement that a sheriff supervise the sale or stuff like that. I have never lived in any of these states. The flying I was talking about was boarding a commercial plane and riding it somewhere.

Well that can't be right, because there are at least six states and two territories in Australia that require safety courses, background checks, licencing and all firearms to be registered in their state of use/storage - with escalating requirements/justifications for perceived "higher risk" firearms (ie - pistols or semi/automatic)

I'm not saying one system is better than another, just that, y'know, this website, and the grassroots anarchy system proposed...are global....

Oh I forgot australia is part of the United states.

Fyxe wrote: who decides what rules there needs to be anyway? like is there an app for that! LMAO. and if there is an app for that is it a simple strait vote? and if it is a simple straight vote how is that not mob rule... ya know the old addage of two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner?

Yes like democracy. The difference is the temporal footprint an action (decision) is stretched over... because if the democratic action is too fast, it will be more prone to being gamed as a trial and error system, an expression of emotion rather then a considered decision. If ppl are stuck with decisions over a period of time, then they incur some stake in its result and will likely be more mindful about the decision. This creates a vacuum of power in the system which represents the duty of the thing being voted to serve the democratic system for, and then be judged by that system at the next voting. Social media is training people to expect faster decision making cycles by providing them avenues of expression where little or no responsibility is required, but it's a slippery slope to think embodiment of emotion and groupthink is the best foundation for decision making over considered thought. Specialisation in society, and our cognitive limits, work to mean people incur responsibility in doing things, which means trust. In the market place your vote is the deciding to business with them or not. I reckon the 'cancelling' phenomena against business is the same as this in that context (hto a large extent).

Adder wrote:

Fyxe wrote: who decides what rules there needs to be anyway? like is there an app for that! LMAO. and if there is an app for that is it a simple strait vote? and if it is a simple straight vote how is that not mob rule... ya know the old addage of two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner?

Yes like democracy. The difference is the temporal footprint an action (decision) is stretched over... because if the democratic action is too fast, it will be more prone to being gamed as a trial and error system, an expression of emotion rather then a considered decision. If ppl are stuck with decisions over a period of time, then they incur some stake in its result and will likely be more mindful about the decision. This creates a vacuum of power in the system which represents the duty of the thing being voted to serve the democratic system for, and then be judged by that system at the next voting. Social media is training people to expect faster decision making cycles by providing them avenues of expression where little or no responsibility is required, but it's a slippery slope to think embodiment of emotion and groupthink is the best foundation for decision making over considered thought. Specialisation in society, and our cognitive limits, work to mean people incur responsibility in doing things, which means trust. In the market place your vote is the deciding to business with them or not. I reckon the 'cancelling' phenomena against business is the same as this in that context (hto a large extent).

Hmmm... I'm not sure I'm following... but I think you are saying straight democracy, like a system of direct app voting for rules, will fail, right?

Fyxe wrote: Hmmm... I'm not sure I'm following... but I think you are saying straight democracy, like a system of direct app voting for rules, will fail, right?

Nah, it's easy to make something function but in this case I think it would be prone to bad outcomes, which would beg for responsibility to be asserted via some other system... like in China with its social credit, which at the end of the day is just handing more and more power over to whomever runs the system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

A system generating bad outcomes either is replaced or refined, but it's just my opinion of course. And I don't like changing things to have bad outcomes so... not sold on it.

Ok so adder? You say my conclusion is not correct but then follow it up with it is prone to bad outcomes and something that will eventually need to be replaced. So I see a contradiction here. Is direct democracy prone to bad outcomes that needs to be replaced or not?

Fyxe wrote: Ok so adder? You say my conclusion is not correct but then follow it up with it is prone to bad outcomes and something that will eventually need to be replaced. So I see a contradiction here. Is direct democracy prone to bad outcomes that needs to be replaced or not?

Depends how you define fail. The voting will work in your idea so that is not a failure in that context, but it will be prone to bad outcomes IMO and so in that context it is a failure. So if tried, and it worked but failed, then it would need to be replaced or refined as described. Much better to avoid bad ideas entirely but as said, just my opinion.

Okay, I keep saying "open source" and people keep asking who's going to control it. So let's take a small break to understand the "open source" concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-open-source-software-2071941

OWNERSHIP:

So let's say, "under the current US rules" (even though I'm hypothetically venturing away from them as purely an intellectual exercise), a non-profit organization NGO, representing the people of a certain jurisdiction, developed an open source application for organizing and administering their jurisdiction. And they start with a few laws and services on one app and they expand new services to new apps. Anyone from the jurisdiction can join the NGO. They just need to show proof of residence. Each one gets an equal vote. There are teams for different things. Each team can elect a team leader and one team can be admin and oversight over all the other teams. This is for both ownership and execution. The people who use the app are also the members of the NGO. They can all add policy proposals and app updates and changes. They can use the app to apply to any team they want, see vacancies, and contribute. Some positions are volunteer and others are paid. Some positions can be voted in while others hired by the specific team or the admin team. So ownership belongs to the NGO which is everyone who from that jurisdiction that wants to participate. Just like a club, the NGO can provide benefits and services that club members pay into.

Again... this is just a hypothetical intellectual exercise

I don't know how Jewish communities work but they often have their own land and buildings (including recreational) for all the Jews belonging to it to use. There are other club type models that people use in similar fashions. Whatever. The point is that the "open source" model is carried through. As a member of the club you are part owner of the "facilities" and can submit and vote on changes.

Now you may be saying... "but aren't the teams = the government"?

the teams could provide some governance as needed but the idea is to use technology so that governance is distributed in a more efficient way. At any time, if you had an idea for the open source transportation app that includes buses, cars, trucks, bikes, etc. you could open your app, create the suggestion, and people could vote and contribute to the idea. The crowdfunded idea would then allow development. Every jurisdiction is owned and operated by the people in that jurisdiction so there is no evil mega corporation, king, or President that needs to own or control everything. And if two jurisdictions need to work together they just negotiate when and how to do that just like two servers on the internet.

I mean, we used to use phone lines for all of our communication. Even the internet. I remember having 14.4K modem. I remember getting destroyed in game by my buddy who had a 56K modem when I had a 33. I was basically shooting his after image. Technology changes communication and communication is what transports ideas and commands around the brain which governs the body. And a lot of these connection points are corrupt and cancerous. Conservatives preach about small limited government all the time. And its not like Liberals actually want big government. What I'm suggesting is that technology can take the place of a lot of people in the public sector, making everything transparent and efficient, just like it replaces people in factories and call centers.

note: I'm not saying I want an automated hotline for police and other services. I hate automated phone systems.

But there is a balance that we can have between people and technology where how things are run could be better. Just look at how much the US is divided right now over politics. So many people are corrupt that conspiracy theorists are actually gaining membership like a religious institution in its prime. And there's probably been about $200M spent on TV ads in Iowa alone for the next election. And that's to elect 1 person to the white house. That doesn't include every congress person and every person in the House of Representatives. We spend an insane amount of money just to elect representatives who are either corrupt from the gate or likely to become corrupt over time. And we, in the US, have a system where corporations are treated like people they can lobby our politicians in ways that only they benefit from. I'm not saying technology is a perfect solution. I'm simply saying that I think there is a better alternative. And I think subscription models and freemium models and all these things are an evolution made possible by technology and so why can't there be a new model of governance that is made possible by technology? One that is safer and more efficient.

I feel like a lot of people don't think it will work because we're constantly thinking about how people will game the system. But... I think what often motivates people to game the system is because they don't believe in the system because it doesn't work for them. But they see it working for others. Therefore, if the system could gradually increase in fairness and distribute wealth, not just based on merit (because that should definitely be a factor) but also based on need, so that the hundreds of millions we spend on advertising politicians, could mainly go to providing the basic needs for many Americans who might be so desperate as to steal or even kill to get their needs met... maybe there would be less crime if we invested in the people rather than prisons and weapons and metal detectors everywhere. Why can't we use the same money that we use to try and police the world to actually make it a safer place by fulfilling people's needs?

So you are suggesting getting rid of federal government?
Also are you saying getting rid of or making illegal corporations?

Who will provide for national defense?
what if there is a dispute over say water rights? who mediates?
where will we get our goods and services if the corporations are gone?
where will we work so that we can make the money to put into these ideas if all corporations are gone?

Good question - would we as individuals be able to keep or need the organizations currently present? What happen if we all took charge of our own actual life in the real world like we had to grow our own food and duke and things like that? Think we would survive ? Other will? That’s the problem with Utopias - there’s always some one who wants it their way... they are always present and always available. So how would human networking actually work ? Regulated or independently regulated ? How will it work if some work and some don’t ? What if one thinks they shouldn’t abide by the general rules ?


Ya know there are actual human networks already in place rather than some government rules in some places.
Worth a look see if you can find a few as well that are fully self sufficient and fully self reliable. They are there I promise.

I don’t like a lot government. Not in my very day thing. Not what I think it’s for. But that’s me

People demonize corporations all the time but they are responsible for the free enterprise that drives innovation, technology, the cheap goods and services we enjoy and the means for gainful employment to provide for yourself and your family. Who will do all that if they are gone?

The federal government in the US provides for national defense, promotes the general welfare, and is the arbitrator both within and the nation and with outside entities. its structure is a representative republic that does all it can to ensure every member of the nation has a voice in how the country is run. Get rid of that and there will be mob rule and eventual anarchy.