November 3, 2008 at 4:16 pm #4139
Yes, I have read about this. I think this is a good way to introduce liquid democracy into existing representative governments. When I get some free time I want to write-up some of my other ideas for this. I really like this for seasteading as it assures everyone a voice, but allows for expert proxies. In fact, I would like the idea of specifying a proxy for legislation by committee – science proxy, education proxy, economy proxy, etc.
You may get what you want, but will you want what you get?November 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm #4144
You are proposing a form of voting similar to what I would like to try out.
I would like to go one radical step further. I would like to get to a system where I am pretty sure that the votes take into account whether the voters have relevant domain knowledge for the vote. I call this vote weighting and I have not yet worked out the details. The basic concept is that on economic issues, we want people with economics training to have more weight in the decision process. Ditto for military issues, etc. The devil is in the details, and a poorly designed weighting system would wind up disenfranchising people (not what I want at all.)
Note that building a proxy voting system is an exercise in computer programming.November 4, 2008 at 4:57 pm #4159
Everyone would get a say in governence, but those that have shown they are educated in a specific area would have slightly more say. A simple certification system would be required to show you have a passing knowledge, and a more stringent one could be in place for a heavier weighting. And, worst case, everyone would work to attain a level of education so that the experts are only fractionally more weighted than the “average” individual. Oh, the travesty of having a well educated populus! What ever would we do?November 4, 2008 at 6:09 pm #4160
My experience with education levels is that, with the exception of a few libertarians here and there, academia is overwhelmingly socialist. Also, the so-called ‘experts’ in a given field tend to adopt a scientific dogma and are very resistant to research which challenges the prevailing belief.
The recent credit default swap debacle arose out of packaged loan securities which were put together by physics PhDs which were supposed to minimize risk from defaults. They didn’t work.
Experts in previous times said that people would suffocate in vehicles traveling over 20 miles per hour due to the air being sucked out of the windows, that the earth is the center of the solar system, that at current expansion, London would be covered in 20 feet of horse manure, and that the earth is flat.
I’ve learned not to have faith in experts.November 4, 2008 at 7:18 pm #4163
Working out the details is tricky. Every time I think I’ve got a workable system, by the next morning, I have found several loopholes. What is neat, is that once you have the basic proxy system in place, a weighting system can be done as an overlay. You compare the results of basic proxy voting with weighted proxy voting. When (and if) weighted proxy voting seems to be giving better results, a switch over can occur.November 4, 2008 at 7:22 pm #4164
The purpose of the weighting system is not to let so called experts run the show, but to try and get the population as a whole to try and dig in and try to understand some of this complicated stuff. As I say, the trick is to design the weighting system so that neither the experts nor the uninformed swamp the vote.November 5, 2008 at 1:31 pm #4169
1. What is the most common NATO rifle cartridge?
2. Name one chinese military philosopher.
3. War is the continuation of ………. with other means. (fill in the blank).
Who is your choice for defense boss of seastead X?
And so on for all the areas you need to vote on.
And the vote gets weighted according to how many questions you get right. Public opinion will determine whether the questions are fair and relevant. And the questions would obviously have to be arranged by someone not voting. You could have an official with that job, or just have someone from outside make them up.November 26, 2008 at 12:22 pm #4349
DanB, I think you are confusing different orders of thinking here. People are not libertarian for the sake of being libertarian, but for the purpose of pursuing religious, humanitarian and other strategic goals. So the suggestion that Seasteading be made appealing to non-libertarians strikes me as completely hollow, or missing the point at some level anyway.
The very essence of seasteading is libertarian in that it is a means of achieving such humanitarian, religious, philanthropic, etc. goals outside of state intervention and through entirely consensual cooperation and action. This fact does not contain specific values in itself, and all I’m stating here is that in order to pursue your goals you NEED to be free to do so, whatever the goal is. Simply said, liberty is not a value per se, but a prerequisite – that’s how, as a libertarian, I have always viewed it.
Whatever values you appeal to in order to bring people into seasteading, is really marketing at the bottom line. But it’s still indispensible marketing, that you are entirely right to bring as a discussion point here. Let’s just not jail ourselves into believing the map (the pitch) is the territory (the actual motive), for fear that the confusion between the modus of seasteading and the reasons for seasteading overwhelm us in the end.November 26, 2008 at 4:15 pm #4353
Basically I agree with what you’re saying. I am a serious libertarian and that’s the motive for my interest in seasteading.
Two points, though:
1) The large majority of people are not libertarians. Many people have a dim view of libertarians. The seasteading movement is going to have a public image problem. In fact it already does. At the very least we need to figure out how to convince the rest of humanity to leave us alone. But we should be able to do better than that – we should be able to convince them to help us.
2) From a cold-blooded realist individualist perspective, seasteading doesn’t make sense. If you just want to avoid taxes, you can move to the Cayman Islands or Hong Kong or somewhere. Seasteading has to be considered an altruistic act for it to make sense. The goal can’t be only to improve our own lives (there are easier ways to do that), but to make the world a better place. So I wouldn’t agree that talking about humanitarian goals is pure marketing – for me, at least, it’s half the story.November 27, 2008 at 3:45 pm #4364
From a cold-blooded realist individualist perspective, seasteading doesn’t make sense.
It does if your time preference is low enough, Mises would object Point duly noted on how the general public has been pavlov-trained to dislike libertarians. I’ll try and think up more ways to coopt the enemy’s own symbology against him.November 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm #4365
>If you just want to avoid taxes, you can move to the Cayman Islands or Hong Kong or somewhere.
I have moved to a taxhaven island, Anguilla. It is a solution but there are ways a seastead could be better. You need to get immigration permission for you and anyone you want to bring with you or hire in the future. On a seastead you would not have these problems.
— VinceOctober 10, 2009 at 3:10 pm #8111
Seastead wont attract population unless there is no profit or entertainment in it… A swimming resort hotel is one thing but a new nation is much much more complex… So to create an ideal seastead (ideal=popular imo) you must make people want to live within it, a libertarian seastead community might draw some people but another one which offers better job opportunities will always be more ideal i think. So;
An ideal seastead must be governed by a union of corporations or a single corporation. A science and industry heaven which is eco friendly, profitable and comfortable. And for these all you need is money and more money…
I have 2 seastead or island nation concepts in mind. One that solely relies on information technology industry or a more complex one with medical science, info tech, mercenary&military logistic, tourism facilities. First seastead of the world will be more interested in tourism imo since its risk factor is less greater than anyother concept, and it should be that way since with such tourism the idea of sea steadings publicity will increase and serves the mission of tsi i guess. With the concept being so popular laws about high seas will be criticised on a regular basis in media. Which will lead to certain opportunities for the project.
The forum ‘Law and Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.
Posted on at