Dimmer-switching governance

in LeoFinance8 months ago

Last night I wrote an article with a loose theme of disenfranchisement, which means being deprived of rights, often used when it comes to voting, where the disenfranchised have no influence over governance. Yet, I think this is something that there is more to it than just this, as "franchise" itself comes from being granted rights by that same government, which means that the only way to feel disenfranchised is to believe in the legitimacy of government granted rights. Should the right to an adequate standard of living be on government grant or, should it be part the role of government directed by us, the owners.

I think part of the reason why so many people feel disenfranchised, is that we no longer own much, we ae all kind of renting our life, either by riding on debt or as employees working on the land of others, whether that be farm land or the real estate of business. When we are working the lands of others, we do not have rights over that land and with the increasing ownership of everything in a decreasing amount of hands, more and more people have less and less rights.


The increasing participation in cryptocurrencies and digital assets is a response to this, where people and even businesses, are looking to take control over the economic realities and begin to own once again. While a lot of the land has already been taken control of, the digital landscape keeps growing, with more space and opportunity opening up before us. What is interesting with this is that perhaps due to our conditioning, we again feel that we need to be granted rights to use the land we own, we are again legitimizing the authority of a government, effectively handing over our ownership and putting our franchise in their hands. I find it increasingly interesting that governments want us to create value for ourselves, as long as it is on their terms and through their gateways, while they are working for us.

There is nothing wrong with governments per se, except that they have taken the control granted them and decided that it is theirs, as if they are the ones that own, when in reality, they are working on our land for us as a group, which is why they are called public servants. I think that what we are seeing now is a push back against the scope creep where instead of doing what is in our collective best interest, they have been doing what is in theirs.

A lot of people seem to think it is a binary choice, government or no government, but I don't think it is that simple. I do think that there are aspects of the economy that benefit us, but the open market will not take care of adequately, as they will focus on what has the highest incentive, the highest profit, which obviously isn't healthy for the group. For example, one of the common arguments is that without government, "who would build the roads" kind of thing. But, there needn't be this on-off approach, since we have technology that can be far more sensitive to our activity and needs.

As an example and one that is not fleshed out and has a multitude of caveats, image having a flat rate of tax on all people of 20% - but, rather than all going into a pool that is controlled by a government, 50% of it goes into the pool to take care of a number of shared services and market segments, for example roads, and the other 50% is able to be allocated to other activities and services, for example, military spending. This means that every citizen has a tax wallet where they will be able to make decisions as an individual as to what they are willing to support, which cold be allocated in several ways granularly or from a more general sense. I wonder, if people had to pay for war directly form their wallet, would they? Rather than on and off, we would have the sensitivity of a dimmer switch.

As said, there are many sides to this, but I believe that what we are currently doing is reimagining and exploring the way we organize ourselves locally and at a global level. But, in order to be able to do this, we need to each have skin in the game that matters, which in the past has only really taken into account monetary skin, not activity, which is a heavy-handed approach. With the ability to tokenize activity and apply a value of some kind to it, we will be able to create a voter profile of some kind that captures much more than a yes or no decision in order to discover what is really important to us. Based on this, resources can be allocated in a more dynamic way, without the reliance on a centralized point of governance.

Having the ability to make our own decisions is having agency, which gives us ownership of our direction. This means that we make the decisions for ourselves and cannot be unseated, cannot be disenfranchised, because our privilege isn't granted, it is earned and requires no signing authority, as it is underpinned by a community in a trustless network.

The world as we know it is changing form and it is going to be torn apart and restructured at every level over time. One of those shifts that takes place is going to be the move from government to governance, something that makes us owners of our direction again. The revolution coming is going to cause a lot of disruption, but the real changes are going to be a slow takeover of everything that we know today - some things will work, some won't, but it will continue on looking to improve, the more we participate in the process.

[ Gen1: Hive ]

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta


I'm not sure it would be such a great idea to have a personal tax wallet allowing everyone to decide how exactly their tax money will be spent. But I do think we should work towards making governments unmanned to a greater degree. Protocols should decide how money is spent rather than individuals.

Finland is considered to be low in corruption and that may be the case in international comparison. But the system is very vulnerable to corruption at the point of outsourcing government services to the private sector. There is also a lot of sheer incompetence leading to massive waste.

In my utopia, the government works like a DAO rather than a manned organization.

I'm not sure it would be such a great idea to have a personal tax wallet allowing everyone to decide how exactly their tax money will be spent

Why do you say so?

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Public opinion could easily be manipulated. Also, it takes a fair bit of expertise to decide how the money is spent. Suppose some single high-profile scandal or incident suddenly caused some particular government agency to have 10% of its funding pulled instantly. That would be a complete disaster causing a lot of collateral damage.

Most of our politicians are not outright crooks unlike in Africa. The system as it is works much better than in most developing countries.

Public opinion could easily be manipulated.

I think so too, but less so when it is "our money" -You often heat the "my tax money goes to" without most people having any idea what their tax money goes to :)

That would be a complete disaster causing a lot of collateral damage.

I think this could be mitigated through a process of "unstaking" of sorts.

I think many sorts of mitigations should be implemented. A time delay like that would make a lot of sense.

Well, I think it will be hard to make decisions with such a large number of persons involved in the decision-making process, esp when it comes to pressing matters. So the governance is important to a said degree. But then again, shouldn't people who pay taxes determine how their monies are spent? Some of these governments spend so much of taxpayer's money on nuclear projects and funding war crimes.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Yeah, it is really just an example that there are alternatives, though I do think it would be interesting to have some percentage able to be allocated upon a group of options, kind of like the hdf. I think it would make people more interested in activity, rather than the creating of celebrity of politicians.

The thing with the current and coming tech is we have many more alternatives than what we are using, a system that is fundamentally flawed and corrupted in the hands of a few. There are degrees of corruption of course, but all are to some degree.

Yes, I think a DAO in control of tax money should be carefully programmed with some ground rules preventing catastrophic events.

One of those shifts that takes place is going to be the move from government to governance, something that makes us owners of our direction again.

Depending on where in the world you live democracy has a totally different meaning, consider South Africa the ANC is made up of a variety of tribes, however we still support Kingdoms like many other places in the world.

No wonder people own less and less politicians have have a new path to riches, governments own huge tracts of land. Now let's get back to the Kings.

If we seek land ownership, more governance by those we elect to stand for our better future, perhaps a lot of rethinking needs to be done, yes change is happening slowly, very slowly and will not come easy! Governments Kowtow to Land Barons.

@tipu curate

Depending on where in the world you live democracy has a totally different meaning,

For sure - as I was saying to Markku above, there are varying degrees of corrupt - but all are corrupt to a degree

I think that land ownership is going to be a challenge now, as it means a transfer of assets. However, if new assets can generate value, in the future those with land might be interested in trading. It is going to be interesting to say the least.

there are varying degrees of corrupt - but all are corrupt to a degree

Mankind since the dawn of time, now enhanced with over population where few hold title deeds.

Blockchain technology may open doors to a better future for many, sadly the many do not have facilities/finance to rectify into a positive outcome.

If/when we land on a new planet who will own it, how will life evolve? Currently we do have some answers that need to be implemented in the here and now.

Just thinking aloud, witnessing so much weeping and gnashing of teeth over the past few years. Rather than squabble, discuss and put into practice.

I am big on ownership. This is one of the many things crypto does for us. And the government will have to compile will this new standard in the future when more people being to understand the importance of ownership.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

I am hoping that people start having the ability to be more mobile in the way they economically function, meaning that a government has to look after citizens if they want the value to be spent locally.

If the years and experience have taught me anything, it is the slowness of evolution. The general theory of systems has a precept that illustrates this: "a system will move forward at the speed of its slowest component"

And this is where I want to stop. People like you or like me, visionaries, know what is coming but we have no way to hurry the pace of others, because we would violate a principle: freedom.

And as long as freedom is the most persecuted element, I am afraid that many generations will be missing before we see the realization of what you state in your article. What we have left is to sow the restlessness, so that future generations can pick it up and make it their own.

Good job.

For sure - one of the massive parts of crypto that most people do not mention is at least up until this point, it has all been opt in. Individuals have opted into Bitcoin for the tune of a trillion dollars or so and I think transfer of wealth is far more valuable when people decide to make the move, rather than have it taken by force.