Could Human Networking eventually replace the need for government?

When I think about the disruptive nature of the internet vs all the traditional ways of doing business, I think we can see a lot of things being depreciated while corporations are having to find new ways to keep up with how the internet is evolving the way we live and connect to each other.

And of course there are many pros and cons to how we are connecting these days and we can talk about that too.

But can you conceive of a world in which our reliance upon governments and institutions starts to fade the more we connect with each other?

I mean certain things just seem inconceivable. Building roads and bridges, for example. However, after playing Death Stranding, Kojima's brilliant walking simulator, even this idea could be done by people working together. In the game you are never instructed or forced to build roads. But knowing that you can contribute to roads and these can be used by yourself and other players... roads begin to appear because players build them. And these roads aren't shared by the entire player base, just the people your game is connected to. Again... connections.

(And yes, Death Stranding is a great game/art, and Kojima is a genius)

But you could say... but we also need the government for defense. After all, we can't just all contribute to military weapons. Right? Well, if we needed to, we could, simply by contributing similar to how we crowdfund political campaigns and spend millions of dollars that could be saving lives, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, all so we can vote by proxy when we now have the technology to vote directly.

Just like how religion put a mediator between God and man that was always inefficient and prone to corruption, we have the same problem in government and in business. I'd like to use this thread as a thought experiment to imagine something different. What would it be like? Would it be better or worse? Do we need the current system more than we realize? Must we be forced to work together to create things too big for one person? Or, like BitCoin, can we decentralize and agree? Or are we destined to be ruled over forever, simply voting for new corrupt representatives?

Civilisation must be governed, because corruption isn't limited to "Elected representatives" as you put it.
As far as I know, those systems exist to oppose the corruption that exists without them - I'm sure there is an irony there somewhere.

I'm not saying there isn't a better form of government available, but I am putting it to you that it sure as sweet things isn't Uber or Fiverr or some other damned "networking" system, that you'll note, still has a grim overseer "skimming" a bit off the top from everyone else's labours....


We can certainly do without real estate agents though - the world would be a far better place if the person providing the labour or resource had a direct relationship with the person receiving it (whether in return for other labour or resources it matters little)

All middlemen are bastards.

I think you caught a glimpse of what I'm talking about.

I would have put "governments and corporations" in the title but it was too long.

but let's say that the internet itself had some sort of governance, not aimed at control, but on communication. I'm not talking about SEC type but more like W3C where the result is standards like HTML 5 and let's say HTML 6 included a BitCoin as a replacement for standard money. But let's say the BitCoin HTML tags/standard also included an online marketplace that anyone could post products and services to and took on the role of Amazon and Fiverr except it was free because we all owned an equal share and whatever profits are created help to produce a universal income (like BitCoin mining) for everyone below a certain amount of wealth, managed by the BitCoin itself.

Let's say you wanted to buy a dog. The system would automatically find the 10 closest sellers and show you their ranking, reviews, and business stats. From each one there's a code snippet that let's that dealer personalize part of the page and show you their dogs. You pick one. They get notified. They find the people closest to them who can deliver it to a station. That person then finds the next person who can deliver it from that station to the next, and the process repeats until it gets to the consumer. Delivery fee? Calculated by distance divided by the number of people it took. Payment is initiated at the beginning and only completed after full delivery. Let's say the dog had a broken leg. Of course if these are local places you can just go there. But let's say there are people who free lance deliveries and simply take as many as they can from one station to the next while others deliver from stations to local addresses. If you have a problem the supplier has a number of days to solve it before you simply automatically get your money back because the transaction doesn't fully complete without you giving a positive rating. Something like that. Let's say you're poor and don't have enough money. A BitCoin purchase for survival items or services would automatically use public BitCoin from the reserves as long as it wasn't exceeding the number of purchases for that day.

And let's say that everything you buy is with this version of BitCoin is stored in some kind of double blind encrypted way so that you can provide proof of every purchase. Just so a purchase can't be completed without proof that the seller had valid ownership, either blank (indicating they made it, grew it, etc.), or purchased from someone else with a matching timestamp to the sale. There's no point of stealing something you can't sell. Everything that isn't personally owned and needs to be shared (like hospital equipment) is simply crowdfunded until it can be purchased.

Some of my thoughts are inspired by the idea of a Resource Based Economy, but I think a little capitalism, a little socialism, and even a little communism, are all needed in small doses.

You lost me all the way through that.

First with "Bitcoin" as if it isn't as damned as any other market value driven widget.

then with the sort of idea that it all existing in the Matrix (the Shadowrun one, not the wachowski brothers one) as if that is somehow more wholesome than going into a shady bar and buying a dog off a man in a long coat.

Then with "The system would automatically..." What system? what perfect, non gameable system is this?

then the complete tracking of all materiel and transactions ever?
I'm sure it sounds good, in a "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" sort of way, but call me a criminal, it sounds like it has more potential for evil than good.

The tyranny you fear exists as much in this proposed system as any other, simply masked with a veneer of technology - you can not eliminate the corruption - you can try to, but reducing every individual freedom.

Is that worth it? Is removing the option to be bad (or at least, the option to go against the system, if we assume that the system is good) the same as having a better world?

Here's a video, (of course to watch the video, you may have to watch an ad, an ad probably for a service or product that allows more ads into your life, then you'll get a pop up asking you to review you ad experience, so that the device or product that brings more marketing into your life can be more efficient....)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-NVs68X_S4

It's a fictional example of when a "solution" was a problem, but there are plenty of real life examples - just look up any great feat of engineering (and most great feats of politics) - for every time humans have thought they have "fixed it" that have been terrible consequences. Sometimes history decides they were worth it, occasionally we recognise our hubris - but only briefly, because we'll think of another, smarter, way to fix it, and it will definitely work...this time....

Well, let's back up.

The idea is "human networking". So the question is whether or not there is a level of human networking and connection that would eliminate the need for representative government.

in technology, which as its own assisted evolution, we see how we've gone from very distinct separated devices to interconnected devices that are far more powerful because of how information is shared.

At the same time there is a layer of data that is scary to consider, because it IS watching us, tracking us, even though we can kind of sort of tell it not to. And as such we can work for each other and pay each other through cash app. We can hire each other through various "task" services like uber, door dash, etc. And these workers are becoming more independent with more so a layer of technology that connects them with customers and clients.

I'm simply trying to project these trends into the future to imagine what the future could hold and what is possible using and extending these same models. What if the people themselves declared all the technology middleware to be more of an "opensource" component or something that is eventually even AI created and driven? Who knows?

But if information is opensource and work is at will according to whichever app you want to sign up with...

where can we take that?

Bitcoin, isn't simply a widget. The problem with paper is that it can be easily stolen. I'm on my "final warning" from a "hacker", trying to blackmail me in exchange for bitcoin. But the message includes where to buy it and where to send it to. In other words, you can't just steal bitcoin. The person has to give it to you. So no, it's not a perfect solution but it makes such crime much more difficult and is therefore a deterrent. Not only that, but security can be itteratively improved upon.

I understand what you mean about solutions becoming problems but there already seems to be a natural evolution and I I'm only looking for something less flawed; not flawless.

This system seems even more flawed though.

It seems as though you are proposing a direct democracy? but those are always doomed to fail.
as well a socialist economy? also doomed to fail. who would manage this system? those that did would become the new regime that ruled others and even had total control over their livelihood. this seems a system you are forced to be a part of, but what if you dont want to be a part of it? Its the very thing in the bible where everyone gets a number and if you dont have one you dont get to play. It seems like a direct path to a ruling class and the rest are plebes.

It's easy when people agree with a transaction and are truthful, but problem is finding rules that are fair when they don't and aren't, and doing it well and in a timely manner. Without some 'authority' or system of rules and ruling, it might just devolve to survival of the fittest.... which is really just survival of the richest. At least systems of governance try to exert fairness against the abuse of wealth and strength, imperfectly usually always. At least they lift the bar above actual physical conflict. And mobs are not always the fairest methods to investigate, decide and act. We tend to have some biological traits which run counter to that idea IMO. I'd suggest not starting with the ideals but starting with the problems, to find the most sustainable and efficient models. Ideals though importantly erve to guide strategy, as its easy to get lost in the details of real world implementation.

We build systems on top of systems because of problems. We don't always find better solutions and then scale back those systems based on the implementation of new ideas... such that the system is so large and complex that it costs hundreds of millions in order to manage, which then takes money out of the economy, out of people's hands, and causes more problems that big government then needs to solve.

A simple example is Uber. Uber by itself was a good idea. However, people started using Uber to commit crimes on unsuspecting passengers. On one hand, it becomes a police matter. On the other hand, Uber should be expected to mitigate situations like this. But Uber is also about making money. When the concern of the business is primarily that, all these potential problems are far less important to them. But there's an app for everything. There are communities for everything. I'm just wondering if everything had an app that was open source and everyone got to give ideas and feedback because of their concerns for their own safety and convenience, could an open source model prove better than a company driven by market forces?

The shortest answer to this is no, it cannot. That is because the strong will always gang up on the weak and use that to control them.

Fyxe wrote: The shortest answer to this is no, it cannot. That is because the strong will always gang up on the weak and use that to control them.

There is strength in numbers and more people who want to be safe and happy. It's only when we run scared and a smaller member of our 'herd' falls behind that they fall prey to predators.

There is strength in numbers and more people who want to be safe and happy. It's only when we run scared and a smaller member of our 'herd' falls behind that they fall prey to predators.

Some might argue that it is the ones who want to be "safe" that run headlong into the arms of predators, hoping that if they can hide in the shade of a powerful creature, then other lesser predators will leave them alone, and perhaps they don't have to share as much grass with their former prey allies?

There are no "innocents" in the world, just various justifications for self serving activities.

The Big Bad of your narrative didn't succeed because it took from the weak, it succeeded because they (whomever they are) gave everything away. It may not have been a good deal, in hindsight, but it was the deal they wanted to make at the time....

We have cognitive limits which beyond we need to assert trust. It's there that direct or indirect abuse tends to go unnoticed until too late. A big blunt gang that thinks its right is just a different form of power as a small sharp gang that thinks its right. Escalating conflict is not really the best way to solve things, if not just because it's too dynamic with wide reaching consequences beyond our cognitive limits.

Eutopia (not “utopia” though few will realize the misuse) will be possible when the average/typical human adult is basically disciplined, trustworthy, informed, self assured, responsible, ethical, emotionally non-reactive, and genuinely benevolent. Dismantling or re-drafting the system/government before the general population has achieved this state is only going to replace one set of bureaucratic tyrants with another. How do we help encourage society to mature? Thats a much more useful line of thought than how we can cancel out the government, imo.

ZealotX wrote:

Fyxe wrote: The shortest answer to this is no, it cannot. That is because the strong will always gang up on the weak and use that to control them.

There is strength in numbers and more people who want to be safe and happy. It's only when we run scared and a smaller member of our 'herd' falls behind that they fall prey to predators.

Strength in numbers is only created by strong individuals willing to lead those numbers. And that is why your system fails. People dont want that responsibility, they give it to others and those others will take that power. The human species is social but also tribal, and competition is in our blood.

There are two paths to ascension and those two will always be in conflict with one another.

Fyxe wrote: There are two paths to ascension and those two will always be in conflict with one another.

Let me try to respond to a number of things in one and if I missed something please let me know.


So as I understand it, some of us are thinking along the lines of predator vs prey type of behavior. What I have in mind, and I guess you could say is my idealistic vision, is all about balance.

You brought up the inner person as a source of these external conflicts. And I certainly agree with that. However, consider... that inner person is also adapting to their environment. Someone who has been affected by external things like rape, domestic violence, war, etc. human nature internalizes these conflicts and external stimuli and tries to process it; tries to make sense of it.

Thus the statement: "Hurt people hurt people"

People also develop defense mechanisms as a result of trying to protect themselves. Even a rose has thorns for this reason. The desire to protect one's self is natural.

And on a corporate level, one nation's "thorns" may be viewed as threat to another nation. So that nation grows larger "thorns" which is viewed as a threat by someone else. Where does it end?

Diplomacy.

And some point, all parties need to come to the table and see how stupid it is to ignore each other's wants and needs and instead be prepared to kill each other for stepping across a sometimes arbitrary line. Each nation has leaders that have to at least look the part; convincing their people that they will stand up for them; against bullies and terrorists and other threats. That's why they are chosen and given power to lead.

When I'm talking about "open source" I'm talking about cooperation, not competition. If the thing is owned (like by a company) then the operation of that thing is dictated by that company's own interests. If it is "open source" the interests of whoever is interested can participate. The PC is relatively "open source" compared to Apple. Apple dictates what parts can be in their devices and sets prices and people pay because they believe its better quality. PCs can sometimes have more problems between different parts from different manufacturers but it has gotten progressively better thanks to industry standards. Standards.... basically rules that everyone agrees to because those rules protect everyone. If the rules don't work everyone looks bad and no one can sell their product unless Apple says you are going to be the one and only audio technology we use. Or you're going to be the one and only graphics card we use. Who cares if there is something better.

So right now, we have a lot of companies with a lot of different apps. It's not "open source". There are no real standards for how apps work together because they don't have to work together. However... when it comes to taking your money most of them integrate with Google pay, Apple pay, or Paypal. So when it comes to taking our money there are standards and integration/cooperation. All I'm suggesting is why not extend that cooperation throughout? Make it open source. Let people, not just other companies you're forced to integrate with, to contribute to the code. We don't have elections where only the elite get to vote. So why is it not a benefit to have everyone who wants to work on a particular problem, to work on that problem? This is what I mean by strength in numbers. We have more than a few neurons to rub together. It's the amount of neurons that we have that give us the capability and capacity to think, reason, and process information. Why limit ourselves when it comes to things we all use? We have trillions of cells in our bodies but every cell needs the feet in order to get from place to place. And no every cell cannot be dedicated to telling the feet where to go, but cells all influence the movement of the body based on their needs.

Why is it so wrong to think this type of model can be adapted to society?

Can you give me a practical example of how this model might address things such as traffic, or drug, or firearm laws? Or environmental protection laws for industries, such as chemical manufacturers?

I do not think it's a problem of adapting this type of model to society. It's kind of the opposite, as it sits society could not maintain this model. It just is not feasible as a whole. I defer to OB1's observation on the sovereign citizen above as my reasoning to why society is the issue not the model. It's a very similar idea to bringing socialism to the US, the systems currently in place and ideology of the majority would cause it to collapse at an accelerated rate, meaning the application of the idea causes more harm than good.

Much Love,
Kobos

OB1Shinobi wrote: Can you give me a practical example of how this model might address things such as traffic, or drug, or firearm laws? Or environmental protection laws for industries, such as chemical manufacturers?

I can't, really. To give you an example would be like me as one person trying to imitate what many people would decide and build in cooperation with each other. A better example would be given by an AI that learns to drive from data collected by a mass number of human drivers. We can all agree that individual humans make mistakes. Collectively, we can learn from those mistakes and even foresee some mistakes before they happen.

Let's say that you had to use an app to buy a firearm. And because the app was "open source" a number of people could contribute ways of how the app could integrate with your social media and try to detect if you had any radical ideas or an unstable personality that tries to predict whether or not you can be trusted with a deadly weapon. And let's say one person said the app should be locked by your biometric thumb print just like your banking apps.

And so the app knows who you are when you buy the gun. The app knows where you are based on location services, if you are near your house or out of state, etc. People don't necessarily need to be watching you. They would just set up the rules for the technology to follow, to help make those decisions without a person personally invading your privacy. And if you don't want a gun then don't sign up for the app. But as long as you're using it then maybe the police should be able to see when a loaded gun, tied to an app, pings off a cell tower in a residential or commercial district. And maybe if your phone isn't within the distance of a large house, it wont fire. Maybe this would allow police officers to see if a suspect has a gun or not so that they can determine better what to do and how to detain that suspect. And maybe guns are made from the ground up to utilize technology so that they cannot physically fire without it sending signals and operating based on rules.

Maybe these are good ideas. Maybe these are bad ideas. But they are ideas and if it is open source then there is an interested community that can debate these ideas and vote ideas into use without waiting on a politician to decide whether or not to be bribed today, and whether or not to vote to force a company driven by profits, to comply with new rules and regulations. Nothing is ever a silver bullet. Hackers will figure out ways to hack the app, spoof signals, etc. But the same hackers can also rob banks if they're that clever. But how many banks are robbed today like they were in the old west? And certainly, things are better now than they were back then. Right?

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!