"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/
- 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/
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.
What if he missed his "subscription" payment the previous month? Does he lose his fundamental human rights until he's paid up?
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.
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.
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.
All you are left with is an organization that collects money from its citizens and then spends it for them.
Say you get married in a state that allows LGBT couples, and then move to one that doesn't, AFAIK your marriage is still valid and recognized. Maybe in some countries it isn't (ex. various Middle-eastern ones) but generally it is. If there was an international body that could allow you those rights and freedoms then could help use legal means to protect them.
Protection doesn't only mean physical force, especially not in this age. I'm not saying I don't agree with you in some way though. There would be very little/nothing an ephemeral government could do against physical aggression, which is what I meant by my earlier statement, "I can't think of a better solution to that yet, and there may not be one."
"International legal means" -- especially in those scenarios -- is just a thin layer of formalities wrapped around the threat that your country, perhaps with assistance from its allies, will impose consequences like trade sanctions, and, if necessary, ultimately wage war if their requests are not adhered to.
Sure, they could ultimately do nation-vs-nation legal action in the ICJ, but even if your nation wins, its not like the ICJ has marshals it can send in to enforce its orders. Enforcement is basically self-service.
> They would not just go and start a war.
No, but they would be threatening one, if only implicitly.
> This is what I mean by the world being different now where most regular citizens aren't scared of being jailed in a foreign country.
Lots of them, I would bet, are, they just choose not to travel to the countries they are afraid of being jailed in.
I've said before in other comments that this wouldn't just take over from your geographical citizenship, but would be a sort-of competition to it. Competition benefits the consumers, because both sides try to create a better value proposition. Right now there is no competition to your governance other than potentially voting for someone else or moving. If we created a global body that isn't just some black-box bureaucratic system, but a 100% open, transparent, run by the citizens system, that could help put some real pressure on international politics.
Here's just a few Wikipedia links that connect to everything I've written in my comments so far. There's more than these, but I'm still working through them:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_citizenship
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_mundialization
Maybe you could illustrate this idea with a few fictional scenarios. For example, let's say Citizens A and B are a law-abiding family in Germany, and the government there has just seized their children because they're Christian and they homeschool. Clear violation of the UN declaration of human rights. What does your online government do to help these citizens?
I've revised the term to not mean "government", that's just what term I first used. Think more of like a world citizenship, or NGO, or union fighting for collective rights.
Los Zetas, and the Mafia see things differently...