Comment by starshadowx2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by starshadowx2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I agree about the existing governments point. That's pretty much the major antagonist issue to all of this. I've considered that the only way to beat that would be to simply be better. With enough "citizens"/supporters I'm wondering what the established governments could do other than using armed force, which would look very bad and may even have the opposite effect from what they want. This of course still needs more brainstorming which is the point of this post.

"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.

When you talk about services offered for a fee, okay, but how would you offer "protections"? What if one of your citizens is physically located in Europe, for example, and the local warlord tries to interfere with his right to free speech, or his right to bear arms? Will you draft an army and bust him out of prison?

What if he missed his "subscription" payment the previous month? Does he lose his fundamental human rights until he's paid up?

I was thinking more of just international lobbying, even though that sorta sucks and doesn't work (ex. Syria). We would hopefully be able to use the ICC and international law to help our rightful citizens.

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.

You ought to know that it's pretty radical to think of "government" as an entity that spends your money for you. Before the 1900s it was hardly imagined, and I think the jury is still out on whether it's an effective model.

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'm not American, so I actually don't know the DoI very well.

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.

Sure, but you obviously can't "protect your rights and freedoms" without armed forces, police, and prisons. A "legal system" with no power to enforce its laws and judgments is useless.

All you are left with is an organization that collects money from its citizens and then spends it for them.

Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to get me free. They would not just go and start a war. 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.

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."

> Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to get me free.

"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.

But there are no "international legal means" without the ability to threaten consequences. "International legal means" more or less just means your ambassador asks the foreign country nicely to release you. That's why every version of a "world court" is a joke; nations voluntarily decide if they want to pay attention to its judgments. If your nation has no ability to threaten consequences, I guess the only thing you could do is offer bribes. You might be able to bribe some corrupt banana republics to give your members immunity to their laws, but are you really going to bribe the UK to allow your members to bear arms, or bribe Canada to allow your members the freedom of speech?

I really don't see where bribes come into this.

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

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_globalization

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_citizens_movement

But how would you apply "pressure"? It keeps coming back to this. If it's not by using force, and not by throwing money around, then I can't see what it would be.

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?

You're still not reading my comments, try reading the other ones in this post as well. If something like your example happened what would a regular government do? I've said before this isn't a replacement for your geographical/local government (at least not for a while).

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.

In real life, the "regular government" is Germany itself, so, there's no conflict. The victim has no recourse except to try to get his family out of the country and seek asylum. (This is really happening to Christians in Germany, by the way, I didn't make it up.) I'm just asking for what sort of thing you envision a digital citizenship/NGO/union would do. Hold a protest? Threaten a strike? And how do you enforce solidarity among the ranks if a lot of your German members share the government's attitude about Christians, for example?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com