what do you guys think of replacing government with an online service?

[BarryDonegan]

Choose your services and pay, constitutionality algorithm autorejects unconstitutional bills, and a digg style functionality brings forward bills. Add a human check and balance system of some sort.

What do you think? Should this be built?

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Sounds good to me. Only catch is, someone has to develop and program such a system, and also maintain it.

 

[Wesker1982]

 

[Pistis]

^
Lol

 

[eduardo89]

 

[Fredom101]

Why don't we just skip right to voluntarism? Same thing without the central planning.

 

[Carehn]

What services could this provide me with that the market could not do better?

I don't understand how an online vote is going to improve a dollar vote. Please explain why i need this.

 

[Lucille]

Did you read Martin Armstrong's latest?

Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Replace Government?

Computers would eliminate that taint and the government can’t bring bullshit cases to further political careers of prosecutors or refuse to bring cases against the Oligarchy. The Judiciary could easily follow a rule based program reducing it to very plain black and white decision. Any question can be as a matter of law decided by an unbiased computer – even abortion. That would restore the check against Congress and all the political shenanigans.
[...]
Replacing the Judiciary with an unbiased computer that has no DISCRETION, would be the first step in creating a new world. Then require ALL legislation to pass the test BEFORE it is enforced. Eliminate lifetime political jobs with term limits 1 time only. Ultimately, this will restore a great deal of what has been lost over the decades. We have to start planning how to reboot the system when it crashes and burns on the next cycle. Marx did more to screw things up than anyone in history. He told the politicians they could rule the world. And they listened because it placed the power in their hands. He didn’t know what he really did! No other person in history has cost so many lives and stole our future than Marx.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Imagine a computer trying to comprehend "right to bear arms"

 

[OrigSEOH]

I've been doing some flowcharting on this to try and break down the logic to it all. We have the operating system available to us to make this our own creation, for the people, by the people.

"Revolution OS"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409#

 

[jmdrake]

I've been doing some flowcharting on this to try and break down the logic to it all. We have the operating system available to us to make this our own creation, for the people, by the people.

"Revolution OS"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409#

Great video! To the OP, good premise (online government) bad structure (computer making decisions). The real question should be what do we want to accomplish ultimately? If what we want to do is to have a structure to help voluntarily do many of the things currently done by government force, then to a certain extent "constitutionality" is irrelevant. The constitution exists to constrain the government. But what (some) of us want to do is to work around the government. For example, back in 2007/2008 someone came up with the idea of using the "ChipIn" structure to fund what government traditionally does. I like that idea. Imagine if the liberty movement worked like that? For example, if the liberty movement used "ChipIns" to help communities that still had volunteer fire departments. We've already discussed having a "liberty legal defense fund" that could help people in or out of the liberty movement who are being destroyed by state abuse like the dad who might lose his kids over a bicycle ticket. (See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...lose-custody-to-the-state-over-traffic-ticket) Whenever we talk about reducing government, we get hit with "What about X/Y/Z society need"? Say if we had a system where people could directly and transparently fund needs? Current charities like the Red Cross are too 20th (or even 19th) century to be effective. People donate money to some black hole that has no accountability. 21st century charities should let people immediately see the results of their largess. Think the http://kiva.org model. (By the way, we should have a Ron Paul/Libertarian group at Kiva. There is an Obama group. And for those that don't know, Kiva is an online charity site designed around microlending to entrepranuers in developing countries as well as now in the U.S. This model taken to the logical conclusion could do away with the need for banks). Maybe we could fund "liberty" scholarships. This is really a limitless concept.

 

[pcosmar]

Naw, how about de-funding Government to the point that it operates on revenue collected in a tip jar, and government "services" are non existent.
And the township halls become the centers of government.

 

[limequat]

Government by subscription. Opt-in, pay your annual subscription, get services defined in charter. Imagine a newstand, but instead of magazines you have governments. Want An-Cap? Buy a year. Want Socialism, buy a year. Want nothing? Buy a coffee.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Not a good idea ... would be too vulnerable to sabotage, hacking, things like that. It's intriguing, though. If I could opt out, though, that would be even better.

 

[Philhelm]

Imagine a computer trying to comprehend "right to bear arms"

That's not fair. I think a computer would do a much better job than the SCROTUS.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Imagine a computer trying to comprehend "right to bear arms"

Watson might b e able to guess at the correct "meaning", but, fundamentally, I don't think computers will ever "understand" in the same light/concept as people do.

Either way, it sounds like an interesting idea, but, as another poster said...if you're just going to do this,why not move straight to Voluntarism?

 

[lonelyp]

I don't think computers are ever going to be good enough to do it. Because any and all issues would have to be TO black and white, yes or no.
BUT, I don't see any reason we couldn't have a website in which BILLS, or ISSUES are put up in full, and voted on. Like forinstance the healthcare reform bill. One side SAYS the country is overwellmingly FOR it. The other side SAYS, OH no the country is overwellmingly AGAINST it. So why can't we have a single place where we can read the bill, have links to research from both points of view, and VOTE as if on the ballot. We may need to add a thumbprint reader to keyboards, to keep it one person one vote, but that would be easy enough. If a vote comes out very close, it needs to go back for revision, but if the vote IS totally one way, thats that. If you just don't want to vote on any issue, don't buy a new keyboard. This could help stop the tacking on of pork barrel add on BS that turns what should be a simple logical bill into 2,000 + pages of BS.

 

[Romulus]

Imagine a computer trying to comprehend "right to bear arms"

Thats some funny chit right there..lol

 

[libertybrewcity]

As long as they link to RonPaulForums.com

 

[Aratus]

didn't sen. mike gravel toy with going internet with uncle sam
and stripping congress of several legislative delegated powers?