Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sovereign Software: peer to peer democracy

sovereign.software

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: Sovereign Software: peer to peer democracy

#21

Post by dj-wonk »

At many levels, we would benefit from better decision-making tools. This includes voting tools with various ballot options and good accountability.

Better tooling and awareness around collective decision making is valuable for groups at many levels. Such tooling and awareness does not have to be linked with large changes to country- or world-level governance. It can start with replacing an unstructured Slack discussion with a lightly structured collective deliberation tool, for example.

Political change is hard. I support people who want to better their situation through political means. At the same time, I advocate for better collective user experience design, so I want to see small victories around social and deliberative technology.

Re: Sovereign Software: peer to peer democracy

#22

Post by rabbyte »

vinceguidry wrote: post #15

The main problem to solve here is legitimacy . It does no good to have a government if nobody thinks it's legitimate. This is why democracy is so hard to implement and protect. At the heart of it, democracy should be simple. You get people to vote on rules, and then whatever gets the most votes, everybody agrees to follow the group decision. But that all gets turned on its head once somebody doesn't want to play ball…

I agree with everything except that first point because legitimacy isn't the problem worth solving. Striking the right balance in governing tools and keeping interdependent systems interoperable as they mature are problems worth solving which this works toward. Arguing on grounds of legitimacy would have failed to see Wikipedia as a citable source or Facebook as an election debate host 15 years ago. So the time from no credibility to global legitimacy is at least faster than a generation can reach the age to vote.

edit- Also, keep in mind there are billions of new humans coming behind you that have no deep feelings about any of the things you think about. Good or bad. They hold none of the complexity of this world in their minds that you use to navigate now with minimal effort ("How does a bill become a law?"). Some revolutions are born from the generations that see leap frogging as an easier and better way forward than repairing the old model built for a world that doesn't exist anymore.

Re: Sovereign Software: peer to peer democracy

#24

Post by dj-wonk »

dj-wonk wrote: post #21

At many levels, we would benefit from better decision-making tools. This includes voting tools with various ballot options and good accountability. Better tooling and awareness around collective decision making is valuable for groups at many levels. Such tooling and awareness does not have to be linked with large changes to country- or world-level governance. It can start with replacing an unstructured Slack discussi…

Do you have favorite tools and algorithms for collaborative decision making and/or voting? Please share.

Also, I would appreciate responses and feedback on an old post of mine titled "Better Online Voting": http://djwonk.tumblr.com/post/42305919307/better-online-voti...

Some areas I've followed include... papers about blockchain technology applied to voting... cryptographic consensus algorithms... I'd like to see what else people recommend. Thanks.

Re: Sovereign Software: peer to peer democracy

#25

Post by icanhackit »

jdormit wrote: post #10

Is there a reason that almost every blog post/platform/organization I've seen that involves some sort of block chain tech invariably starts spouting hyperbolic, overblown rhetoric about overthrowing the social order? Block chains are a really promising technology, but these types of manifestos really hurt the community's credibility.

> Block chains are a really promising technology, but these types of manifestos really hurt the community's credibility.

True, but I wouldn't be surprised if the early days of the printing press saw more pages of crudely drawn penises sporting moustaches and bowler hats than actual manifestos, so we're possibly making progress.

Re: Sovereign Software: peer to peer democracy

#26

Post by csuwldcat »

edblarney wrote: post #18

"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I decl…

I'll describe democracy, and you tell me how comical it sounds:

"A group of people, within a geographic region marked by invisible lines drawn by human aggression, all gather once every 2nd rotation of the Earth around the Sun to put papers in a magic box. The people believe once an arbitrarily large number of papers are put into the box, it grants the owners of those papers the right to force their will and ideas on others within the invisible lines. The box does amazing things, for instance: the very minute before all the papers are counted, it could be immoral theft to take something from others without their explicit, individual permission, but just after counting the papers, magically, if by some form of mobtastic incantation, it becomes 'legal' and totally accessible to take that thing from others via harm and violence."

Holy shit folks, if you don't find that to be magical comedy gold, I don't know what is. It's like a bad M. Night Shyamalan script, except humans actually do it.

Re: Sovereign Software: peer to peer democracy

#27

Post by edblarney »

csuwldcat wrote: post #26
edblarney wrote: post #18

"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I decl…

I'll describe democracy, and you tell me how comical it sounds: "A group of people, within a geographic region marked by invisible lines drawn by human aggression, all gather once every 2nd rotation of the Earth around the Sun to put papers in a magic box. The people believe once an arbitrarily large number of papers are put into the box, it grants the owners of those papers the right to force their will and ideas on…

Your definition of democracy is ridiculous and none of it is relevant.

Whoever wrote this manifesto is both naive and arrogant: he doesn't speak for anyone but himself, ergo, it's just a 'youtube comment rant'.

It's funny unless you take it seriously, in which case it's maddening.

Most people in the world actually work for 'governments and semi-large to large corporations' and are fine with it. In the real world those are 'communities and groups working together to 'make stuff and services' and to create positive outcomes'.

The childish ranters can go off to an island and create their IP-free and 'big company-free' utopia if they want. Good luck with it.

Re: Sovereign Software: peer to peer democracy

#28

Post by vinceguidry »

rabbyte wrote: post #22
vinceguidry wrote: post #15

The main problem to solve here is legitimacy . It does no good to have a government if nobody thinks it's legitimate. This is why democracy is so hard to implement and protect. At the heart of it, democracy should be simple. You get people to vote on rules, and then whatever gets the most votes, everybody agrees to follow the group decision. But that all gets turned on its head once somebody doesn't want to play ball…

I agree with everything except that first point because legitimacy isn't the problem worth solving. Striking the right balance in governing tools and keeping interdependent systems interoperable as they mature are problems worth solving which this works toward. Arguing on grounds of legitimacy would have failed to see Wikipedia as a citable source or Facebook as an election debate host 15 years ago. So the time from…

Wikipedia has its legitimacy problems like any other political entity. It's legitimate as an informational resource mostly for lack of real alternatives. It fills a need that no other resource does.

And political evolution is not political revolution. Sure, the 100th generation after ours won't care how a bill becomes a law, but that doesn't mean the underlying political truths are going to become obsolete.

Revolutions don't really change anything, they just shuffle things around on the surface. Things might evolve after the revolution, but it's by no means sure.

Re: Sovereign Software: peer to peer democracy

#29

Post by rebuilder »

edblarney wrote: post #14
jdormit wrote: post #10

Is there a reason that almost every blog post/platform/organization I've seen that involves some sort of block chain tech invariably starts spouting hyperbolic, overblown rhetoric about overthrowing the social order? Block chains are a really promising technology, but these types of manifestos really hurt the community's credibility.

"starts spouting hyperbolic, overblown rhetoric about overthrowing the social order" Because bitcoin is attractive to antagonists. Just take it all with a grain of salt. The 'Articles' of the statement I think are also objective - they're making what they think is a 'politically neutral, all inclusive' statement, when really they're not - their pushing a specific kind of ideal. I think that technology can enable demo…

The articles are from the UN declaration of human rights. I don't know whether they only selected a few for brevity or because they didn't agree with all of them.

Re: Sovereign Software: peer to peer democracy

#30

Post by inimino »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #12
jdormit wrote: post #10

Is there a reason that almost every blog post/platform/organization I've seen that involves some sort of block chain tech invariably starts spouting hyperbolic, overblown rhetoric about overthrowing the social order? Block chains are a really promising technology, but these types of manifestos really hurt the community's credibility.

Many people get excited and interested in blockchains because they want to radically alter the existing social order and they see blockchains as the most effective path to bring this about. Thus, when these people make progress they cast it in those terms (radical social change). This becomes a feedback loop which attracts more radicals to the blockchain space and also amplifies the current radicals belief that they…

Irrational optimism is a positive effect?
Post reply on HN