@Dirk Baeyens so your idea is to not have money per se, but instead have credits?  Do I understand that right?

Designing new kinds of government will waste lot of resources and time, also since we can't borrow experience from past government of other country. When the system goes wrong, we don't know how to fix it. We can only try some policy which we have no idea will it works, which is not a good way for nation to work. 

Although I do agree using existing structure and add some innovation on it, it will create a unique government and we have past experience to rely on.

@ Kennetchau

Where do you get the idea that you cannot borrow from past governments?

And the only resources it will "waste" are the cognitive resources that reside in your head.  That's what planning is all about.  You create mental models of the situation before you invest actual physical resources is the real product.

@ Yovy

Maybe I didn't read the post right. From what I read, this post is suggesting to have a totally brand new form of government, a brand new form of government means it does not base on any existing form of government right? If it's not base on any existing government, there will be problems that didn't happen before. How can you borrow experience from something that never occur.

Also, not just cognitive resources will be waste. Resource will be wasted to find a new solution for a new problem, if the solution did not work. We need to use more resource to find another solution. You have argue that planning and creating models will help dealing with the problem. That's not true, even if you develop tons of model there'll still be situation that you can't cover. For example, Marz communism. A ideal society that everyone share the same portion of resources, work the same amount of time. Receive same amount of education. If the leaders didn't do their job, the people could vote them down. But at the end what history tell us. People will be lazy and not willing to do their work and the leaders turns to dictatorship. What I'm trying to say here is that you could never model every situation, developing a new kinds of government is not worth it and face a lot of different kinds of obstacles. Yeah sure, given time we can get through it but why are we dragging ourselves down the rabbit hole if we have something that's working that we can use it as a blueprint. We could have former experience that we can used to prevent mistakes, and the probability that we will get situation that we've not seen is lower. Why waste time building an entire new model, an entire new system? it's not like its not working

But if I read this wrong, what you mean by designing an innovative form of government is based on existing system. I apologize, otherwise I really don't see the point of creating a new system which full of uncertainties.

Maybe I didn't read the post right. From what I read, this post is suggesting to have a totally brand new form of government, a brand new form of government means it does not base on any existing form of government right?

No.  You most definitely read wrong.  The idea is to study what has worked before and why and then to study what hasn't worked and why.  I shouldn't have to say it, but it implies that you have to look at forms of governments already in existence or that have existed and, from the information you gather, start a design process of something new that will integrate the things that worked in the past, like direct democracy for example, and replace the things that didn't work in the past, like giving government responsibility to citizens -- like @bigred explained.

This is how Elon Musk has been able to redesign the space industry singlehandedly.  He didn't invent new physics, he merely looked at what works already and what doesn't work and said, "well, let's change that bit with something that will do what I want and let's see how it goes."

That's what planning means.  You plan on paper first.  Just like when you plan your groceries you write them down to know how much they are going to cost.  You have a plan of what you are going to buy, but you haven't spent any money yet because you haven't actually bought the groceries.  All you have are ideas on paper.  And since you are a good planner, you know very well what your basket of groceries will look like when you come home.  

If you don't find what you are looking for, you either replace it for a suitable substitute or you don't substitute it at all and just wait a bit longer until you can fulfill your planned grocery list.

Firstly, remember we are not talking about a huge country of millions with an already entrenched way of thinking. We are talking about a very small group of people who are bound by a common goal and are in common hostile political and environmental situations.  These people would already be striving for something new and would be more willing to accept something that directly involved them.

@yovy - OK, so instead of "positions of power" we have "positions of responsibility," right?

that is the basic idea.

In all current political systems people lobby for popularity based on various factors. People with bigger finances can also lobby for privilege due to financial status.  This causes a temptation for corruption and usurpation of the role itself and the process for getting into the position.  I proposed that we find a way to put the focus on the job that needs to be done and remove these temptations in some manner.

You say that "Second I think that positions must be selected at random from the entire citizen population." Why is this a better solution than actually selecting representatives democratically and having a body of people to govern for us?

Let's face it, most people want to be president so they can rule others. Not so they can enact things that the citizens of that country want.  The democratic representation system is extremely non-representative of the populace because it is a race for power and privilege that can be manipulated by the already powerful and those with money. Very rarely does the populace get any say and even when they do it is limited in value and scope.  I am not just talking about what people love to term democracy in this statement. The Chinese communist system also has representative elections. The elections are limited to party members (not just officials - members), however the policy is that the representative must actually represent the peoples of the region they are elected by the party to represent. Of course that rarely works either.

If the focus is on simply having a responsibility to continue jobs, projects, reporting etc that are necessary to keep the nation afloat and no preference is given to who is doing those jobs, then the privileges and power we currently associate with those jobs disappear. No matter how many platitudes or hands on heart and tears come out of politicians, this attitude of service cannot be present in the race for popularity, privilege and power that is the legacy of our current political systems. Perhaps people wouldn't want to do those jobs if no power was associated with the position. However those jobs need to be done or the society will disappear.

I also think some form of direct democracy for decisions that affect the nations direction, status, infrastructure , finances etc should be instigated. This means that the populace is directly involved in the daily direction of their lives. This builds the feeling of participation and involvement and control over one's destiny is a powerful motivator towards bettering whatever a person is involved in.

@Kennetchau - which uncertainties of the current systems are you willing to accept or change?

Besides the obvious that @yovy pointed out, why are you of the opinion that trying something new in a small controlled environment is a waste of time.  I may misunderstand you, however there is nothing to say that in a new situation you can't utilise the things that work in any other situation. So far our political history has not been so good and the current systems are definitely not working in their current forms. So why not indulge our thought processes and find something interesting and new :-)

@DirkBaeyens - I agree why not try something which is a motivator which does not build divisions in society such as finances seems to.

Why not actually believe and put in place that the state can provide all essentials equally to everyone because the people are the state and they produced it together. That's a bit of socialist dogma that could possibly work in an environment that was an enclosed system, as any space habitation would be. It would only be effective if there actually were no privileges based on political, financial or any other divisions.  This would not of course work in the current situation for Asgardia (all citizens spread all over the earth in differing political and financial situations), however in some space habitation environment the state has to own the living environment anyway. So why not try.

That cannot of course preclude people working hard at whatever they want to gain financial success. That is the fine line that has to be walked in the scenario you suggest. Usually when trying to implement this scenario, people tend to go to the extremes of either socialism or the crazy non-representative politics we see in what is called democracy today.

@dirkbaeyens - I understand the intent and the wealth of meaning behind your words however there are practicalities dictated by our, sometimes, unfortunate human nature.

For instance people seem to be generally motivated by the opportunity to better their circumstances. This in itself is not a bad thing however, when left unchecked stepping on others to better ourselves seems to over-rule the idea of helping others to also better themselves. For some reason we forget that if a whole society is lifted together then our situation also becomes better.

So while I agree with the ideal of your idea, we need to find a way to implement that idea in a manner that keeps the "dark side" at bay, without removing the motivation to continue to better the societal situation.

I think your point about living in a small, possibly enclosed system is probably the key to any new forms of structure working.  Here on earth there are too many  entrenched problems with current societal structures and too many people are convinced, with blind faith, they can just tweak those structures and all will be well in the world. However in a group possibly living in an enclosed environment outside of earth, the hostile environmental situation will dictate that the attitude be one of co-operation for survival. And as I mentioned previously the organisation/nation/state would have to own any constructed environment anyway so personal real estate and many other personally gratifying concepts become nonsensical terms. Ability to work together to survive becomes the driving motivator. From that perspective yes, you are correct, it would be ridiculous to strive to get more "brownie points" of anything (including money) to use as some lever up to the "heights of power".

@Dirk - so given your approach of an ideal team environment what do you think of a system where everyone has opportunity to participate in all aspects of the essential jobs for the society (regardless of government position or janitor) and everyone is given a chance to do those jobs by some random selection instead of political lobbying for popularity.  Possibly each position could be for a fixed period (obviously the period would have to depend on the position - 4 years as a janitor is not the same as 4 years as an orbital physicist, and would impeded the growth of individuals who had the physics skills, thus reducing the efficacy of the society) Granted everyone must be encouraged to build their own life and "career" and free time.

Bear in mind that regardless of Asgardia being as it is now (a group of people spread across the globe in differing political situations), where it could be in a year or two (a nation without territory and citizens spread across the globe living in differing political situations), where it could be in 10-20 years (a nation with an habitable platform in space with a few people living on that - perhaps the governing body and the rest in the previous situation) or where it could be in 100 years (a fully functioning society in space), The society will be markedly different to life as we know it on earth now.  The state must by any stretch of the imagination pay for, construct, launch and own the political and physical platforms of that society.

@Dirk - so given your approach of an ideal team environment what do you think of a system where everyone has opportunity to participate in all aspects of the essential jobs for the society (regardless of government position or janitor) and everyone is given a chance to do those jobs by some random selection instead of political lobbying for popularity.  Possibly each position could be for a fixed period (obviously the period would have to depend on the position - 4 years as a janitor is not the same as 4 years as an orbital physicist, and would impeded the growth of individuals who had the physics skills, thus reducing the efficacy of the society) Granted everyone must be encouraged to build their own life and "career" and free time.

Bear in mind that regardless of Asgardia being as it is now (a group of people spread across the globe in differing political situations), where it could be in a year or two (a nation without territory and citizens spread across the globe living in differing political situations), where it could be in 10-20 years (a nation with an habitable platform in space with a few people living on that - perhaps the governing body and the rest in the previous situation) or where it could be in 100 years (a fully functioning society in space), The society will be markedly different to life as we know it on earth now.  The state must by any stretch of the imagination pay for, construct, launch and own the political and physical platforms of that society.

I am actually not in favor of democracies as a pure form of government. I once read a quote from a comic that, when carefully considered, rings true and a bit insulting: "Democracy is not the will of the people. It is the will of the few who can manipulate the majority of the simple minded." Because of this, democracies will always suffer from the albatross of the charismatic elite: they who can convince others they are right through charisma will get what they want.

I don't really see a reasonable way to get around this. Even in the event that you are able to remove the charismatic words of the proponents of a given action (careful editing), and where a given law, bill, or idea originates (anonymous sponsoring of legislation), it is not possible to remove charisma from the equation without also restricting free speech. Charming proponents of a given law, bill or idea will speak vocally in favor of their desires and will be able to sway more undecideds to their side than a less charismatic individual.

NEO

Well, I give a lot of credit to @bigred's idea.  I think that a way to eliminate corruption (the biggest fault of governments that don't work) is to make people, as a whole, part of the government.  

So far, this is the best model I can think of. 

Historically speaking, a mixture of various forms is the closest that comes to working.  And even that doesn't entirely work.

So I’ve been reading a lot of your suggestions, cherry picking ideas and editing them where I think is necessary.

I think the next step is to draft up a few different structures and start collaborating to improve it.  So based on this thread, a few ideas of my own and a few points from a thread about ethics, here is the rough template I have.  I think we should develop a few templates and start expanding on them, and start talking about what may or may not work – even if it’s through prediction or hypothesis, not practice.  Remember – context is important, and what works in one system may not work in another system due to variations in neighbouring components.  The same could be said vice versa for things that didn’t work in other systems, so let’s open our minds and start making predictions about the cause and effect relationship between each feature or group of features.

The system I propose below could be highly viable but will probably rely on big data and machine learning algorithms to implement effectively, which means it’s probably not completely viable from the outset, but could be something the nation works towards over a half decade as citizen data is collected.  I think at least originally, we would have to open up with positions of power in something akin to a democracy.

Firstly, we want the general public to be more involved in the government.  This requires motivation, which myself and other forum members agree is increased by the fact you feel you are making a difference.For this reason, the civilians should have the opportunity to vote on all issues.  This will help reduce corruption, and it will also increase opinion diversity in the event our system allows free submission of solutions.  A larger pool of solutions means a better chance at choosing a good one.  We also want to be able to address multitudes of decisions faster where possible

 I propose a systematic presentation of issues to the public of Asgardia.  Initially we start out with elected representatives who have the job of providing solutions to problems.  In order to decide on problems to work on, any Asgardian can submit a “problem”.Each Asgardian has 5 points that they can allocate to different problems – or even allocate multiple points to one problem.  There will be a publicly displayed list of problems that will be ranked, whilst also constantly refined to avoid duplicated submissions.  Issues will be prioritised by elected officials based on their severity ranking in the publics opinion.

Initially, the elected council will discuss these issues – all discussions will be viewable by Asgardians live, and a solution is built.  During this discussion, civilians can submit opinions, discussion points, and tweaks to the solution.  There will be analysts trawling through submissions and will bring public opinions or ideas to light as the Asgardian council builds the solution – a solution ever Asgardian can contribute to.

All data sent through will be recorded and displayed anonymously to all Asgardians, who can vote an idea up and down to increase the speed in which it becomes read by the analysts.Those who present ideas or statements that are discussed will gain a background approval rating.  After this discussion, this data will still be available and time stamped to be compared with the discussion. This is so all data can essentially be used to adjust someone’s approval rating if they suggested an idea that was spoken of, but because it was suggested by someone else.These approval ratings will later be used to improve the rate at which ones ideas are seen, as well as the rate in which people are selected for certain discussion based roles in the government.

So we have a solution built and for and against arguments for it.  At this point, a team of six charismatic debaters will be chosen to discuss the issue.  Whilst someone mentioned earlier in the thread that Charisma lends unfair sway, it’s also important for keeping the public interested, so it will be something we try to balance for either side.  There will then be a live debate on the issue, in which 3 people speak for, 3 against, 10 minutes of discussion each, then an hour of public questions asked by audience members and also posted electronically.  These questions will also be examined and picked out by analysts, aiming for questions that will be the most informative and provoke the most discussion.

The next step would be to build a finalised for and against a solution document in summary.  This information is shared with Asgardians, with the option to expand out each dot point for deeper explanations, or to simply read the summary.  A voting poll opens up for approx. 24 hours, whereby a citizen can choose to, or choose not to vote.

Voting for a bill that passes will raise a users approval rating, increasing the likelihood they will be requested for government tasks.

For at least a good 5 years, this system will rely on a group of 30-100 elected council members to steer the operation while the technology is implemented and data is collected.  In that time, a discussion will be kept rolling on ideas to add or remove from the governmental system, that will run a similar public popularity process, including sudden removal of elected members if disapproval ratings are high.  This way we remain flexible if things aren’t working – the failsafe of changing where necessary on the fly.

Through using algorithms and anonymised data, we should be able to create a system that can’t be abused.  Because any decision (though probably not all) can be made by the public, it means that no matter who is in office, the people still have the power. 

I would also suggest that there remain a group of elected officials that hold the main discussions, essentially your politicians, but rather than be based on a term, be based on an approval rating.  If people find them an obstructive politician or dislike their policy, the approval rating drops.  If it remains lower than, say 40% for 2 months, 30% for 1 month, 20% for 2 weeks, or 10% for a week, the elected official can be removed from office as soon as a replacement is found.

As for voting in officials after the first 5 years, the approval rating of each citizen should determine their eligibility for office.  All data sources collected can create a rough picture of who could be selected as officials of the Asgardian council, which will remain as 30 versatile debaters/politicians.  Each ministry will also have a leader on the council.

Each 3 years elections are held, where 1000 Asgardians will be invited to be on the council.  The ones who accept the opportunity to run for office will be trimmed until there are 100 candidates willing to run.  Each candidate will have to present a 10 minute speech describing themselves and why they would be good for office.  These speeches become publicly available for 3-6 months.  Asgardians can watch these speeches and see a rough algorithm built profile for the user – like a stats sheet based on their values, derived from data on the particular Asgardian.  Each election round, the council members with the top 5 approval rating averages tracked over time will have the option to remain another term.  Whilst this lends to the idea of career politicians, it is likely only the exceptionally moral and constructive politicians will remain in place for any length of time.

All of this relies on a large enough portion of the population being willing to provide their data to be analysed.  Personally I think it is important that we collect a lot of big data on Asgardians, if they agree to have their data funnelled through the algorithms.  This will allow for a lot of improvements later on with the rise of AI, which is necessary to run any sort of government with more power to the people than electing representatives on a party vs party basis like current democracy.

So it’s a bit messy but it’s a rough start to the type of innovative system we could build.  If anyone feels like cleaning this description up so it’s easier to read/easier to pick apart and judge, I’d appreciate it.

Hi Everyone,

I invite you to focus on Chapter 8 of the new proposed Constitution rewrite.
(redacted)

It's based heavily upon the English Asgardia website version posted 2017 May 19. I've updated it based on my critique and community comments from the Constitution thread.