My country is at the moment on the verge of a new Mexican revolution. Energy oil revolution because of political parties. As I said in my previous post. We need that political parties do not exist in asgardia. :( Mexicans are about to go to war against our own government. Enter facebook "javuvajlavaj" and learn everything as is. This page is in Spanish. I hope that this terrible event gives us an idea of ​​what the political parties are capable of. I am disengaged from my country. :(

Regarding this question I have to say that it is much too early to decide on what type of government to base a constitution off of. This is because we have not yet come to an agreement on what exactly it is that we want our constitution to accomplish. Every type of government has it's pros and cons from a direct democracy to an authoritarian dictatorship. We can dance around all day offering new solutions and advocating traditional ideas but we will not have any way to compare anything beyond each of our own personal viewpoint.

One person might value security above all else, another unity, another freedom. Each of these people would have a different ideal government. They would never be able to work together well at this level because they would all be going towards different goals. Yet, unless they discussed this and realized the different directions they each pulled, they might each reject an ideal compromise looking for something better. At the end of the day, the government might have the freedom of a libertarian dream, but only one of the three will be happy.

I personally am essentially a classical liberal. My views come from founding USA values. This means that I would be perfectly happy with a simple constitutional republic that eases into federalism as it grows. However, if I argue for that and another persona argues for a technocracy, then unless we find a compromise of ideals, our two systems will engage in popularity contest. We must discuss and find compromise with our fundamental ideologies. Only then will we be able to work together on a system of government.

I see that there are many and varied positions on what should be selected as the type of government

you can see whymaps videos (why elections, why demmocracy) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyoAJbq6rqi9bgMB0uDQSFg

I find it interesting that no one can be elected or that no one should propose the road map or ministry members. The random selection after filtering the capabilities of the applicant, which can be deposed at any time could be a viable option. But the superstructures of groups also become very bureaucratic in the long term and with more population

The way d participation is the most complicated that can be given. Nobody should be free to participate in making decisions, but it is also extremely difficult to ensure 100% participation of the population in making global decisions all the time. No one has ample time or vast knowledge. But if it is possible to reduce to areas closer to the population: communities, work groups, neighborhoods. But at the same time they allow it to affect global decision making.

Which are the most viable active participation mechanisms. I think some can be found in spaces such as the Linux kernel, Debian project, Bitcoin project, free culture (Wikipedia, CreativeCommons) and occupiers / 15m (15m spain, occupy wallstreet / london, mexican native communities), although they Full permanent participation, members abide by and can state their points for and against, during all processes. Learning to rationalize these types of processes is not easy.

direct digital democracy (for each charge/position) + realtime evaluation (human and artificial intelligence) + realtime learning of sufficiency for positions + communities for planning + random allocation charges and some capacity filters

It is only suggestion

There's road maps proposed. Vague ones maybe, but proposed nonethereless.

The complexity of the supergroup in itself isn't an issue. That can subfracture into various subtopics providing more sane solutions in a shorter time than a smaller structure with the same problem. Being able to nest replies to threads in a tree'd substructure could help organise this visually, but that's abother story.

On the contrary, Everybody should be free in making descisions. All the time. Not everyone has time to involve themselves in every descision, but they have for the ones that matter. At least to them. And everyone is interested in something, the interests diverse enough to cover all fields with the sum total of the parts. The subjects of little to no interest they can take confidence that their peers will address the matter in the most suitable way, but definitely for the ones of greater reach and impact, the collective should be deeply involved at every stage. Few things will require rapid deployment of solutions, in our current form or in the near future, so could afford a reasonable window - for example, 30 days - within which various topics can be disected, solutions proposed, argued for/against, then collectively voted into implimentation... I don't see why people can't be expected to have vast knowledge, if they do not this can be remidied as subjects become applicable. The people with more knowledge than others sharing it.

You provide examples of "viable active participation mechanisms" -=- Linux Kernel, Debian(and other flavours like CentOS, Fedora, SuSe, Arch etc) Bitcoin ... Most open source projects... They all operate in a similar manner, anyone contributing. What is sensible is implimented. The only difference in my proposal is collective consensus of what is sensible. Learning to rationalise these types of approaches is easy - as using them is as instinctive as thinking. Only by making our own descisions can we truely begin to approach social responsibility.

Ministerial posts - which might be "best" served as a "small council of experts" as opposed to an individual - could lend their expertise and guidance in ensuring various problems are suitably addresed whilst fratinising with counterparts of other ministries to ensure things do not pass proposal stage if they represent a conflict of other ministerial activities, ensuring sanity of the overall form despite dispersements. Such structure would allow for individual descisions on a wide range of subjects without requiring fine grain understanding of every variable, the loose concepts and principles typically easily shared, and misconceptions corrected affording someone without any prior knowledge of the subject to rapidly be able to reach an informed decsision, if not allow for productive input. I feel comfortable making a statement like one thing we should all have in common is eagerness to learn new concepts.

i like a lot of what you two are saying but something said sticks out at me: the age vote. opposing that, i suggest a childrens caucus through which minors can participate from their unique and valuable perspectives. and are we still going to marginalize young people with the concept and term 'minor'?

I personally feel "youth" should be encouraged to participate within general affairs - but feel age restrictions on ability to vote to be sensible. It's not unfair to say a lack of experience is likely to lead to unwise descisions - but allowing them input and to generally take part will provide for learning such before the descisive ability granted. Young != stupid, so should any suggestions be valid, they could still influence policies.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the concept of minor, or the term. Absent the previous mentioned experience they naturally lack certain perspectives which will impact their ability to make responsible descisions - therefore a large part of the descision component becomes delegated - commonly to a parent or guardian. Ofc, they are still sentient beings(some at least) and as such should be encouraged wherever possible to take upon themselves as much of this component, and applicable consequences, as is sensible whilst this experience is gained. But this is possibly more a topic of "youth development".

a full discussion would be more appropriate there, but i felt it worth mentioning here. the problem with the term 'minor' is that it trivialises a sentient being (which they ALL are) by referring to them as less-than, inferior, you know: minor. thats how it made me feel as a kid. the concept doesnt have to be done away with completely for exactly the reasons you say, but heavy modification is required. as it stands in the usa children might as well be pets for all the say they have before turning 18, and our chance to address that problem is here and now, is my point.

this is the place for the whether-or-not, the how will be in youth development

For me these are 2 questions: 1) what is the best "select/filter" process that will result in "a subset of the citizens being selected to be delegated certain responsibilities to better serve the nation/space/human kind"; 2) what is the safeguarding mechanism that when 1) did not produce the expected result.

I think 2) is actually easier to answer - democracy should be 2) - that means democracy should be the mechanism that safeguards the whole process - if the other approach somehow produced un-desireable few to run the nation, democracy should be the process to take it down.

Now, go back to answer 1), what is the best way to select "a subset of cititizens who will have more power" - there would be 2 key features we will be looking for: a) capabilities that can run a large organization; b) ethical/trustworthiness that such "subset" will work for the "whole nation" instead of using the capability for themselves.

Many systems are relatively good with a), actually compare to democracy, lots of systems produce better result in a). However, b) has been proven to be a much bigger challenge than a). We might say in the long run, democracy had produced relatively lesser evils.

Now I have to say, the better alternative systems that had better result in b) were much less individualism societies - where "candidates" who are much more attached to a community - either it's the "bloodline family name" (East Asian system), or a more communities based system (smaller Euroapean nations). Because Asgardia will be a completely new nation, the East Asia traditional system would be impossible, so we may need some kind of Community based systems to help us here.

So in short, I would say we have to create a system that combines some of the systems that we know already (somewhat like the "all of above" answer): I) Democracy - for people to select if (stay on course) is still desirable by all - however, "change of course" should be 50% of the population, instead of "50% of people who bothered to vote" II) quasi-technocracy - at community level - people should work up their ranks within communities somewhat like getting promoted in a job by their performance (proven capability) - if someone can manage people they mostly known, then their characters should be recognized and approved by the community they worked their way up. III) "candidates" should be from the "local executives" who have proven character and capabilities. IV) media needs to be completely separate from state, and state should be banned from running, funding media. V) local community which are usually the first to notice things change should be able to initiate impeachment that will trigger a democracy process to take down some officials.

For me, there's only one question.

After repeatedly demonstrating nation and population crippling flaws, why would you possibly consider any system currently deployed on Earth?

It stands to reason that the inevitable outcome is the same fallicies, the same problems, the same situations caused.

 We might say in the long run, democracy had produced relatively lesser evils.

So, which is "more evil" ? The man who tells the slaves to get to work, or the man who tells the slaves they are free, now get work - then charges them for the privilige?

The simplest way to mitigate ethical/trustworthiness concerns in "cititizens who will have more power" is actually the same as the easiest way to prevent individuals "using the capability for themselves".

Don't afford them "more power".

By retaining the decision capability to the individuals it's remarkably difficult for any single individual to be able to act in an unethical manner on "behalf of the group" as the attempt will be countered by larger numbers of sane folks. Equally, things that will only serve their needs are unlikely to be agreed into action by the larger percentile. Attempts to bribe/coerce/threaten 600,000 geographically disconnected invidiuals would be rapidly rendered cost ineffective/futile. Also, being collectively responsible for the decision it should be impossible to proceed in a direction the group doesn't want to go.

Deleted because of duplication.

EyeR, first of all, I agree that "the less power-centric, the less power can do when it turns evil". So yes, I have been a proponent of "small government", "less power concentration" principle.

However, we also have to admit 2 facts about human nature: 1) there are individual differences -- actually the whole concept of individual freedom is based on the assumption that individuals are different - otherwise (if everyone is exactly the same), there would be a single "best" approach for everyone to live, and inidividual freedom would mean nothing because "the best" is a single instance that universally applicable to everyone. (Now if you don't agree with this principle, it may lead to a much deeper discussion, about human nature, but then, the fact that we would disagree on such fundamental issues about human nature would "prove" that we are indeed different). 2) because of #1), we also know not every individual in a society (or nation) would be capable/interested/moral/trusted to perform every tasks.

Is direct democracy the answer to 2)? first of all, I support direct democracy to a large extent and I do believe democracy will evolve towards direct democracy in most jurisdictions; secondly, I don't think it's the silver bullet that can solve everything. There are some innate issues, for example, to your arguement about it is "cost ineffective" to bribe 600K people, actually it might be easier than you expected.... Someone make Universal Income as a campaign promise, campaign for $50,000/person/year is effectively bribing the citizens. Now this won't work day one because most people would know there was no budget. This will however, become a viable "bribe" once the "initial" portion is passed.

We also know from history - populist are not always best for people - in many cases, people can chose path that were against their best interest - either because of lack of knowledge, interest, information, or simply because we don't understand people enough - that what we think their best interest may actually not be what they wanted most.

So no, I don't consider direct democracy the magic that solves all the problems "simply".

Another area of concern is (due to #1) above), there are going to be cases where you still need concentrated power - whether it is building a large particle collider, or explore the space, they are all well beyond single person's capability, and will need "collaboration" which means using resources that are from many people (mostly through tax $$) to focusing on a few topics. Such projects can't manage itself. You will need a way to allow such concentration of resources to happen, and such resources to be managed. Such things won't magically happen by itself.

That's why despite I agree with you, the power needs to be closely watched, monitored, and restricted, I do not think it is possible, or practical to completely do away with power. Even in Science, there are different oppinions, research direction, what is the "best" area to get the funding? is direct democracy the best way? I'll give you a real world example, deep learning (neural network) was "scientifically discredited" back in the 80s - it nearly lost all funding in most part of the world .... other than in Canada where the Canadian Institute of Advanced Reseach funded such study for over a decade. It turns out that this was the area that is NOW the most hopeful approach of AI. The fact that Canadian government fund went "against" scientfic community consensus was actually saving us all from decades of delays in AI development. Coincidence? Maybe.

The other philosophical argument against "mob rule" had been established by most smartest mind from Socrates down. . .
The main reason that I can't "give up all previous human systems which all failed" was I don't believe our generation is that smart that we can ignore some of the smartest mind in the world, what they have done, tried, proposed, analyzed, and simply come up with something brilliantly flawless without drawbacks of all the systems we tried in previous thousands of years. Yes, if you are talking about python scripts to teach computers to learn, I can do better than even Einstein, but for human which took hundreds of millions of years to evolve, I don't believe I (or anyone I know) can simply disregard what have been tried before us, and invent something suddenly works better against the same human nature that has ruled us all for millenniums.

It's the individual differences that would make the output the "best" descision, it'd weigh into it the sum of everyone's concerns. There certianly is a single best approach for everyone to live - but that can be implimented on an individual scale. Every runway has a best approach, but how to get there, and how to use it is up to the pilot. The act of working as a whole naturally mitigates those few incapable, lacking morals and or no ability to be trusted. The wide range of interests large groups of individuals can cover should provide sufficient overal coverage for every single task required. Some are likely to receive more input than others, certainly, but I don't see it ever finding a topic no-one has any interest in, at all. Should that ever prove to be untrue - aside from the question of why we would be persuing it in the first place - where various components of the task cross to specific areas, people with interest in that area can be leveraged until all areas are covered.

To take the direct democracy model, there would be no "campaigns". Just rational discussion until the solution is to be decided, and then the problem solved... I'd envision something akin to UBI to exist once we're to the state of being able to provide for our population, the infinite resources of space make anything else incredibly unlikely. There is literally more of anything than we know what to do with it. And we'll have to start getting it before we've somewhere to put our population.

For individual projects, certainly it makes sense for a hierarchical structure. This can be potentially defined by the ministry that spawned the project, and thusly defaults back down to the will of the people. There will always be arguments about which direction to be pulling the rope, and eventually we'll have enough rope to pull in every direction - but until then the limited resources use being decided by the majority should serve to provide what most people are happy with - and if it turns out that this wasn't what they wanted to do after all, they do really have their own choices to blame - any socially responsible individual recognises the consequences of their decision, and that not every decision can be the "best", every time. It's all about what you learn from it. And if that learning is shared, then eventually the number of mistakes should be incredibly few.

With regards to "mob rule" - the initial discussion phase may get a little chaotic at times, but I'd not ascribe "mob" to what occurs. The time afforded in the discussion should serve to season opinions. The knowlege and experience shared in that act allowing the output to bear the hallmarks of sanity.

I'm not saying that we should simply ignore everything that already exists - just most of it we really wouldn't want to be implimenting, and the rest we'd only want parts of. I'm not saying this is flawless, either(tho, I will admit, I struggle to find one that cannot be reconciled logically) and will certainly feature it's drawbacks in a few areas - just that it's the most "fair" system I could possibly conceive. And how that is possible is that it doesn't work against human nature. It uses it. It doesn't rule you, you rule it.

I propose Geniocracy: “Government of the people, for the people by the geniuses”. It is a type of government in which the most intelligent people rule and are elected by all the people above average intelligence. In this way the government will be controlled by the people because there would be many levels of control. Intelligent Tests would determine the eligible group and the electorate. Isn’t high intelligence the minimum requirement to ask from the people that will rule a nation? Here is the book Geniocracy in which it is explained deeply: http://videoman1245.free.fr/livres/geniocracy_US.pdf

I think this is an opportunity to show the other nations that this type of government works. As some people have said here, I think we should not repeat the mistakes of Earth governments, but also I think we should take what is good from them. There are lots of Geniuses in the world, not only scientists, but people who are able to resolve problems in an incredible way, those are geniuses, and the people above the average intelligence will be the electorate. Obviously people with legal, psychological, corruption problems, etc. won’t be allowed to be part of the eligible group through a previous examination. Geniocracy is also a kind of Direct Democracy, and many of the ideas proposed in this forum can be compatible with this system and integrated in it. I would like to know your opinions.

Technocracy/Geniocracy mix

Do you hear about "politeia" type of government? That could be a good option for us.