More actions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Main|Ratings system}} |
|||
<math> |
|||
A = {{W_1 \sum R_1} + {W_2 \sum R_2} + {W_3 \sum R_3} + ... \over {W_1 \sum N_1} + {W_2 \sum N_2} + {W_3 \sum N_3} + ...} |
|||
</math> |
|||
The [[ratings system]], implemented over a [[community]], suggests [[direct democracy]] as a natural form of government to complement it. The ratings system is itself a form of voting so it is easy to see how it can be adapted to work as a form of governance. In a sense, it is a form of [["Open source" decision making]]. Although individuals and communities would be free to choose whatever system they want, we propose a type of [[Defining utopia|utopian idealism]] as one aspirational model. |
|||
[[File:Image001.png|thumb|center]]a=b |
|||
Clearly a direct democracy imposes a burden on its citizens to participate in detailed policy decisions, a cognitive load which may well prove to be too much. Needless to say, with a direct democracy, citizens will have the ability to change their method of governance (say to a representative democracy) if this is the case. But many methods to [[Heuristics and policy-making|lessen the cognitive load through heuristics and technology]] will also exist. We posit that with these tools direct democracy, albeit with some caveats, is feasible. |
|||
c=d |
|||
In this vein, these methods may lead to [[technocracy]], a form of government where experts formulate policy for the common good. This is probably inevitable given the complexity of some issues and since the ratings system will be good at selecting those who are best able to work in given policy domains. If citizens assign their ratings weight to them, they will effectively have the power to make policy for the community. But technocracy also implies tools we give ordinary people to increase their participation in government. |
|||
<code lang="python"> |
|||
i = 10 |
|||
We might note that any political system will hopefully be subject to a democratic [[wikipedia:Political philosophy|political philosophy]] that places individual basic liberties and egalitarianism as the highest goal. The [[philosophy of John Rawls]] and his [[Philosophy of John Rawls#The Basic Liberties Principle|basic liberties principle]] is one possibility here. In particular, [[Freedom of speech|freedom of speech]] would hopefully form a cornerstone of the system of liberties within the ratings system. As for the inevitable tension between community and individual liberties we can mitigate this through [[Contract as a method to mitigate the basic liberties imposition|contract]]. Other ideas to facilitate democracy include [[moderation and adherence to norms]] along with [[Optimal income distribution|egalitarian wealth]] and [[Power distribution as a corollary to income distribution|power distributions]]. |
|||
y = 20 |
|||
Political systems give rise to a large number of policy implementation areas. These include [[Economic systems|economic systems]], [[Justice and defense in communities|justice and defense]], etc. Given that we are envisioning a direct democracy, citizens will have to familiarize themselves with various specialty areas. They will be aided in this by various heuristic, multi-criteria decision making, and simulation methods. |
|||
b = i + y |
|||
</code> |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:04, 1 October 2024
Main article: Ratings system
The ratings system, implemented over a community, suggests direct democracy as a natural form of government to complement it. The ratings system is itself a form of voting so it is easy to see how it can be adapted to work as a form of governance. In a sense, it is a form of "Open source" decision making. Although individuals and communities would be free to choose whatever system they want, we propose a type of utopian idealism as one aspirational model.
Clearly a direct democracy imposes a burden on its citizens to participate in detailed policy decisions, a cognitive load which may well prove to be too much. Needless to say, with a direct democracy, citizens will have the ability to change their method of governance (say to a representative democracy) if this is the case. But many methods to lessen the cognitive load through heuristics and technology will also exist. We posit that with these tools direct democracy, albeit with some caveats, is feasible.
In this vein, these methods may lead to technocracy, a form of government where experts formulate policy for the common good. This is probably inevitable given the complexity of some issues and since the ratings system will be good at selecting those who are best able to work in given policy domains. If citizens assign their ratings weight to them, they will effectively have the power to make policy for the community. But technocracy also implies tools we give ordinary people to increase their participation in government.
We might note that any political system will hopefully be subject to a democratic political philosophy that places individual basic liberties and egalitarianism as the highest goal. The philosophy of John Rawls and his basic liberties principle is one possibility here. In particular, freedom of speech would hopefully form a cornerstone of the system of liberties within the ratings system. As for the inevitable tension between community and individual liberties we can mitigate this through contract. Other ideas to facilitate democracy include moderation and adherence to norms along with egalitarian wealth and power distributions.
Political systems give rise to a large number of policy implementation areas. These include economic systems, justice and defense, etc. Given that we are envisioning a direct democracy, citizens will have to familiarize themselves with various specialty areas. They will be aided in this by various heuristic, multi-criteria decision making, and simulation methods.