Member 2664
108 entries

Immortal since Jun 17, 2010
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • BenRayfield’s favorites
    From AsylumSeaker
    Christopher Langan
    From Yissar
    Technology Progress vs....
    From XiXiDu
    The Nature of Self
    From QESelf
    View Point Room Argument...
    From Jorgen
    My Paper on Computer...
    Recently commented on
    From gamma
    Is brain a computer?
    From BenRayfield
    Elections should be done...
    From BenRayfield
    The most dangerous thing...
    From BenRayfield
    Why is there no Content...
    From BenRayfield
    How can a set of computers...
    BenRayfield’s projects

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    Start your own revolution

    Proposal for a multimedia...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    We sovereign intelligent life forms (from now on, called "people") commit to live by the view that there is no higher authority on Earth than majority commitment of the global population, therefore if a majority commits to something then indirectly all others are committed to it too, but indirect commitments do not count votes toward majority until a direct action to commit to it or a direct action to demote the commitment to an indirect commitment. If at any later time, enough commitments are demoted to indirect that a majority no longer directly commits to the thing, all indirect commitments are no commitment at all. If one does not want to commit to something until a global majority also commits to it, add "and this commitment applies only with global majority commitment" (abbreviated "ifglobalmajority") at the end. Our democracy is fluid. It may contain contradictions but they will be solved by common sense over time. Since this new society is based on withdrawable commitments, anyone who wants to split off their own society, which probably means a lower or ended level of interaction with those still committed, may of course withdraw this commitment to global democracy. The freedom to withdraw ensures its total value is always positive, unlike the old governments. This freedom to leave is the reason most will choose to stay. Instead of a hierarchy of countries and states, our democracy allows overlapping democracies simply by committing to more than 1 at a time, but be careful they don't contradict eachother. Let our democracies form around our society, not our society around our democracies. This constitution is intentionally incomplete, providing only the definition of continuous majority voting on top of which a full democracy can be defined by voting on the specifics of how the voting system and other practical things would work, informally at first since thats circular-logic, but then formally its a consistent voting system able to modify itself through majority vote.

    A commitment to vote on that I like best, the core idea of Anonymous written in a more technical and game-theory way, is:
    * We commit to have no person higher than anyone else, not as an employer, king, money lender, or any authority, and to live as equals who maintain society by enforcing the same rules on eachother with the authority of whoever is near you at the time ifglobalmajority.

    This is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract  system that defines how to vote on creating better social-contract systems.

    Examples to vote on using the constitution above...
    * We commit to logical debate instead of violence ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to make sure everyone on the planet has a reasonable standard of living so long as they put in a reasonable effort to improve the world, first by helping those near us and gradually expanding until everyone commits to everyone else this way ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to tell eachother who is and is not obeying any commitment they have made, which may be one of these standard rules or any other agreement they have made ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to not give resources to anyone in violation of their commitments until the problem has been resolved ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to have no system of debt, since that is a way for one person to be above another ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to use the words "money" and "number" interchangibly and to produce such numbers in computers in whatever patterns serve society best ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to have a small set of rules that apply generally instead of many specific rules as existed in the old society ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to leave the debts and obligations of the old society in the past ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to do dangerous things only with the knowledge of many others who, through majority vote, can stop you from doing the dangerous thing. The more dangerous it is, the more people needed to vote. Weapons of mass destruction need at least 1 million people, and if such a thing is built or exists, it must be locked in such a way that half the million must enter an authorization code private to themself for it to work, for example ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to put more effort into finding and solving the causes of problems, like why someone wants to murder, than effort into punishing for those problems ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to enforce punishments only by majority vote of a number of people proportional to the severity of the problem caused ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to keep reliable records of all punishments, votes, dangerous things, and other negative parts of our world, so everyone is accountable ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to extremely redundantly back up everyones files if not yet backed up that much, in at least 10 different time zones, with encryption for those who want privacy for their files, and to provide such backups at any time through an automated system on the internet ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to maintain a global decentralized internet where any bytes in any pattern can be sent between any devices, without any bias or censoring ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to keep all our commitments on the internet for everyone to see and verify against our actions ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to allow others to do anything not denied in their own commitments ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to not force religion or lack of it on anyone, or to force any other ideas except what is committed to by the person to be enforced on them ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit not to let anyone into our society, or only in certain visitor locations, until they commit to all these standard rules ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to tell others things they need to know to satisfy their commitments, if we think they don't already know ifglobalmajority.
    * Add your own... and debate or vote on it...

    One of many possible ways to do it... We can start this like a game. I was thinking of creating a Firefox browser plugin or a new version of Firefox (it's open source) that would simulate a war against the internet infrastructure, replace some words with other words globally on the internet (if viewed in this browser), implement continuous majority voting (which only works between the parts of the simulated internet which have not been destroyed in the simulation, so its very strategic in a chess-like way, limiting our communications with those we're cut off from, until we repair those parts of the simulated internet, while aggressive forces seek to make this harder on us) and the new society I describe here inside the game, have the society work together to keep the simulated internet running and end the war in the most peaceful way possible (escalating conflicts is the way to lose the game), and let that new society and voting system expand from simply a game to a real democracy as people start taking it more seriously than the old governments which are simply forgotten, Gandhi style. Or do you think waving signs at Wall Street is more effective than democracy, real democracy without representatives to get in the way, protected by decentralized encryption like Bitcoin? We don't need more resources or people. We need better ideas. Please redirect protesting efforts into more productive ways to decide what kind of society we want and make it happen emergently like starting in a game that simulates war and democracy and parts of the internet going down.

    All my writing, here or on any other website, permission granted to copy. Please let this constitution flow and evolve until people think about it more than existing governments, and then the old governments are forgotten, and we win without a fight. There is nothing more dangerous to a government than the lack of belief that it has any reality outside of its followers. It takes little more than the majority of followers simultaneous answer to one question, to erase a government into the nothingness from where it came.... The question is, given a better way to organize the world called x... If the majority agreed on x, would you also agree on x? That's what ifglobalmajority is for.

    Before we let this conflict between globalization and decentralization escalate to World War 3, we should try to understand why Gandhi was able to replace a whole government with no violence at all, and the Sun Tzu strategies of how to win without a fight. I choose not to fight our oppressors because theres 7 billion of them. The centralized money systems and hierarchies of politicians do more of the oppression. Some of it is because of greed and hate, but most of it is simply for survival of the only system they understand, and nobody understands enough of the system to do the major redesigning needed to fix it. Instead, I propose that we all start many logical debates and eventually come to a global majority agreement of what kind of social organization we really want. There are no limits to how different it can be since we don't need to continue balancing the junk built up in the old society except a few unavoidable things like how to dispose of or prevent the use of the nuclear weapons. If we agree to have no ownership of land, we don't have to. If we agree that we can walk around naked, that's cool too. If we agree that war should be illegal, we find a way to make it happen. If we agree that nobody should ever be above another, there are consistent ways to do it as game-theory research can explain, informally called "punish the nonpunishers" type of societies. I'm not telling you what kind of society to design, but one thing is clear: If we do it as a sequence of small changes to the existing society, it will continue being so complex that its impossible to even read all the laws in a lifetime. If we want to have a law that says we must have a small number of small and simple laws that apply generally to many things, it is our right to design society that way. Instead of escalating conflicts until World War 3, lets act in a civilized way and first decide what we want, and then fight about it if others decide something different. It is uncivilized to fight about not getting the society you want if you don't know what kind of society you want.

    A sovereign person would not block the streets so another sovereign person can't use them, as happened in the Wall Street protests. If you don't like the Wall Street system of global money dictatorship, opt out of it by designing your own society and organize a global walk out and walk into the new system we all debate and then agree on. Getting angry is great for getting attention, but what will you do with attention except get people angrier and start a war? There is a way to get everything we want with no aggressive actions or anger. If we all believe we're sovereign, that would be a good start, and acting like others aren't sovereign to play with their green toilet paper (or other kind of money) works against the most peaceful and efficient and democratic global solution.

    When the majority of us know specificly how we want the world to work, we give the other billions of people some time to verify our plan looks better than how the world works now, to make the same kickstarter.com-style commitment to do it only if enough other people do it.

    We set a date, and on that date, everyone involved walks out of government buildings, their job, leaves their legal contracts in a drawer collecting dust... everything that isn't part of the new design, and we do what we planned to do. No taxes will be collected because the man who collects taxes will be in our group, and he will walk out too. As people see its really working, the whole world joins our new society, and we can leave the old ways in the past.

    At that time we will have more than majority agreement of all 7 billion people, and therefore it is right for us to claim all the resources of the Earth to distribute in whatever way we had agreed. There is no higher authority on Earth than majority agreement of the global population.

    Gandhi did it, so can we.

    If you don't have a plan for a new society, then you have no business protesting the old one.

    This set of example laws, which I have put much thought into over the years, in the absense of existing governments and obligations and debts, as most of the laws of a new society (I still need to add a few to specify the "punish the nonpunishers" parts in a more clear way), would create a society where altruism is the most selfish thing anyone can do, or at least the direction toward altruism without the actual desire, like that man in Clockwork Orange thought he was a good person because they had brainwashed him to feel pain when he was about to do a bad thing, so he only did good things, but he had no recursive goal structure toward good, only the immediate direction toward it (known as a greedy-algorithm). Like that man, this society would make selfish people feel like they were about to lose something selfishly whenever they do not act for the good of society, and rewarded symmetricly. Like the Clockwork Orange system, and the deeper statements it makes about our current society's strategies of motivating people, this set of example laws will only create the approximate behavior of altruism, while those who truly want to improve the world will find it an effective system at amplifying their efforts. If we have to choose between a society that rewards selfishness and one that rewards altruism, the choice is not hard, even if you ask a selfish person. It is purely a matter of selfish efficiency that we should want others to reward altruism to optimize the productivity of the Human species. Its part of why Humans evolved their tiny, and local to the few people they can see or personally interact with, amount of altruism. Want to skip ahead on the evolutionary scale? It's mostly in the mind. The most important thing to me used to be getting rich to spend on myself, but ideas/memes evolve even inside the same brain, and now my root goal is to make the universe more interesting, without even a parameter specifying how much money I have as any importance except how it helps toward the root goal. Redesign society something like this, and put the selection-pressure where it should be, toward improving society as a whole... Until then, we're evolving slowly backward toward Monkeys in a society that amplifies selfishness. Since ideas/memes evolve in society as information, we will see the effects of this change quickly, or leave society as it is and the same exponential speed of evolution of ideas/memes will create the most selfish event of all time: World War 3. The choice is yours...

    They say that no country can start as a democracy and keep the same level of democracy. It decays as changes are voted in and any partial damage to the original plan for the democracy is not replaced since selfishness is directly toward political issues instead of the long-term functioning of the democracy. I disagree that the problem is unsolvable. The problem is all existing political systems reward selfishness in at least 1 part of the system. Whenever anyone is above anyone else, there is selfishness involved in some way or at some time, even if its just a little. The solution is to a system where acting altruisticly is selfish, where at any one time doing the thing that improves the world looks like it will give the most benefit to whoever is considering that action compared to all other possible actions. I think I've defined such a system in these examples to be voted on in combination with the "We sovereign intelligent life forms" constitution above... I think I've defined a new type of democracy that is not just stable, but becomes more democratic over time.

    Without ifglobalmajority at the end, you would commit to it right away instead of waiting for half the global population to also commit. You may want to commit to something, like to quit smoking and have others enforce that on you for your specified time range (giving a time range or permanent gives up your right to withdraw the commitment), for example, or you may want to commit to something in the context of a certain group. Its up to you what you commit to.

    Some people think this kind of society would not motivate people to do the necessary things. They say... Yes. Sounds perfect. I think we should all live in communes, farm, grow long hair, practice free love, and smoke lots and lots and lots of weed. What do you think we should do with our lives? —Field Manhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/a-proposal-so-obvious-its-mind-boggling-that-nobody-has-tried-it

    If you had committed to this rule...


    ...Then you would be in violation of your own commitment if any person on Earth does not have "a reasonable standard of living" right now. We wouldn't start with such a strict rule, but after everyone had a reasonable standard of living, we would add that rule to make sure it stays that way. Before that, the rule may be to put in a reasonable effort to increase the standard of living of those who live near you, or something like that, and slowly expand the area until it goes global.

    If most people have a reason to think that everyone has a reasonable standard of living right now, then theres no need to waste time looking around to see if anyone is starving. That can be done every now and then.

    But if there was some group of people who consistently had less food than "a reasonable standard of living", then word would spread and it is no longer ok to sit around smoking weed and having sex while you are in violation of your, meaning you personally not some representative, commitment to "make sure everyone on the planet has a reasonable standard of living so long as they put in a reasonable effort to improve the world."

    Therefore, depending on how well the global democracy is working, if everyone has "a reasonable standard of living" or not as far as I know, you may be free to have all the sex and drugs you want (subject to whatever laws are democraticly voted in), or you may be required to work toward solving that problem, and then get back to the sex and drugs.

    If I noticed you being in violation of your own commitment (which only happens if somebody lacks food, for example, and if I think you knew about it), then to satisfy one of my commitments, I would have to start a vote on if you should be punished for not obeying your own commitment, a vote between whatever people I could find at the time, and a quantity of people proportional to the severity of the problem caused. If you were blatantly not caring that others are starving and you knew it, that would be more severe than if you just forgot. Theres a lot of fuzzy areas in it, but I would tend to predict the severity accurately because that is also one of my commitments which I could be punished for, and all this stuff goes onto the internet in public view since everyone is accountable. The part about the sex and drugs isn't relevant and would not go into the public records. Its that you were doing anything other than trying to feed the starving people when you knew they were starving. After that, get back to your sex and drugs.

    There is no requirement to try to improve the world, but if you want other people to make sure you have a reasonable standard of living, that would be one way to get them to do that for you. But everyone has to ensure the reasonable standard of living for those who do try a reasonable amount to improve the world.

    Here's a new example rule, to deal with people trying to stay ignorant of things they should be doing so they won't be punished...

    That's how I thought of that example rule (which is also in the list above). This is how the process of designing a new society should work, before we get to the real world experiments.

    These rules are all subject to debate, examples that I think work well in the combination I gave. Everyone should be proposing new rules or changes to them and predicting what effect the new set of rules would have on peoples' interactions.

    Its the only recursively consistent constitution. It guarantees your right to withdraw or commit to many democracies at once. Its time we had a way to organize our world that doesn't depend on one person being above another. As many know from the continuing pattern of rebellions and protests, the global conflict between corporations (masters of government, enslaving us through control of money) and decentralized society (Bitcoin, wireless mesh networks, the idea of being sovereign) continues to escalate and shows no sign of stopping and every sign of leading to World War 3 if we don't take our society in a different direction. Please remember this constitution when your only other choice is World War 3. We can all peacefully walk away from the masters at the same time, and they'll have noone left to drag us back. Gandhi did it. We can too. The hardest part is enough people doing it at once. Some protests start while others end, but all it takes is a little scheduling and a lot of planning how to organize society, not more protesting, and this new kind of constitution will help us organize in ways most people have never considered.

    If you don't know what you're fighting for, then why fight? If you don't have a plan for a new society, then you have no business protesting the old one.

    Instead of how to transition from how things are now to something else, which is as far as most people ever get, lets work on defining exactly what that "something else" is and how it will work, like what we will do to stop people from searching for the nuclear weapons after nobody is guarding them for example. This is a complete society designed from the ground up, without any of the governments or money or jobs or debts or obligations of the old society. We let everyone out of jail, since that is a debt and obligation. We can't do this effectively if we have to continue balancing the junk that built up in the old society. I think 7 billion people can forgive eachother if it is the only way to avoid World War 3. Lets keep this to the minimum and simplest practical things to make that happen. Whatever specific things you want in the new society can be done through the global democracy. We don't need to specify them now. Infrastructure and the general plan first...
    Tue, Oct 4, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: constitution
    Sent to project: Start your own revolution
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)