The e-government shit is killing me.
Who is going to be the ones enforcing the dictates of the system? Who is making sure things are done fairly? Who is adjudicating disputes? Who is making sure the power stays on and people are fed?
If you have a set of people who can do this, you don’t need the e-government. If you don’t have a set of people who can do this, the e-government isn’t necessary.
That’s why it kills me when I see this rationalist thing of political philosophizing based purely around rules and policies. That’s a way of thinking that’s good for changing the existing system, but when you need a new system, it’s all about the people, the political movement. To start with, when the system is not entrenched and everything is in flux, personal and movement loyalty becomes the deciding factor, for good or ill.
In a new system it’s not the choice of policies, it’s making sure the policies are carried out. At the stage of forming a new government, that’s not about which policies to choose, it’s about having trustworthy people to do it. (policies matter in the longer term)
And that doesn’t even get into how poorly defined this “e-government“ concept seems to be, and what precisely you are expecting it do. Given what Eliezer talks about, I would worry about, say, someone using this system to implement a Junta. The e-government will be a fancy bit of political theater for people in suits to show off while they have people executed in the street.
And, after bad experiences with institutions like the IMF, any such idea is going to be incredibly toxic. The IMF has for years been forcing governments to adopt policies in exchange for aid that they now admit do not help. What do you think a e-government system would do? How would it be received? Would it be a method of helping people, or a method of facilitating looting?
The OpenGov organization. A non-profit run by a diverse coalition of various interests which are only united in their opinion that the OpenGov system is better than the existing governments of failing states.
And the OpenGov system itself is not a pre-packaged solution of “here, just give all the power to these people and everything will be fine”. It is a meta-level platform for solving those exact questions. Possibly the OpenGovOrg itself operates on OpenGov, and can act as both an example implementation and a transitory solution, with clear deterministic and trusted rules for transferring local power to locals in the process of implementing OpenGov.
OpenGovOrg has clear incentives to figure out ways to get to implement their ideas, and establish sufficient transparency to avoid corruption and juntas and looting, for otherwise people would rightfully oppose OpenGov the way they have opposed bad IMF policies (and, to be honest, sometimes good IMF policies too).
OpenGov could use TMC-style methods of humane minimally-violent policing to recreate a new system of law and order, staffed by competent locals with appropriate attitude and training, and more deserving of trust and respect. It could have a trusted organization run the courts until systems are rebuilt, or it could polycentrize them altogether. The power stays on, because OpenGov delivers safety and predictability and transparency and absence of monopoly abuse, and thus someone will pay someone else to supply electricity. People will be fed because they will pay someone to give them food; OpenGov will make it possible for that to happen, instead of having a terrible combination of expensive black markets and empty white markets where the system only hinders people. The people who can’t afford food or electricity will be provided a sufficient UBI (perhaps by a combination of OpenGov taxing something really predictable and easy, such as land ownership, and partnering with aid organizations like GiveDirectly) so they can afford them, and the UBI comes in OpenGov’s own electronic currency so it isn’t rendered worthless by the central government’s policies.
The core tenet of anarchism/minarchism/libertarianism is that people are basically decent and can get their shit together on their own as long as the environment is conductive to human flourishing and violent organizations don’t enforce harmful policies, and vicious debates between different variants are about what exactly is required for such an environment (for example: is private property a harmful policy enforced by a violent organization or not, or whether a state is necessary or harmful) but the core seems to be quite consistent. The “we don’t really know how to solve your problems, but we can help you get into a situation where you can solve them on your own” doesn’t seem like such an outrageous claim.
OpenGovOrg delivers the initial seed for a new society. Perhaps it has its own armed forces, queering the mercenary/volunteer binary, to keep away violent looters (such as gangs, PoliceMob of the previous system, or even the army of the central government if OpenGov serves the people instead of the state) until local security and defense are established. It probably has its own police and courts, into which locals will be assimilated so that they will ultimately run the system as OpenGovOrg gradually withdraws. It might have its own emergency infrastructure provision although those duties should be assumed by other private-as-in-privacy organizations, or a rebuilt local government, as soon as possible to avoid distortions.
And OpenGov’s entire “business plan” relies on them being accountable, trustworthy and non-corrupt. They don’t have the trillion-dollar-and-massive-violence backing of the IMF, and thus they actually have to deliver value to their “customers”. Yes, people would be suspicious and reluctant initially, but some place somewhere would be in dire enough straits to take the deal, and if OpenGov delivers it will gain respect, reputation, and new gigs, and if it fails, it will be discredited and cease to exist.
And who would OpenGovOrg be? Activists, hackers, tech companies, philanthropes, academicians, and people with connections to, and knowledge of, the local situations. A balance of representation that is necessary for any semblance of legitimacy to begin with, instead of being perceived as a tool of outside looters or know-it-all meddlers.
Where you are seeing unanswered questions, I’m seeing an opportunity for someone to solve them. And if that solution can’t be backed up by external violence, it inevitably needs to offer people something attractive enough that they would accept it. As long as the incentives are aligned and external violent monopolies didn’t stop it, OpenGov could exist.
(via multiheaded1793)
1 week ago · tagged #win-win is my superpower · 23 notes · source: collapsedsquid · .permalink
seasonoftowers liked this
collapsedsquid liked this
neoliberalism-nightly liked this
fnord888 reblogged this from collapsedsquid and added:The comment about it being neoreactionary was directed at the argument in general and the post that started this whole...
neuroflux liked this- collapsedsquid reblogged this from fnord888 and added:
I don’t really think of it as “neoreactionary,“ that was someone else.(you’re right, it’s too vague) And it’s not so...
- fnord888 liked this
illidanstr liked this- collapsedsquid said: Actually, I should compare this to marketing material on the IMF
- collapsedsquid said: That reads like an advertising brochure rather than a description of an organization
boozer-pitt liked this
socialjusticemunchkin reblogged this from multiheaded1793 and added:The OpenGov organization. A non-profit run by a diverse coalition of various interests which are only united in their...
davidsevera liked this
tartapplesauce liked this
plotbunnyfarm liked this- plotbunnyfarm reblogged this from multiheaded1793
anosognosicredux reblogged this from collapsedsquid and added:Honestly, I’d be repeating myself as well by responding to any of this, so I don’t think I can be fucked to do it.
blashimov liked this
shitifindon liked this
multiheaded1793 reblogged this from collapsedsquid- multiheaded1793 liked this