O'Regan, Emlyn wrote:
<regarding implementing a completely virtual government on the net:>
> Do you think that you could somehow attach control of real-world resources
> to mailing lists? So various lists could actually make binding decisions
> that affect the physical world? Then maybe you start getting something
like
> what Billy proposes above. You could eventually attach *all government* to
> mailing lists which any person in the world was free to join or leave at
any
> time. Sounds pretty unstable to me, but I'd like to hear good reasons why
> it'd work or not.
I don't think that mailing lists provide the depth of interpersonal interaction (not to mention economic transactions) that you need to have a real society. MUD-type systems can get closer, but what you really want is a virtual community with decent bandwidth and facilities for exchanging real money.
> As Billy suggests, different styles of control could be tried by different
> groups (democracy, rule by everyone (where everyone can vote on
everything),
> monarchy, dictatorships, corporate fun, etc...) and natural selection
should
> sort out the goats from the sheep. Although anyone who's ever played a
> multiplayer strategy game will concurr that there are many factors
involved
> in surviving such a setup - looking weak can be real bad, looking strong
can
> be REAL bad.
This is one reason I want that vestigial national government - it can prevent the localities from making war on one another, which forces them to compete within the rules of the market.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
ewbrownv@mindspring.com