
Ask HN: What stands in the way of a landless, 100% digital government/state? - starshadowx2
Consider a world government that doesn&#x27;t have any real large land area, just offices&#x2F;embassies. Everything from citizenship applications to paying taxes to providing social services would all be provided through digital&#x2F;online means. Anyone living anywhere would be eligible to apply and receive services and representation.<p>Web technology has come far enough that this seems do-able, at least on the technical side. What would be in the way of this from a social&#x2F;legal standpoint? What could established local&#x2F;global governments actually do to fight this?<p>I&#x27;m imagining a crowd-based, direct democracy, sort-of just like a social network. People would vote on the laws and policies (online&#x2F;mobile of course) directly, and there wouldn&#x27;t be any major &quot;head of state&quot;, more like a representative committee like maybe how some Open Source projects work. This could help prevent established states using physical force against a leader.<p>Now of course this would take a lot of people to become legitimate but with how so many governments oppressing their people, or even the discontent in countries like the US or Canada, I feel like citizens would accept and desire a much more direct role in a modern government. With enough legitimacy maybe it could even provide security and lobbying power in global governments (ex. UN, EU).<p>I also realize this is overly optimistic and not original, so I&#x27;m just wondering what others here think actually stands in the way.
======
tonyarkles
One of the interesting things about this is figuring out what services this
government would actually provide, and where. And whether or not people would
just be dual-citizens in perpetuity.

Thinking about my day-to-day interactions with the various levels of
government here (Canada), the vast majority of it requires a physical
presence: policing, firefighting, road maintenance, building inspection, etc.
None of those things are very well served by a distributed/digital government.
Taxation could be done digitally, of course.

If the primary goal is to affect public policy on a global scale, there's
nothing preventing a "crowd-sourced lobbying organization" from being
established.

Call it a government if you want, but for a lot of people the main things that
government does for them is maintain infrastructure and protect public safety.
It's a neat idea, no doubt, but there's a lot of things that citizenship (i.e.
the right to live in Canada forever) gives me that couldn't really be replaced
digitally.

~~~
starshadowx2
Government maybe isn't the best way to think of this. I'm thinking more like
an international digital "society". This was all more thought up for the need
for more rights and freedoms (I'm really against C-51 for example), and the
need for inexpensive services.

So think of all the government things without the physical part, that's what I
meant by landless. Education, healthcare, international representation,
voting, identification, census/population metrics, maybe business services,
and have this social network/connection tool built around it.

So yeah, like a "crowd-sourced lobbying organization" but with more perks.
Maybe like a global union or something like that.

~~~
tonyarkles
Education and healthcare are interesting things. I live far enough from major
centres that government-run health care is pretty much the only option without
having to travel. Education... could be provided digitally, but there's still
(IMO) a lot of value to sticking a bunch of kids in a room together and
letting them learn about social interactions.

I'm not sure how something like this would have any impact on C-51. Despite
being a member of the digital society, we'd still physically reside in places
controlled by other governments, which means that our telecom cables would
still run along places where they could be tapped and monitored.

The voting and representation is really interesting. Going back to the C-51
issue... If we had direct representation, is there any hope in hell that this
would have passed?

An interesting question is how big of a critical mass would such a system need
to start to have actual influence? I don't know the answer, but it's
fascinating to think about.

~~~
starshadowx2
Education isn't only for children, I was thinking more of adults/teens anyways
since I don't think kids would get the whole MOOC system. Maybe they would
though. And again this wouldn't be a complete replacement for established
government, at least not at first, more like a form of protest with benefits.

With enough people voting within this digital society against things like
telecoms spying and secret police powers, it would create a sort of citizen
lobby group that may have an actual effect on politicians. With enough
"critical mass" they would have no choice but to listen and respond.

I'm pretty sure all of the recent polls since before it was passed were mostly
against C-51. I'm sure if there was a type of referendum it would've been
squashed (like it should've been).

I'm also very interested in your last point's idea.

------
dragonwriter
> Ask HN: What stands in the way of a landless, 100% digital government/state?

Definitions. A government or state is an entity that exercises a monopoly on
the legitimate use of force over some territory. If it doesn't have territory,
its not a government/state.

> Consider a world government that doesn't have any real large land area, just
> offices/embassies. Everything from citizenship applications to paying taxes
> to providing social services would all be provided through digital/online
> means. Anyone living anywhere would be eligible to apply and receive
> services and representation.

While governments might (if there was enough motivation for them to do so)
choose to treat such an entity like a foreign government/state for
administrative purposes, essentially what that is a multinational corporation
or NGO providing a defined set of services.

> What would be in the way of this from a social/legal standpoint?

Being treated like a government is a matter of legal recognition by the
governments you want to recognize you as one. This is _often_ difficult for
entities that have some claim to actually be governments, its going to be
harder for something that manifestly is not.

Especially given that you see it as serving as a counterbalance to existing
governments -- that's actually a reason existing governments would be
_disinclined_ to recognize it.

> What could established local/global governments actually do to fight this?

At the most basic, refuse to recognize it as anything like a government. To
the extent that people associated with it tried to do things of substance that
actual governments didn't like, they could outlaw its activities (to the
extent that they aren't already illegal), and prosecute and punish (or just
extrajudicially punish) its members, associates, and collaborators.

~~~
starshadowx2
Thanks for your response, this was exactly what I wanted.

With the discussion/debate here I've refined the idea a bit more, and instead
of saying a "government" I'm more pushing towards something like a non-state
actor or an NGO combined with a citizen run lobbyist group.

I believe that if governments tried to "prosecute and punish...its members,
associates, and collaborators" that would have the opposite effect of
strengthening the group and getting more support. From my perspective that's
exactly what the Arab Spring was all about.

I'm not sure how the regulation part would go, since AFAIK there isn't
anything like this already that has forced the creation of rules. Laws usually
only come up as a reactive measure, which is something I would actually hope
for and want to help shape.

~~~
ahazred8ta
It sounds like you want a member-controlled organization working with an INGO.
Do you want a group whose members are the people who RECEIVE the services, or
a group whose members PROVIDE the services, or a group whose members are
mostly activists?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_non-
governmental...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_non-
governmental_organization) \-- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights-
based_approach_to_devel...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights-
based_approach_to_development) \--
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Poverty_History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Poverty_History)
\--
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARE_(relief_agency)#Programmi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARE_\(relief_agency\)#Programming_focuses)
\-- [https://www.fidh.org/International-Federation-for-Human-
Righ...](https://www.fidh.org/International-Federation-for-Human-Rights/what-
is-fidh/)

------
dTal
Bootstrapping such a government alongside the existing governments would be
troublesome. The only kind of tax you could collect would be a "subscription
fee" that you couldn't even easily means-test, and the only kind of "laws" you
could "enforce" would pertain to who gets what out of the public fund. Not
totally useless, but extremely difficult to put together a compelling value
proposition. What sort of "policies" did you have in mind?

~~~
starshadowx2
I agree about the existing governments point. That's pretty much the major
antagonist issue to all of this. I've considered that the only way to beat
that would be to simply be better. With enough "citizens"/supporters I'm
wondering what the established governments could do other than using armed
force, which would look very bad and may even have the opposite effect from
what they want. This of course still needs more brainstorming which is the
point of this post.

"Tax"-wise would be almost the same as other governments but more streamlined
I suppose. Thinking of this as just a collection of digital/online
services/resources would be the best way of looking at it. You pay your
monthly/annual fees/"taxes" and get access to the services.

\- Schooling/education would be done through a MOOC (ex. Coursera, Stanford
Online) that would be then be open and "free" for users. -
[https://e-estonia.com/component/e-school/](https://e-estonia.com/component/e-school/)

\- Healthcare would have 1-on-1 conferencing with doctors/medial professionals
when needed, and maybe have some sort of partnership with existing
clinics/hospitals. Prescriptions could all be done online as well -
[https://e-estonia.com/component/e-prescription/](https://e-estonia.com/component/e-prescription/)

For all laws and policies they would be directly voted on by the community,
but with a base set (constitution) set in stone, basic freedoms etc. This
would be a very progressive/modern society with all the freedoms and
protections that comes with, but if something like 90% of the citizenry
decided to vote against one of those, then the leading committee would review
it.

~~~
joeclark77
When you talk about services offered for a fee, okay, but how would you offer
"protections"? What if one of your citizens is physically located in Europe,
for example, and the local warlord tries to interfere with his right to free
speech, or his right to bear arms? Will you draft an army and bust him out of
prison?

What if he missed his "subscription" payment the previous month? Does he lose
his fundamental human rights until he's paid up?

~~~
starshadowx2
I was thinking more of just international lobbying, even though that sorta
sucks and doesn't work (ex. Syria). We would hopefully be able to use the ICC
and international law to help our rightful citizens.

I can't think of a better solution to that yet, and there may not be one.

And no, you would still be a citizen without paying taxes, but you would lose
access/be restricted from all services.

~~~
joeclark77
You ought to know that it's pretty radical to think of "government" as an
entity that spends your money for you. Before the 1900s it was hardly
imagined, and I think the jury is still out on whether it's an effective
model.

What has always been understood is what's written in the Declaration of
Independence: that the purpose of government is to protect the fundamental
rights of the citizens. You're proposing to discard _that_ old purpose
entirely, and just focus on providing services for money. I don't think I'd
call it "government", myself. Not to discourage you, just want to point out
that you've got a lot of work to do to convince people that the thing you're
describing is actually capable of being what you think it is.

~~~
starshadowx2
I'm not American, so I actually don't know the DoI very well.

I still think people need to be protected, but the world is a lot different
from what it was back then. International law needs to be changed, government
needs to be more digitally connected with it's citizens, and the idea of
governments and nations need to be revised for the modern world.

For the record, I didn't really think of this as a complete replacement for
physical governments, but more of an overarching one that would protect your
rights and freedoms using an international legal system while also providing
services that some established governments might not be able to.

This would probably be more like a global NGO with a membership I guess.

Or it could be like a citizen-based lobbying group. If enough people are a
part of it, voting for the rights and laws they want it could make more
politicians take notice.

~~~
joeclark77
Sure, but you obviously can't "protect your rights and freedoms" without armed
forces, police, and prisons. A "legal system" with no power to enforce its
laws and judgments is useless.

All you are left with is an organization that collects money from its citizens
and then spends it for them.

~~~
starshadowx2
Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North
Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a
valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to get me
free. They would not just go and start a war. This is what I mean by the world
being different now where most regular citizens aren't scared of being jailed
in a foreign country.

Say you get married in a state that allows LGBT couples, and then move to one
that doesn't, AFAIK your marriage is still valid and recognized. Maybe in some
countries it isn't (ex. various Middle-eastern ones) but generally it is. If
there was an international body that could allow you those rights and freedoms
then could help use legal means to protect them.

Protection doesn't only mean physical force, especially not in this age. I'm
not saying I don't agree with you in some way though. There would be very
little/nothing an ephemeral government could do against physical aggression,
which is what I meant by my earlier statement, "I can't think of a better
solution to that yet, and there may not be one."

~~~
dragonwriter
> Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or
> North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not
> for a valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to
> get me free.

"International legal means" \-- especially in those scenarios -- is just a
thin layer of formalities wrapped around the threat that your country, perhaps
with assistance from its allies, will impose consequences like trade
sanctions, and, if necessary, ultimately wage war if their requests are not
adhered to.

Sure, they could ultimately do nation-vs-nation legal action in the ICJ, but
even if your nation wins, its not like the ICJ has marshals it can send in to
enforce its orders. Enforcement is basically self-service.

> They would not just go and start a war.

No, but they would be threatening one, if only implicitly.

> This is what I mean by the world being different now where most regular
> citizens aren't scared of being jailed in a foreign country.

Lots of them, I would bet, _are_ , they just choose not to travel to the
countries they are afraid of being jailed in.

------
Rainymood
>People would vote on the laws and policies (online/mobile of course)

Just to play the Devil's advocate here. I don't think that people should be
able to "make their own laws". Most people (think the general population) are
woefully uninformed about a lot stuff. Like pensions for example. A LOT of
Americans DON'T have pensions/retirement savings. This is really bad and a
real cause of worry.

In MY opinion, a government should care for it's people and make sure that
they have mandatory participation in the pension system (first pillar/second
pillar). However, there also should be the option to contribute more (third
pillar) if you can/want to.

In some fields, people don't know what to choose and some people who have
studied that field, should make the choices for them. Imho.

------
AnimalMuppet
Ultimately, it comes down to people with guns.

Here's country X oppressing people. Are they going to stop because you ask
politely (or even sternly tell them to)? No. Why not? Because they want to
keep going, and they have guns. The only thing you can stop them with is
bigger guns.

(Yes, an appeal to their conscience can sometimes work. It worked for Gandhi
against the British. It wouldn't have worked against Hitler or Stalin,
though.)

So until you have the biggest guns, you're not going to be able to form a
world government that has any real impact.

How would you try to get there? You'd have to persuade enough people in
democratic countries to put enough pressure on their governments that they'd
cooperate with you. You'd have to do that in enough countries that it carries
weight even with those who don't want to listen.

~~~
starshadowx2
There have been a lot of major protests in the past however many years.
Looking at things like the Arab Spring, Occupy, the LGBT movements, Bill C-51,
I think people aren't generally happy with their governments.

I think we need something that is actually run by the people, for the people.
As I've come to think of this more, it wouldn't be a complete replacement for
established government, but more like a global union.

------
starshadowx2
I can't seem to be able to edit the main post, but I forgot to mention the
Estonia E-citizenship.

\-
[https://e-estonia.com/e-residents/about/](https://e-estonia.com/e-residents/about/)

\- [https://e-estonia.com/components/](https://e-estonia.com/components/)

A lot of what I mentioned are things that they already provide and can do,
which is why I think the technical side of things would be the easy part.

Now just apply this to a global state.

EDIT: Also look at what WeChat is like in China. You can pretty much do
anything from your phone

\- [http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-
first/](http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/)

------
6d0debc071
An inability to scale tied to the problem of concentrating resources.

The minute you start having non-trivial manifestations of your power in meat-
space you become subject to a whole range of logistical concerns. Say you've
got 1,000 people in your initial group but they're spread out all over the
world, what can you actually do?

You want to provide services and representation, but - even if those people
each paid 20% of their income to you - you exist largely in the web and your
ability to manifest goods and services that are going to be useful to your
members is almost non-existent.

Governments gain an advantage when they can provide goods or services in
common. Thus making it cheaper than each person providing that resource for
themselves.

------
daxfohl
Workarounds, and penises. Per
[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm...](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html),
a 100% digital gov't becomes a 99% digital gov't in the presence of militias,
mafia, terrorist, etc. That 99% digital gov't doesn't have "balls" in the Bill
Maher sense, and gets quickly overwhelmed. By workarounds. Stupid. But some
people feel "vindicated". Especially teenagers (which brings in the question
of voting age).

------
HeyLaughingBoy
Where are the citizens of this digital government going to physically reside?

~~~
starshadowx2
\- landless

\- online

\- global

\- international

~~~
nwah1
We'll all live in The Cloud. Land isn't important anymore. Just ask anyone who
pays rent in San Francisco.

~~~
starshadowx2
Both your comments have been about land, so I think you're being too literal
and thinking more of established countries.

What I'm proposing is a nation that could exist independent of borders/land
area. You could live anywhere and still be a part of it. There are
clubs/groups that exist for members across the world, but what's stopping a
new nation from re-creating that same architecture?

~~~
anywherenotes
The point of the nation is some kind of laws as well as ability to enforce
those laws. If you belong to this digital nation, you still will have your
body in some type of earthly nation like US or Russia or Italy, etc. Therefore
your body will be subject to local laws. For example if in digital nation you
have the right to drink at 20, then US might still arrest you if you try to
buy a drink (or whatever they do - deny?), and they will not buy into your
claim that your nation allows you to drink. However if your body is in Russia,
they might laugh at you if you turn yourself in for drinking at 20, as they (I
believe) have a lower drinking age. None of physical nations are going to
enforce or abide by the laws of the digital nation.

Nations must have not only laws, but a way to enforce them, and a way to
protect their citizens from foreign nations.

There are many online communities, such as ycombinator and reddit and WoW, and
people feel like they are a part of them, but they are not nations. You can
certainly create a community where you pool money and educate your digi-zens
(digital citizens), you can provide disaster services by perhaps sending
food/drinks to them in case of disaster, but they will still have to follow
local laws - you wouldn't be able to request countries to extradite them to
you for example.

~~~
starshadowx2
Yes, I understand that local laws would still apply. I've mentioned in other
comments that this wouldn't be a replacement of those.

------
daxfohl
Everything is that way already? Just layers and layers of inherited money and
power have been laid upon it and always will be, and the "common man" has to
fight through the cruft to establish his existence? Tear down those layers,
and it's just a temporarity. We live in a Darwinian circus.

------
a3n
The Vatican is practically that now. The extent of Vatican City is miniscule,
but they have a huge governing hierarchy physically distributed across the
world. About all they'd need to do is let the other shoe drop.

~~~
starshadowx2
The Vatican is also an absolute monarchy and very much not in line with the
society I'm imagining.

I'm not familiar with how their citizenship process works as well, or how they
provide services to expats.

~~~
a3n
Mentioning the Vatican was my way of pointing out an (almost) existence proof.
If the Vatican can be that close to a defacto distributed government, I don't
see why one can't explicitly form itself.

~~~
starshadowx2
I was thinking of Estonia and their e-citizenship system and services.

I guess the Vatican would be an example of small area, but you could also look
at something like Sealand, or other small island nations.

Even though this is a terrible example and comparison, you could also look at
Scientology and their offices. They may not be a established state but they
work in the way I'm imagining. Global offices, schooling, protection, etc.

------
nwah1
Land

------
totallystupid
Government will become the thing which puts work to tender and decides who
gets the contract.

Every service will become privatised.

Government will converge on what it does best, core business, collaborative
decision making between representatives from diverse groups.

Contrary to popular belief it is not government inertia which slows this
transition, it is public expectation. Society is not yet ready.

Services, as others say, require physical presence. Core Gov can become 100%
digital and will, since gov is the nervous ( and circulatory ) system, which
causes to function the diverse systems required for society's function.

Watch Zuckerberg make a play for government through FB. Gov is the network. It
is already information. All that's missing is the social technology to trust
that gov works like this to make it happen.

Northern Europe / Korea will go first.

