Wideland Law-Making Process
The main reason why Wideland is such a big deal to humanity, I think has something to do with the words “direct democracy”. You know, citizen most of the time can’t really decide much, but rather complain about other people agreements. I’m one of those who wants to change bad rules but simply cannot. I’m the one that always hopes for better outcomes but at the end of the day still feels bitter about politicians and law-makers jobs. I said stop to all that unrespectful situation and this is why you should do the same.
When the power of people is never enough.
Wideland is based on a direct voting system purposely designed to fully embrace popular opinions and contrast elites. Due to the fact that it hasn’t a central government and even parties, this system has the potential to be the most citizen-friendly ever implemented.
Wideland keeps its foundation on a community-driven system called Circular Hierarchy. Historically, every social structure was always (and still) built following a pyramid shape, going from top to bottom, from a king to nothing more than a dog that can talk. Now, what Wideland does, is providing a flat surface. You can imagine it as a line or as a circle viewed from the top. Every single citizen is on the same plane and in order to get to the upper level, they have to collaborate. Nobody goes up without the others.
Let me introduce the actual process.
Step 1 Talk to others about the country mistakes.
Step 2 Came out with a solution or multiple ones.
Step 3 Publish it and raise votes.
The basic idea is that. I’m not kidding. When I said that Wideland is based on crowdsourcing and a direct voting system, I was totally serious. Developing new proposals means finding the central problem and begins from there. It could be a simple fix or an entirely new thing. Then you can publish your ideas online and get feedback from all over the world. The last step is the actual voting which has to reach 80% approval in order to be accepted.
Here I’m oversimplifying the process but the idea is really that simple. Tough, there are a few question marks to point out.
Is everyone able to do it?
Let’s say, I want to make a regulation on public stairs railing. But let’s imagine I don’t know anything about buildings regulation and I will publish an article that isn’t that convincing. I’m a graphic designer, I’m not an expert, how can I speak about something I’ve not experienced? Something I don’t even know what materials can be made with. Even making an example of it, sounds crazy.
Now comes Tom, a respectful architect with years of experience. He can be like me, not able to argue his proposal, or the opposite, he can. He’s more convincing than I was, he published a YouTube video where he said that every stair higher than 2 ft or 60 cm has to have a guardrail at 80 cm in high from the starting point in order to keep you safe from an accident. Sounds reasonable, right? I think he can be right, I’ll vote for his bill.
There are a few things to take note of. People—as individuals—really matters as well as their ability to convince you they’re right. The moment they will not be convincing about their argument, maybe missing examples or objective results, you should be the first to reply to them, to transform it in a more vast discussion and to knock him down.
Can somebody take advantage of you?
If you think about that, it happens every second today. The question is, it will still happen tomorrow? Will somebody be able to make a rule that elevates his position or help him take advantage of something? I would say yes, but his competitors have already noticed that, and they are attacking him on every social media. So probably not.
To keep things more formal, the first part of the question can’t really happen because in Wideland nobody can have more privilege than others. The second part is a little more complex. I cannot block him to say what he thinks. If he’s an entrepreneur that imports stuff from China and one day he proposes a tax reduction from all the goods imported from China, nobody can’t stop him from saying that. But I’m pretty sure everyone will notice his malice aforethought, preventing that kind of risk, and stopping him before is too late.
And if it will still happen? Let me repeat it, it still could not be the case, because nobody can have more privilege than others; but I can’t even say it will never for sure because I don’t know future peoples will. Anyway, the day after the bad happens somebody can take action a change things again, and again. Until everything is socially accepted as perfect.
I know that’s the dumbest idea you’ve ever heard of, but I really believe a popular approach is the best method of government we have. I always hear people complaining about their situation or criticizing their country. But I also hear people came up with creative ideas that could potentially make the world a better place—with some refinement. In all this, everything remains offline, as jokes or thoughts. The world has lots of great minds, why don’t use all of them?
More technical information about the WIN System on the full documentation at wideland.org/documentation
Don’t forget to write your thoughts and suggestions down below. I will personally keep track of all of them in anticipation of a new dedicated section of the website to be online.
CategoryIf you haven’t heard about Wideland yet, you must know what I’m talking about. Wideland is the first-ever open-source state—a self-governing and technologically advanced state where everybody can actively contribute via the internet. Technically speaking,...
Futurology If you haven’t read about Wideland I really suggest you to go to the homepage of this website if you want to learn more. However, here’s a small recap you can check: Wideland is a state based on a direct voting system purposely designed to fully embrace...