Congress could submit new laws to Blockchain to combat tampering and ensure proof-of-work.
My startup is working on Artificial Intelligence to predict laws that model cities like San Francisco or New York would want to implement in the face of acute social woes, so if Government 2.0 could provide a RESTful Lobbying API, that'd let the People move fast.
You could point to the diff and talk about it. Worthwhile, I think.
It doesn't seem absurd to me to have a diff, watch that evolve as new versions are proposed by people, and then finally watch what goes in. Obviously ground truth is still in the books, with laws debated in parliament or congress or whatever, but this acts as a shadow tracking that movement. Even if the act of passing were to end with a merge in of whatever law is debated, that's still hardly troublesome. It only increases transparency and doesn't remove any checks or balances.
Bit hysterical of a reaction for a rather minor request, in my opinion.
Interesting that you're calling me silly or hysterical for simply proposing a fearlessly concurrent Government built on Blockchain technology. After all, we're going for Woke Government 2.technotopia, not Broke Government 1.capitolhill.
I am highly confident it will work--the code and tech are there I'm just waiting for a strong project leader with good domain knowledge to lead it.
Shoot me an email if interested.
In countries whose legal system is based on that of England (including most of the US), ambiguity is a design goal of statutes, not something meant to be eliminated. Statutes are supposed to be specified in broad strokes and then have the details hashed out by intelligent judges to work in particular circumstances that the legislators didn't envision.
And "the law" is not just statutes. Statutes are one small part of the law. Most of the law is the tradition of judicial interpretation of those statutes.
I said exactly the opposite: "not eliminate it"
> Most of the law is the tradition of judicial interpretation of those statutes.
This is a very good point. You could simply have judges write decisions in a decision language as well, which is defined just as the law language is defined.
But how could you write the laws in the first place? You can't write them in a language designed to be unambiguous, because they are meant to be imprecise.
There will be some ambiguity introduced via the English language (not a problem since you'd still have judges), but the whole thing can be defined, from concepts like true/false all the way to very complicated concepts, in the same universal syntax/language.
You could define mins and maxes into the language, or even clearly and unambiguously leave everything up to the judge.
My proposal does not change the laws at all--what people create is up to them. All I propose is a language where the language itself cannot be used by the special interests against the better interests of the people. My language leaves corruption with no place to hide.
I should rephrase as well. The language I am proposing offers much stronger control over ambiguity.
Take the 8th amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
What is an "excessive fine" mean? In the language I am proposing it could be defined as is, or in something like:
... cellType dollarAmount number cellType fine dollarAmount cellType adjustedGrossIncome dollarAmount cellType universalExcessiveFineThreshold description As a percentage of adjustedGrossIncome constant .1 nodeType isExcessiveFine cells adjustedGrossIncome fine trueIf fine / adjustedGrossIncome > universalExcessiveFineThreshold ...
So you have more control over ambiguity.
I have a toddler in my arms and have to head to work soon but will answer questions/emails as they come.
I talked to a few people in NY State about it and it went over like a lead balloon, so I'm rest curious about your experience!