well I guess I'll start off with the
first principles approach to society or
how would you do it differently: I
think probably direct democracy is
better than representative democracy and
so if you're trying to represent the
will of the people it would be better to have
direct votes which were not possible in
the in the old days because you know, you had to mail things around and
information moved very slowly but in an
electronic society where information
moves instantly, you can represent very
directly the rule of the people. I think this
diminishes the ability of special
interest to influence things in a way
that is contrary to the will of the
people. so I think that's what I would
say is probably good also:
laws have a infinite life time
so you have to I think, or it's probably a
good idea to have something in the in
the voting system that accounts for the
infinite lifetime of laws and the sort of
inertial effect of laws so perhaps it
will be good for all or rules to have a
inherent sunset provision so they would
automatically expire unless they get
re-voted as being correct and then maybe
have a hysteresis where if an order
for something to become a law. maybe it
requires sixty percent vote but at any
point forty percent or more can remove
the law. This sounds sort of anarchist,
I suppose, but I am kind of pro-anarchist.
I would say: try it in the USA and then we
will follow. I think generally fewer rules are better than more rules.
that's my rough guess at you know if
 you had to recompile on democracy
how would you do it, to better represent the true
will of the people which i think is this
the intent of democracy so
