Facebook PixelA country with multiple simultaneously running socioeconomic systems for citizens to choose from
Brainstorming
Tour
Brainstorming
Brainstorming
Create newCreate new
EverythingEverything
ChallengesChallenges
IdeasIdeas
Guide
TourRulesAbout
Idea

A country with multiple simultaneously running socioeconomic systems for citizens to choose from

Image credit: curriculumnacional

Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savic May 30, 2022
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Originality

Is it original or innovative?

Feasibility

Is it feasible?

Necessity

Is it targeting an unsolved problem?

Conciseness

Is it concisely described?

Bounty for the best solution

Provide a bounty for the best solution

Bounties attract serious brainpower to the challenge.

Currency *
Bitcoin
Who gets the Bounty *
Distribution
A country where citizens can choose from multiple simultaneously running socio-economic systems that they wish to adhere to.
Why?
  • More freedom for people to choose how they want to live, where ever they are.
  • Less war with other countries based on seeing their incompatible socioeconomic systems as a threat.
  • There is no optimal system that suits all people. However, there are suitable systems for different types of people.
  • A better socioeconomic system.
  • "In embracing the diversity of human beings, we will find a surer way to true happiness." - Malcolm Gladwell
  • Ability to live your life the way you want to, without having to move or constantly defend your way from others that are coming to free you into their system.
  • An AI-aided attempt at perpetual peace between all people. A way of letting everyone live the way they want within the possibilities/fairness to everyone else.
How it works
Imagine a country that has multiple socioeconomic systems running at the same time. The citizens can choose which system they want to live under and then abide by different rules.
AI-powered balancing algorithm
There would be a central AI-powered algorithm tasked with keeping the same level of fairness for all citizens regardless of the system they chose to live under. The AI would be able to balance millions of parameters between the systems. It would influence the creation and abolition of laws, etc. The entire country's ecosystem would continuously evolve.
The goal is that all groups are about equally (and maximally) happy with their lives. Humans aren't capable of balancing such a complex system, but the software should be. The key is for everyone to see that the overall system is fair and transparent. It's not done so that some people would have something and others won't. It's done to give everyone a way of life that makes them happy.
Pros and cons
Every system would have its pros and cons. For every complaint you have regarding a disadvantage of your system, the AI would show you exactly how that specific disadvantage is balanced out relative to any other system.
A capitalist could live next door to a communist. A potential sarcastic remark such as "Hey neighbor, how do you like being poor?" would be answered after a quick browse through the app that shows the pros and cons of each system.
Switching between systems
People could switch between systems but they wouldn't be able to unfairly benefit from the switch. The switching period would remove all the perks of the previous system and make the person ready for the new one. People would have to study and pass exams to switch systems. They would be mentored, etc.
The less compatible two systems are, the more drastic the change. For example, someone switching from capitalism to communism would relinquish all their capital and move to the same living conditions as everyone else under communism. They would have to contribute to society the same as everyone else, etc. People would pay different taxes, different prices, live under different laws, all in the same country.
Maximization of happiness
The AI would aim to maximize the wellbeing of members of each system within its constraints. Irrespective of the system, the level of unhappiness that all citizens have to endure in order to keep the country running would be evenly distributed across the population.
Exploitation and development
I understand that there would be millions of ways to abuse this with arbitrage between perks and obligations of each socioeconomic system. But ass AI gets better, so does the feasibility of such a country functioning well.
sociologysustainabilitysociety
Creative contributions
Know someone who can contribute to this idea? Share it with them on , , or

Add your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor

Sign up or

or

Guest sign up

* Indicates a required field

By using this platform you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

General comments

Loading...
Shubhankar Kulkarni
Shubhankar Kulkarni3 years ago
I would like such a society. The people might need to seggregate themselves geographically though, won't they? Because the taxes they pay will go towards the betterment of their local neighbourhood. Why should a person paying no taxes enjoy good roads and infrastructure same as a person paying 50% taxes? Therefore, if you take a global view, isn't that true already?
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savic3 years ago
Shubhankar Kulkarni Actually, I propose people be able to live next to one another and adhere to completely different socioeconomic systems. Let the AI figure out what to do about the person who doesn't pay taxes but uses good roads and even free medical insurance. There would be millions of parameters for the AI to choose from. The solution might end up being funny. An absurd example: maybe the person who pays no taxes will have to do 2 days of volunteering at a clinic to make up for everything or go to jail for a day if they don't show up or get poor reviews at the clinic.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savic3 years ago
Someone on Reddit gave this example:
Citizen A has a ton of capital. Citizen B has nothing.
Why would Citizen A choose a system that makes him give up his wealth?
And choices by Citizen B mean absolutely nothing since no matter how he decides to divide collective wealth if you divide 0 you still get 0.
To clarify:
Nobody is touching citizen A's capital. If it's that important to him, the AI will let him even pay no taxes. That will maximize his happiness right?
So now let's maximize citizen B's happiness too. He might not care for capital. Let's give him what he wants. He might want to play on the beach with his family and friends, all day, every day. There are many others like him.. So who will make goods and services for citizen A to buy?
My prediction is that eventually, the AI would make people realize how absurd their expectations in the world are. Others have to live too. They want to be happy.
The AI would have to tweak the parameters to motivate (not force) citizen B to work and provide goods and services for citizen A to buy. Motivation would come from incentives created by circumstances that are not immediately obvious to humans. Citizen A would eventually not have something that citizen B has. You can't have everything. Or you can, in an isolated world where you are alone. Maybe the AI could come up with a cool system that is optimal for social parasites. The matrix comes to mind.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Subash Chapagain
Subash Chapagain3 years ago
I think such a country will run into some intrinsic problems. 1) Trade: When it comes to international trade, you cannot choose any other system beyond the capitalist neo-liberal free market (unless you are willing to pay higher prices for the sake of sticking to an ideology). Hence, there will be an existential paradox for the country. 2) Tax policies: What kind of taxation would the country adopt? 3) Social security and welfare: Extending from health, and education to basic infrastructure, the country will have to choose coherent policies. Which 'one' ideology will fit perfectly to the needs? Maybe none, and the state will need to borrow bits and pieces from different economic principles. Moreover, I don't think it is up to an individual that whenever s/he chooses to 'switch' the economic system that s/he can do so spontaneously. We as individuals are coercively participating in the economic system, and the system barely cares what we think/prefer as individuals. It is a collective emergent phenomenon, and to impose such a 'switchable' mode of operation might be really tough.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Goran Radanovic
Goran Radanovic3 years ago
I think this happens by default. Maybe not all of the ones you mentioned are simultaneous, but integrating all consciously would cause more havoc due to the complexity. Yet, I still believe that many of them are running concurrently. It's just naturally happening without someone trying to figure out the formula to combine them.
Please leave the feedback on this idea