We're starting a new country focused on digital governance, technological innovation, and a "Digital by default" policy.
Our government will digit...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
From your website, I understand that modern states are old, not pragmatic, not let by citizens, not for citizens, don't allow to pursue their life goals, don't have a unique kind of government systems, have old infrastructure, bald living standards, are old in a lot of aspects of governmance, banking, education and more, don't like to take risks, etc...
WOW it seems like noone could design such a bad system from scratch.
But why then?
What is your general theory of why the existing states ended up in a such terrible state?
Because nearly none were created when modern technology was around
Ok so if that's your general theory, mine is that you too much confidence in your own ability to analyze correctly 6.000 years of human history
They don't need to compete for citizens, which is why their systems degrade to such terrible usability, terrible services, thick bureaucracy.
There's no incentive to innovate or streamline government processeses because people are forced to deal with the government, whether they like it or not.
We, on the other hand, need to compete for citizens and will innovate and streamline the user experience of the citizen, to support people, businesses and settlement as much as possible
In my opinion, you are lacking a basic realistic theory of state, politics, human nature, ambitions, violence, struggle for power, ...
The utopias that were there before you knew much more about this stuff, but even them failed.
People who don't understand the State but think they can do 42 times better anyway make me laugh.
But apart from that, they cannot do any good.
What Promatia is doing is that it is looking at governance in a different light. I am part of the project, yet I realize that there is a high chance it could fail (like any startup). However, if this is able to kickstart the competitive governance industry (leading to more choices), then we will see a large improvement in government service delivery and policy.
you do what you want obviously. from my part I would rather talk with the civil servants, listen to their problems and help them do to their jobs 1% better
Who's to say that I am not working both inside and outside the system ;) . It is a principle called "Voice and Exit". In a democracy, you should be able to give your opinions and vote to try and change the system (this is called "voice"). However, it is equally important to change the system via exiting it and creating something new that can compete with (and sometimes replace) the old system (this is called "exit"). If you have a monopoly (which most governments are), then there is little incentive to change. However, if you have a free market in governance, then they are more likely to change.
Exit, Voice and Loyalty is not new to me, I've read A. Hirschman.
What is strange to me if why you need to pretend that all of this is new. I live in Berlin so I know very much that even before the Blockchain was a thing, the east part of Germany was competing very hard for its citizen with its neighbors, and indeed loosing them no matter how hard they tried to social democracy on the other side of the wall
I agree, it is not exactly new, we saw it even in the Ancient Greek city states. However, technologies have now developed to a point that is now easier to establish such a system. One could argue that you already have that system with the USA and EU (interstate migration), however most of the states in Europe and America operate on the same operating system (except Estonia). What I hope to achieve with Promatia (as well as some other projects I advise), is to give us much more choice with our governance providers. More choice never made anyone poorer. Personally, I am more of a seasteading advocate (I have senior contacts in the movement), as it is a better medium to test this on.
Jean, the reason I know it's going to be better is that we've actually designed more convenient systems that exist under the current governments.
In my eyes, we have already superseded other governments in particular areas of service, and we've only just started.
Over the next few months, we will be launching the rest of the government systems which will enable all the requirements for a proper nation to function (banking, citizenship, judicial, organisational/business, infrastructure, etc)
edit: And regarding the Dunning-Kruger effect, we've been at this a lot longer than you might think. One of our members has been working on their project since 1998, and I've been doing this for 5 years. We have advisors in the public sector, business owners, teachers, researchers, software engineers and professionals within our team.
Look, if you believe in this, I of course can't and don't want to stop you.
My general point was that the modern states have been hundreds and thousands of years in the making, and that they belong to the most difficult and most useful things mankind ever built, and that the smartest people have weighted in that process already.
They are clunky? Sure, even if much less than the stupid propaganda about it want us to believe.
Can we do better? Of course, but on a methodological level, I would do that from a place of humility rather than contempt. I would try to be a competent dentist that targets a specific pain, rather than thinking I would reinvent everything and makes it better.
I appreciate your wise comments Jean, and I totally understand where you're coming from. I know that governments aren't as clunky as propaganda likes to push, I am fortunate to live in a country with a fairly streamlined government compared to many other countries.
I don't want to reinvent for the sake of it, I want to reinvent to see if there is a better way to do something with technology that previously wasn't there. These are the areas we are focusing on and rebuilding with success.
I know that founding a state is one of the most humanly-challenging tasks, that's part of the reason me and many others are interested in doing this. I know it's something that will take more than a lifetime to complete
Thanks for your answer, glad that the discussion was productive for both of us.
Which other nations have been united into Promatia other than Arkovia?
Why have they decided to join together?
How is the australian government permitting this?
The nations that have united to form Promatia are laid out in this document.
promatia.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...
The decision to unify was a collection of individuals who had concluded that pooling together assets (and manpower) from multiple projects would benefit everyone involved.
Promatia has no intention to take land from the Australian government by force, but by normal acquisition through occupation (popular request). Promatia plans to build in the territory, settle the claim, create infrastructure, then connect to the surrounding area (figuratively and literally). We are using land that is not being used by, nor plans to be used in the near future.
The Australian government is not going to come remove people for building a new city on the continent. If all else fails, Promatia can become an incorporated autonomous state of Australia. Sovereignty is just plan A.
How would all this work? Does the Australian constitution expects something like this?
UN provides rights to people to have self-determination and therefore autonomous representation.
New countries will and have been created, and will continue to
The UN can't recognise a state though, other states do.
New countries can surely be created but they count nothing internationally if they're not recognized by some other state.
Also I repeat my unanswered question, does the Australian constitution expects something like this?
Never said the UN recognises other states, and we're not seeking recognition, we are seeking autonomous independence.
Australia's constitution is irrelevant, we are not part of Australia.
The backup plan for Promatia - the statehood option - is legal under Australian law, as long as Parliament consents. If there is a large enough economy in the region when we petition this to them, they will agree. However, we can also create alternative government systems or even become de facto independent - i.e. Taiwan.
The two notable merger nations are Arkovia and Regelis.
Most problems in life are social and not technological.
A couple of situations off the top of my head:
How would Promatia deal with the housing problem, i.e. homeless people despite an abundance of places to live?
How would you deal with discrimination, e.g. shop owners not serving trans* people?
These are easily solvable problems. Housing isn't a problem if people have proper jobs, contribute to society. The government will make sure that we no homeless in Promatia. We will offer proper support and care for the disadvantaged
The second one solves itself, the government doesn't need to meddle in private affairs.
Would you say you agree with the statement "people are only as valuable as what they produce"?
Everyone can be unbelievably valuable, and it's not limited to what they produce.
The issue is the education system isn't great in turning these individuals into valuable people.
I learned all I needed to know about Promatia's founding fathers when I noticed the "Shop" link at the top of the web site.
We plan to fundraise early expenditures from merchandise sale, 100% of proceeds would go to the government.
Nothing wrong with giving our citizens flags, pins and small items to show their support for the cause
What is the flag about