What if 'The ÐAO' Framework was used to pay taxes for things citizens actually wanted?
The ÐAO is structured so ÐAO Token Holders can vote on sending money to proposals. What if 'The ÐAO' Framework was used to pay taxes? Then the government would have to write proposals on how the money was being spent before the could receive the funds. Citizens could fund public projects that they actually wanted...
While I appreciate the power of the swarm, and dream of an utopian world where everyone can be free from a ruling power, I feel the general public wouldn't be able to handle that. They aren't educated enough, too self-centered, and can't calculate risks good enough.
One example are seatbelts. There was huge opposition to making them mandatory in the public, a couple of hundrets of thousands prevented deaths later the arguments that came up in the beginning are nothing but bad jokes.
I don't argue that the government generally knows better. But giving all decisions into the hands of individuals has a lot of downsides too imo.
But what's the real cost of making seatbelts mandatory? The government could still make that the law without direct "mandatory seatbelt" slush pool funding. That would come from a proposal for a "Public Safety Think Tank" or something - a place where elected government officials would still have discretion over public issues.
On a local level, it could be more impactful: locals could vote if they want the rickety bridge rebuilt or if they want a new fleet of cop cars purchased for the state patrol.
Seatbelts are a bad example from that perspective of course. We'd have to look at the financing of things most don't have a benefit from, but a minority really really needs.
On a local level it's something different, and I'm all for it. I generally think more of the decision making has to be put into the hands of communities, and state/federal governments should only be responsible for what's required to connect them, or where there is no community to care.
//edit: We even had a project similar to that on Horizon, for a candidate for the London mayor. The plan was to mirror the cities funds with assets, with the chance to let the public vote on some transactions later. His campaign wasn't successful, and the project itself never got off the ground, but it shows that the thought isn't very far fetched :)
http://mayorschain.com/
How many people actually buckle up "because it's the law"?
Just because a law was passed doesn't mean that is the reason seatbelts saved lives. The same applies to almost everything the government takes credit for.
Same thing goes for drunk driving laws, anyone stupid enough to drive drunk isn't going to change their mind just because it is illegal.
They started to buckle up because they didn't want to pay a fine. Today we do it because we all know that it's for our best. And when you seriously think about it, you'll agree that the possibility to lose their license is an important reason to not drive after a couple of drinks for most people, because they don't realize how the alcohol affects their perception already.
Another example would be smoking. The ban in public places changed the perception, few people keep complaining about their personal freedom being cut down, and in a generation or two this argument will be gone completely (like the one against buckling up: "how weak do you think i am, i can just hold myself").
It's proven how laws affect the behavior and thinking of the individual, and can even change morals over time. People like to act according to the norm, and the norm gets defined by laws a lot. On the other hand, laws that go boldly against the existing norm are not as effective as those which are agreed on already.
"Law can influence moral attitudes by recharacterizing behavior previously thought of as harmless"
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2292051
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/social-norms-jackson-112414.html
You can go far back in history and find more examples all the time. Even violence and self-justice have been a lot more common in early societies, until laws came up that frowned upon them.
As in regular democracy voter participation is always an issue. That said what you propose is a great idea and if we ever establish a Mars colony a new nation on Mars may choose to use the blockchain to manage it's finances.
But that would defeat the entire point of government which is to transfer power and money to the control of the elite.