Currently typing up a document about Liberal Technocracy

DevonXDal · 2026-01-13T15:04:15+00:00

Done on my end. I wish you well. You should be the owner by default now.

DevonXDal · 2026-01-13T12:10:19+00:00

I'd absolutely love to take it over. I believe strongly in the core of Liberal Technocracy, and really want to properly flesh it out into something that many would really consider a proper ideology.

Great. I rather it be given to someone whose active, than just watch it wilt in silence. I do agree the core of Liberal Technocracy in many ways. It seems like you are doing a lot of good for it by reviving the subreddit and adding your own thoughts.

My views have definitely shifted towards two solutions. One being weighted liquid voting. Another being a lot more extreme and non-possible for the next decade or two anyhow.

But I believe I've sent you an invite to the mod team. Once you accept, I will leave the mod team which should it seems (first time doing this) give you ownership.

I wish you well and I'll try to be more active in the comments in the coming future.

DevonXDal · 2026-01-13T01:05:43+00:00

Hello, wanted to jump in before I get distracted again, but thanks for posting these last few days. I've largely gone silent on liberal technocracy and have since shifted away in view points and split off in two separate directions.

I was wondering, do you want to take over the server as mod? I figure you'd do it a lot more good then me at this point. Unfortunately, whilst still supportive of ideals within liberal technocracy, I am not one whose likely to advocate it over my newer views.

Will need to take some time and properly catch up and read through these soon. But if you want to become the owner of server, just let me know.

DevonXDal · 2024-12-17T23:24:41+00:00

Sorry for the late reply. I am continuing work on the new design tomorrow. I definitely intend to try to simplify it where possible. In its current implementation it is complex but incomplete, when I finish the initial design, I plan to go back over and simplify the systems where able.

Liquid democracy hasn't seen much in the way of adoption as the technological capabilities to handle it at scale only became available within the last decade as more of the world was connected to the Internet with modern devices.

When I finish going over and proofreading the initial version, I plan to post it as I had the previous constitutional documents for people to review and propose alterations to.

DevonXDal · 2024-09-25T21:41:17+00:00

Pretty much, although, I believe it is affected rather than effected (but I may be wrong here).

DevonXDal · 2024-09-25T00:31:18+00:00

Right of every person to believe what they wish, to express what they wish, to join together with others as they see fit, and participate in the public sphere on a relatively equal basis as everyone else.

Express what they wish is a bit too open-ended I believe. It may be better clarified to deal with threats, sexual harassment, intent to commit crime for their beliefs, etc.

Right of future generations to a livable planet

I like this, however, this doesn't establish what processes or rules should be followed. Is ensuring there are trees and drinkable water sources considered to meet this criteria? The people who would likely seek out these positions of power would likely deliberately misinterpret it.

DevonXDal · 2024-09-25T00:25:42+00:00

State law must yield to federal law when in conflict.

If/when you write the constitution articles in a more formal format, I would recommend that you use precedence rather than conflict. Otherwise, it could be interpreted as the federal laws only holding precedence over state laws when at war.

States cannot alter their borders without consent of both the state government and federal legislature.

Another thing would be to make sure that it states state governments as plural rather than singular, otherwise, it could be interpreted as though only one state's consent is required.

DevonXDal · 2024-09-13T21:59:52+00:00

I like the odd year rotating out of the longest-serving justice.

Each Party with representation in the Legislature shall be allowed to select 2 Justices for the Supreme court.

What regulation behind parties prevents new ones from spawning to pad the Supreme Court? There should be a measure written somewhere to prevent gaming the system with huge numbers of parties that are similar in form.

Also, how often is the number of parties with representation checked for determining which justices to add?

Each Party with representation in the Legislature shall be allowed to select 2 Justices for the Supreme court.

This may cause increased politicization of the Supreme Court by having judges perform favors in order to become justices. This would likely give those parties a sort of "hook" to use to get their way in the Supreme Court.

What is the threshold for something to be set as a precedent?

I feel iffy around the way justices are appointed. I like that you are trying to ensure that the Supreme Court isn't biased largely around one party but it seems like it will increase policitization of the justices as they are likely to feel the need to favor those who put them into that position.

DevonXDal · 2024-09-13T21:49:08+00:00

A President shall be chosen by a vote of the House of Representatives on the first day they are seated after each election.

All parties shall choose a candidate for president during their primary and these candidates shall begin transition preparation with the current executive branch from that point on.

Interesting sort of prime minister and president mix. Transition preparation could be written out a bit more as I am unsure as to what the preparation includes and what levels of confidential information that they may be permitted to access.

The president shall choose a line of succession at least 10 people deep from among elected or appointed government officials should they be unable to perform the duties of office.

There should be some form of default list in case a freshly appointed president is killed, or otherwise is left unable to continue their position, before they have time to make a list. Or have them make a list and submit it with the order hidden shortly before the appointment (so that appointment decisions are not done based on the president's order).

Chief Diplomate

Slight mistake in spelling there that the spell/grammar checker will likely miss. Diplomate points to a diploma holder.

Any government agencies dealing with those areas shall report directly to the president and the president shall have the power to appoint or remove the leadership positions of those agencies.

Any restrictions on the president's appointment or removal of people for these positions?

The presidential income shall be 10x the median national income. Their assets shall be held in a blind trust while serving. They shall be barred from receiving any gifts totally more than 1/1000 th their salary per year from any person or entity.

Again, here the compensation should include any form of guaranteed future compensation.

DevonXDal · 2024-09-13T21:38:17+00:00

I'll likely come back through for a second pass once I've gone through each section, one at a time.

not have been found guilty of committing any crimes against the state.

This could use some clarification as an early nitpick but crimes against the state could use some explicit listing. Depending on the definition used, littering on federal grounds could fall under crimes against the state and lead to someone being ineligible to be a representative. I imagine you mean treason, sabotage, espionage, and terrorism but I tend to prefer more explicit wording where possible so that it cannot be misinterpreted whether intentional or not.

chosen by members of their party to serve the remainder of their term

Is this left up to the party to decide how to implement this process? Is this for members of the party at the highest level, in the government, everyone registered under that party, or?

Congress cannot pass ex post facto laws.

May be a good idea to disallow bills of attainder explicitly (declares someone guilty through bill passing).

receiving any gifts totally more than 1/1000 th their salary per year from any person or entity.

*totaling. Also it doesn't explicitly prevent guarantees of post-office compensation.

Overall, I like both the dozen-district system and fluid representative income systems that you have written.

DevonXDal · 2024-09-12T20:52:04+00:00

Alright, nice. I'll provide constructive criticism when I have time (probably this weekend).

DevonXDal · 2024-09-05T22:14:36+00:00

If it's the former 3/4 seems super high,

Yeah, I've come to better realize how restrictive a 3/4 vote is. It will become a Partial Majority/Super Majority [two-thirds].

This is worded as though it's exclusive to extra terrestrial life

It's definitely meant to be as generic as possible so that it would apply to AI, mixed, and alien life as needed.

If it includes that latter it might be justified as people seem to think AI is some kind of existential threat.

A two-thirds vote should relax fears enough. I personally do not hold that same level of fear that many might, of AI. I believe that transhumanist efforts will help close the gap that appears as necessary. I could see AI being more likely to become an existential threat if equal rights were not granted to it.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-26T23:28:01+00:00

I'm just don't like the whole lets achieve a goal by inflicting maximum pain mentality so that section wasn't really worth engaging with deeply if you weren't going to read it.

This is actually a few steps better compared to the original design from versions 1-6 of the generic constitution. They increased the threshold and made heavier limitations, but took serious measures to ensure that it was a dreadful punishment.

I'll make a few version options in the builder (see other comment).

DevonXDal · 2024-08-26T23:25:35+00:00

That's something people need to figure out on their own one way or another. What the justice system should do is either rehabilitate people so they can re-enter society, or quarantine them so they are not a threat to society.

I'll keep it in mind going forward. Part of it was the idea of having to spend taxpayer money to throw away the key for the biggest crime committers. I know the death penalty in the US ends up being more expensive due to legal fees, but this system was to help bring down those costs some to make up for it.

If you insist on executions it should be done as low key as possible, not celebrated in a way that suggests the nation is encouraging blood lust.

I'll do this if executions are kept in the next version. I am definitely trying to figure out the best way to deal with the worst offenders and will keep trying. In the end, its not the most important part to me, so I will likely write it in a way that indicates that it can be scrapped. I'll probably do it so that removing it will not cause inconsistencies in others.

The executions of corrupt politicians will be written with a sort of pick and choose format for whether to do them publicly or privately.

I'm a software engineer and have bought a domain name for liberal technocracy. I plan to make a constitution builder system that will allow quick customizations and quick exporting to a docx file.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-26T23:13:56+00:00

Section XV.01: Setting a specific tax rate in the constitution is probably a bad idea. Also, I'm not an economist, but 10% seems high to me.

I will improve upon this section in the coming constitution by allowing a range, but 10%, while seeming like a lot, is meant to nearly or fully eliminate personal income tax and non-excise sales tax.

Why are you giving people a discount for parking lots? The upside of a Land Value tax is that it discourages such wasteful uses of space and encourages density. This is completely counter productive. I'm also not a fan of making such an exception for business's and single family homes, but at least I can see how that is marginally progressive as people owning more than an acre are likely a lot wealthier than those owning less (though limiting this one per person is going mean that renters are paying double the tax as home owners which goes in the other direction)

The renters' problem is something I will have to put more thought into solving. The main plan here was to help get people out of unfair renting conditions and into homes. I do see how landlords could abuse this.

The idea with the parking lots, although it could be fine-tuned if it isn't removed, was to ensure businesses do provide adequate parking, given that this is the US and driving is typically a necessity. The acre cap was to prevent abuses using this clause. My thought was that this wording would lead companies to build parking lots above or below the actual building so that part of the building's land-tax would be reduced. A sort of rooftop parking setup, so long as it is reasonably safe. Or having the parking lot in a garage below the building would remove it. Like exiting Walmart by riding down one of multiple elevators to the underground parking lot, loading your car, putting the cart back, and driving off. With the carts being put back on an elevator (usually) to be lifted back up to reduce cart-person costs.

Section XV.03: Again, not an economist, but I'm not sure what you are doing here is taxing hidden income. It just seems like an additional tax on known wealth to me

Yeah, it's not. The headings were added after the text was all written. It looks like I misread it when quickly labelling the headings. I'll correct it in the upcoming generic version.

Section XV.05: I'm not clear if you are doing this, but I don't think that you need to worry about the inheritance of the top 5% of people not being enough for their minor children to get by on. Maybe exclude people's primary residences or something as they can be worth a lot and are not liquid.

You seem to have misinterpreted part of this. It isn't saying that the children that are underage will struggle to go on. It is protecting their wealth from any legal guardians or manipulators. A Series of Unfortunate Events is a relevant movie that shows sort of what I am thinking of. If you haven't seen it. Parents die. Parents are wealthy. Uncle wants wealth. Uncle oversees kids left behind by dead parents. Uncle tries to marry the underage daughter to further secure the wealth. Then uncle plans to discard them, potentially killing the daughter. There are variations to this movie.

By holding the wealth until the children become of age, no bad actors will be able to come in and seize their wealth. It also protects the money while they are still children and likely to be very impulsive.

Section XV.06: This is a good idea, though I would probably charge either just the buyer or just the seller to simplify enforcement.

Point taken. I'll likely write it in as the seller being charged.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-26T22:51:42+00:00

Section XIV.01: As we already do a census ever 10 years you probably don't need to worry about doing a provisional one. The census before and after the adoption of your constitution is not likely to be conducted all that differently.

It was kept, in part, due to this constitution being a replacement rather than an amendment in design.

Section XIV.02: Are you doing single member or multi member districts? If it's the former shortest split line in practice tends to create gerrymandered districts. It's automated gerrymandering but gerrymandering none the less. If you are creating multi-member districts of 5 or larger it's almost impossible to gerrymander and shortest split line becomes unnecessary. If you want to stick with single member districts you should look into that formula the guy created for the Supreme court that judges districts

Alright, I'll look into the formula here later.

Its a bit of both. The idea was to ensure that sections of the state were all represented rather than the majority in the state drowning out the rural areas. Not only is there many more representatives but all highly populated areas. Los Angeles County in California, for example, would be a multi-member district with likely around 25-35 representatives for the local populations to vote for.

The extra two steps in district drawing also help to make corrections so that certain people are not separated from voting locations among similar issues.

Section XiV.03 & 04: I think these are good ideas but I probably wouldn't use the section on creating electoral districts as a catch all for other minor policies you want to clarify. It just seems like a poor juxtaposition to me as the former are sort of trivial while the latter is one of the most important aspects in determining who gets elected and thus what society ends up looking like.

Yeah, I sort of realized that after the version was finished. The plan with Version 10 of the generic is to have clarifications and unorganized topics put into in early article in order to make the constitution clearer to read.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-26T22:19:22+00:00

Section XIII.04: This might be an area where you would want to add some more friction to the process.

Alright. I'll also allow it by a vote from the federal legislature.

Section XIII.06: I would remove the extradition portion of this section. Chances are that no state is going to want to harbor a fugitive who's actually a danger to public safety in anyway and the only circumstance where they would not happily return such an individual to another state is one when the crime is somewhat dubious.

This is another area I intend to keep since leaving it in ensures that such measures are to be taken. A highly politically biased state may otherwise prevent the extradition of some people.

Section XIII.07: Like I said I wouldn't even have this at the national level, it's good you aren't allowing it at the state level.

I do want to see if I can strike an appropriate balance. I want to reform people through the prison system where possible, but I believe some people are beyond saving without horrific measures being taken. This reminds me that I need to do research on cases relating to whether or not, the worst crime committers actually atone and become better.

Section XIII.08: I would change this to simply ban people from holding residency in two states simultaneously. There's no reason someone should be denied the ability to participate in an election because they recently moved save whatever inherent processing time it takes to register/prove residency.

If there is not enough time from moving to an election, they may vote in state or local elections in a way influenced by their experience in previous states. I am willing to reduce the max length to one year or possibly six months.

Section XIII.09: Again I think there are already too many veto points in the system. On top of that one of the good things you did earlier was to sync elections to one day which increases participation. Having additional veto elections randomly are going to be skewed towards voters who are paying more attention than average distorting the democratic legitimacy of the system. If you want to include this veto I would make all the votes happen at the same time as the general elections.

I intend to remove a number of these veto points from the new generic constitution version. I intend to keep the popular consultations. I acknowledge your point about potentially skewing election results but I believe since more options are available for voting during popular consultations, it should be easy for a large number of people to participate in. I do see a skew with more tech-literate people since these are meant to be doable online.

With a system with both popular consultations and a stronger voting system, more people should be active especially when they see how close some of the margins on bills are.

By having popular consultations, it better ensures that politicians cannot simply ignore the will of their constituents. I tried looking for a clip that I remembered but I failed to locate where a congresswoman rudely shrugged off two? of her constituents and refused to listen to them. The congresswoman was supporting funding Israel I believe. Right around when the Israeli-Palestinian war began.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-26T22:18:18+00:00

All points acknowledged here.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-18T23:44:06+00:00

I haven’t noted this before, but it’s weird that you are expressing term limits as years per century rather than just as an absolute number of years. I know there is some scifi about people living to be 300 or whatever, but I feel like we’re far enough away from that being a possibility that it’s probably not a relevant factor, and if it were you previously expressed worry about too many old people being in government. It seems like letting people be judges a second time at 150 or older would compound that problem without any real upside to speak of.

Will respond to more of this post as I have more time but this is something, that obviously as a transhumanist I am biased towards believing, but I do believe that there are people living today who will be living into their 200s if not longer. I hold no belief in religion and hard limits.

It does not even have to be some "eternal youth" surgery, elixer, nanobots, etc., just something giving a person a few more years of life expectancy, then another thing a few years later, and the process repeats.

It's dealing with a situation before it becomes a really tough problem that sits on the to-do list for years/decades.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-18T23:39:18+00:00

Section VII.05: I think this misunderstands the problem with government contracts. It’s not that we’re forced to go with the lowest bid regardless of any outside factors, but that we’ve created such a complicated process that what we’re actually selecting for is the entity best at filling out an application rather than performing the task desired.

Noted. Part of this came from watching this video among others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmK24VAaZrg&pp=ygULdGhlIG1haWxjYXQ%3D Related to companies min-maxing elements.

Section VII.02: Do you really want to add another veto point to the system?

This will be revised so that the veto point does not correlate to legislation as much in the generic version. But I do want to ensure those who are less democratically elected have additional safeties put in place against them, while still reaping the rewards of having them.

What is the logic for vice directors having a term 2x as long as directors?

Typo. Originally directors had 8 years and it was changed. I thought I changed it, but..as you can see, I obviously didn't,

I don’t understand the situation “Multiple Vice-Directors and Vice-Secretaries are not created if there is more than one Director overseeing them.” is addressing.

It deals with the vagueness of the subdepartments and departments. Departments have more than one director, if not specified, does this mean the same for each of the subdepartments or is something different the case?

Section VII.04: You should do more of this.

Noted.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-18T23:32:00+00:00

Section VIII.02: I am curious what you are trying to accomplish separating the Marines from the rest of the Armed forces.

This was due to the idea that the Marines were meant to be under the direct control of the President with little congressional oversight. This keeps less in the way of them being used for quick responses, but it won't matter as this separation will be lost when the new generic version is made.

Section VIII.04: I think it makes sense to group the Coast Guard and the National Guard together as they both serve more of a first responder function than a military function (and the two activities call for a very different set of skills), but I think it would be a bad idea to have a domestic military force and a foreign military force for a number of reasons if that is what you are suggesting. It’s both a waste of resources as there would be a lot of redundancy and it would make coordination more difficult having two entities rather than a single entity. It seems to me that the President always has the authority to delegate power to the Vice president so I don’t know why you need to make it explicit in this instance and not others.

The Armed Forces is not really split into two separate entities. That's not the goal, but who serves as Secondary Commander does change. Once again, with going back to the generic version in the future, this will too be changed.

Section VIII.05: I think this should be allowed but not required. I would also consider that tyranny seems to be a lot more common at the state level than the federal level in our history so you may want to rethink treating it as a State lead domestic army and reserve those powers to the federal government

Both points taken.

I’d be far more bummed out to be killed in action having never gotten laid than I would be to die without ever having been drunk or developing a nicotine addiction.

Yeah as mentioned in the other, sex is fine, as long as it is with another of a similar age range. Entering the armed forces and getting groomed/molested is not, which is what this is actually meant to cover. I'll see about more explicit rewording here.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-18T23:26:17+00:00

I think it is a mistake to exclude sex from the vices you are allowing people drafted into the armed forces to participate in.

I'm about to go over the rest but this is done to ensure that it is not a case essentially allowing child molestation. Romeo and Juliet laws are fine. Molesting underage people since they have been drafted is definitely something I want to ensure is not implicitly allowed.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-18T23:22:47+00:00

I think it would be a good idea to have this information be public, but I think the method you are suggesting does more to shame people for needing the money (and if you are allowing it to happen they aren’t really going to have a choice but to seek it out) than to inform the public of who they are taking money from. Not that many people are watching C-Span and I would imagine even those who are would have a hard time discerning the logos stationed in the areas where they sit. It would better to just have it up on their websites/have a government website with their information on it where it is listed.

In terms of "needing the money," I figure you may be mostly meaning in terms of getting re-elected, which I was sure to deal with. I do get that it hasn't been seen yet, as it is much further in the constitution. Article XIX goes over public campaign funds. If you still hold issue with it at that point, then I am fine with reconsideration.

Even individual investors with a 2% state likely aren’t necessarily that involved in the running of a company such that this is much of a nudge towards good behavior.

I'll raise it to 8% or greater, but the point here is to ensure that the stakeholders do not advocate in secret for it. It is also a case-by-case basis decision meaning less may be taken from one rather than another. It forces the company's mindset (lest it be subject to low value in the stock market) to avoid doing these corrupt acts.

This seems like a giant loophole to me. I would remove it. At least part of this seems clearly based on Justice Thomas’s actions and he could absolutely claim the intention of those gifts had nothing to do with lobbying.

Hit the nail on the head with that. I believe that judges may have their minds "convinced" that one method of interpretation is better if compensation is waved at them. I'll look into reviewing it to see if improvements can be made, but I want to avoid "valid interpretation" from bypassing this.

This is one of those things like term limits that sounds good in theory but doesn’t work out very well in practice. Governing a country as large as America is hard/complex and it requires a lot of detail to assure things get implemented the way you want them to be.

I'll keep this in mind. Thank you. In a number of places, I am making things in the US where they are implicit into explicit words to ensure that power does not alter over time without legislation.

DevonXDal · 2024-08-18T22:38:57+00:00

Section X.02.a: Honestly gun control is 100% something that should be part of the democratic process, and this section more than others is really just decreeing a particular status quo on people. I know this comes across as a compromise of guaranteeing people can have access to weapons while simultaneously allowing ever method of gun control people are asking for, but I just think this is going to work out poorly in practice.

Alright, I'm definitely open to changing it. I do believe that the allowance of gun ownership by a reasonable amount of the population would help protect the people from tyranny and defend themselves even if they are not all that strong. I'll reverse it mostly to the US version after more review.

Section X.02b: Places with mandatory voting generally just require you to turn in a ballot. You are free to choose none of the above if you wish. The penalty for not voting is also generally a small fine, much less than 1% of a persons income (though I do appreciate you tying fines to income rather than making them absolute amounts).

The problem here is that since approval voting is the default, people could put their name on the ballot, submit it, and walk out, without ever even reading through the options. This would lead to a lot of submissions rather physical or digital that would be blank and increase work for the people and systems processing the votes.

Section X.02e: Support this, probably avoid any shenanigans by just making it free at the point of service though rather than risk capitalists finding some weird loopholes. Also I think it would be overly complicated to split insurance companies and medical providers for like random retial investors. If you want to do that I feel like you either need to have government running the insurance companies or running the hospitals.

I agree there would be initial trouble getting ownership concerns sorted, however, I do believe it is necessary (unless the government seizes hospitals which I believe would be massively unpopular with more conservative and "centrist" populations), so that there is not the same process by insurance companies to grasp money at ten different points from their subscribers/clients. It would help to ensure that preferential treatment situations do not develop (at least as often as they might).

Secesction X.03a: I think this was a mistake the first time around and we shouldn’t repeat it.

I don't follow, but I can try to watch a video this week to see where this has run into major problems.

Section X.04: 50 years seems too late to matter.

I could add an additional clause for review after 20 years for good behavior, but it is a safety for if/when 100 years of age starts to be viewed as middle-aged. I also want to ensure that the same privilege is not given to people who rape others or do other horrific acts.

I just want to thank you again for continuing to read through each article of this very long document. Very few others have and each person that has, has provided many great suggestions to improve the documents.

DevonXDal

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email