> Tired of political decisions being made by counting pebbles—or, worse, popularity contests? Explore an innovative vision for value-based, decentralised governance that uses language and AI, not just votes and tokens, to bring nuance, ethics and true participation into democratic processes. It's Wikipedia meets Liquid Democracy meets Digital Bureaucracy 2.0.
### Problem Statement The central challenge identified is that existing governance systems rely heavily on "tokens"—such as votes or monetary inputs—which are too crude to effectively represent the full spectrum of nuanced human values. These token-based systems are structurally limited by ancient bureaucratic mechanisms that prioritize countable inputs over rich ethical or philosophical considerations. As a result, important aspects of human judgment and collective decision-making, such as empathy, context, and moral reasoning, are poorly represented. ### Practical Limitations of Current Systems Physical gatherings like citizen assemblies and parliamentary meetings are limited by geography, time, and cost, which makes mass participation impractical. Although face-to-face deliberation fosters deeper understanding, it's energetically demanding, slow to organize, and accessible to a very limited number of participants. Digital replacements like Zoom reduce some costs but often at the expense of deliberative quality. ### Aim and Vision The goal is to design a scalable, efficient system that captures complex human values in language via participatory processes. Instead of relying on tokens, this proposed structure utilizes written and spoken language—supported by digital tooling—to allow humans to reflect more accurately their values, judgments, and collective intents. ### Conceptual Structure The system aims to replace traditional bureaucracy with a digital, scalable, and language-based governance model that integrates: 1. A “dictionary of values” similar to Wikipedia, where each entry reflects a concept or value (e.g., no spitting, sustainability). 2. A network of deliberative nodes, each of which is effectively a committee responsible for certain values. 3. A Bayesian decision-making architecture that allows these nodes to interact with each other and produce decisions based on weighted logical and statistical inputs. ### Implementation through Idea Mining Each document (e.g., a manifesto) is subjected to an “idea mining” process wherein participants extract core concepts and values, each represented as pages in the dictionary. These pages are iteratively written, edited, and refined by individuals or groups, and linked in a network of relationships such as abstraction, causality, or association. Over time, a sort of semantic graph is built—a value-based ontology used for governance. ### Group Collaboration and Consensus Work is done asynchronously and collaboratively by small groups or larger communities. Pages may be forked or merged as users seek consensus or reflect different interpretations. Titles and content evolve through dialogue and reciprocity, encouraging epistemic gifting and stewardship of meaning. ### Automation Possibilities Once the vocabulary and logical structure are in place, automation becomes possible. Decisions can be made or suggested by an AI based on logical rules and historical data. Human review is always possible where disputes exist. Automation is targeted at repetitive or low-contentiousness decisions, drastically reducing costs of bureaucratic work. ### From Tokens to Meaningful Judgments This system transitions away from simple token-based decisions toward deliberations based on meanings, definitions, and contextual logic. It enables values like “no spitting” to be operationalized through linked definitions, sub-concepts, and use cases. Automated rules and AI tools can handle routine validation, allowing limited human energy to focus on complex and contested issues. ### Value-Based Decision Networks Each value becomes a node in a network. Inputs (data, documents, interpretations) are processed through these nodes, which use rules (philosophical, logical, or statistical) to produce outputs. These outputs inform decisions or further deliberations. Initial decisions might be human-led, but increasingly structured and predictable areas can be automated while leaving room for human overrides and exceptions. ### Ethical and Scalable Governance By defining values and their interrelationships, this model offers a new type of governance: one that is deeply ethical, participative, and scalable. It retains human oversight but reduces the friction, expense, and exclusion found in conventional systems. It is especially powerful when integrated with modern computing, distributed networks, and AI-based reasoning. ### Use Case: Hitchhiker Manifesto Using the Hitchhiker Manifesto as a prototype, the methodology is applied concretely: - Concept extraction via idea mining. - Creation of value pages (e.g., “No Spitting”). - Assigning stewardship of pages to individuals/committees. - Structuring interrelated values hierarchically and logically. - Automating certain operations based on value relationships and community-approved rules. This serves as a template for other governance projects. ### Conclusion This approach enables decentralized, value-rich, language-based governance powered by digital tools and AI. It creates scalable legal and ethical deliberation processes while significantly reducing energy and bureaucratic cost. Ultimately, it offers a path to more meaningful, participatory decision-making systems grounded in human values.
---
Written for the ReGovern.Earth and Hitchhiker communities exploring new systems for participatory, values-based governance using digital and philosophical tools.
---
> Reimagining Governance: From Pebbles to Participatory AI
This discussion presents a compelling vision for a new kind of political deliberation that transcends current token-based systems. By leveraging language, sophisticated networks, and computational power, we may transform how communities make inclusive, value-based decisions—at scale and without the bureaucracy bottleneck. ## The Problem: Tokens Over Values Traditional governance systems—whether ancient or modern—are centred on tokens. These tokens could be votes, money, pebbles, or points—quantitative representations of individual preferences or power. This system evolved out of necessity: coordinating the choices of thousands or even millions of individuals without direct interaction was only possible through crude aggregation, usually numerical. The problem: this method is limited. It reduces rich human values into simplistic figures and rankings. Ethical nuance, emotional intelligence, context, and cultural meaning are lost. As a result, deep values are often transmitted only through culture or storytelling—mediums too soft to survive in a competitive, token-driven political system. Bureaucracies double down on measurement, data, and outputs, because numbers are the easiest to process. But that leaves moral and aesthetic dimensions of public life underrepresented or ignored. ## The Aspiration: A Value-First, Language-Based Politics The broader goal is to design political mechanisms that let us encode and act upon human values—not just preferences. These mechanisms should be: - Scalable across a distributed population; - Affordable in terms of energy, time, and organisational overhead; - Deeply participatory and capable of nuance; - Supported by modern computational capacity and decentralised networks; - Able to allow rich deliberation—akin to jury duty, meditation, or philosophical debate—without requiring everyone to meet in a physical space and hug it out. ## Why Current Approaches Fall Short Citizen assemblies and participatory forums have shown promise, but they're expensive and slow. For example, a citizen assembly in the UK might cost £1.5 million and take six months. Even Switzerland’s direct democracy—hailed globally—produces voter fatigue because citizens must attend endless meetings and votes. Moreover, stakeholder engagement typically focuses on power consolidation through "tokenomics": who has more money, more votes, more influence. Actual value-based thinking—what's good, fair, beautiful, sustainable—is siloed in research bodies or academia, with little influence over actual outcomes. ## A Solution Emerges: The Language-Network The core proposal is to structure governance using a dynamic network of articulated values, represented and deliberated through language rather than tokens. Here's how the suggested model works: ### 1. A Dictionary of Values Rather than a crude list of laws or votes, governance could arise from a structured dictionary of values, each one expressed as a wiki-style page. Much like Wikipedia, each page (concept) includes: - Definition and context; - Related images, metaphors, and references; - Links to sub-concepts and related ideas; - Input from participants and experts; - Ownership or stewardship by individuals or small groups. These value-nodes mirror what’s found in legal text or philosophical treatises: rich, subjective, evolving, and deeply interconnected. ### 2. Bayesian Decision Network for Governance Each value or concept becomes a node in a Bayesian decision network, with interconnections and influence flows. For instance: - Node A (e.g., “No Spitting”) may regulate online behaviour. - Node B (“Aggressive Language”) inputs into Node A, helping the system decide whether someone has broken the norm. - A document or video may be submitted about an incident, triggering automated deliberation within the network. These interconnected nodes can use probability, logic, and AI to process information and suggest or even enact decisions intelligently. Some decisions might be automated, others escalated to human committees—or “wiki-juries”—if ambiguity exists. ### 3. Human & AI Collaboration Crucially, participants remain at the centre: - People write and refine entries. - They 'idea-mine' foundational manuscripts (like a manifesto) to extract values. - They tender those values to others for input, discussion, or adaptation. However, energy- and time-saving automation flows in through: - AIs that summarise new information and match it to entries; - Event-driven triggers in wiki-entries (e.g., if someone uploads a video of “spitting”, the "No Spitting" node updates); - Intelligent meeting scheduling for humans when disputes or anomalies arise. This allows a system where humans do what they do best—explore nuance, interpret language, empathise—while machines handle scale, pattern recognition, and consistency. ### 4. Governance Without Tokenomics This language network replaces tokens (votes, money) as the primary decision engine. Instead of voting for big decisions once every five years, people continuously contribute meaning via textual interaction. Rather than reducing everything to yes/no tallies, decisions are the result of a dynamically evolving, philosophical ecosystem. This "wiki-government" for values means: - Faster, cheaper decisions due to automation; - More inclusive deliberation without exhausting participants; - More durable alignment with ethical and cultural meaning; All without needing parliamentary buildings, expensive MPs, or lobbyists. You're freed from the physical limitations of space and time. Contributions can be small, asynchronous, and deeply meaningful. Anyone, anywhere in the world, can contribute to a particular node and help shape the emerging values of a community—whether it's around homelessness, social media conduct, or climate goals. ### 5. Example: Hitchhiker Values & “No Spitting” As a case study, the author proposes implementing this model with ReGovern.Earth and a philosophical backbone called the Hitchhiker Manifesto. Here's how it could work: 1. A group reads the manifesto and “idea-mines” it—extracting values such as "No Spitting" (a metaphor for respectful discourse), "Radical Hospitality", and "Joyful Adaptability". 2. Each value gets its own wiki entry. 3. Entries are refined, philosophically deepened, and linked to other concepts (e.g., “playfulness”, “aggression”, “deliberative environments”). 4. Dialogue continues, and automation kicks in: - Someone complains about an incident online. - The AI flags possible violation of “No Spitting”. - It refers to sub-concepts (e.g., aggression, tone) to assess. - If the data is ambiguous, a human quorum is convened. Through this structure, scalable and low-cost governance becomes possible without sacrificing ethics or depth. ## Tooling for Implementation While early versions of this idea arose in the 1990s (e.g., liquid democracy and peer-reviewed science platforms), today there is renewed promise because: - Modern computing power enables autonomy and distribution; - Tools like decentralised servers, natural language processing, and AI deliberation agents are now viable; - Smart contracts and digital identities can be layered in from blockchain/DAO worlds; - Writing platforms and wiki tooling (aligned with Graph Theory and Semantic Web tech) are mature. Thus, what once seemed complex now becomes manageable. Ironically, language—which has always held human depth—may now power scalable problem-solving. ## Closing Thought: Political Power ≠ Token Counting Current systems pour vast resources into buildings and salaries, while only simulating participatory democracy. At the core, they're power contests built on token accumulation. This proposal reimagines governance as a fluid, evolving, expressive, and low-cost network of value-driven deliberation. It replaces representation and tokenism with co-authorship, and it uses AI not for surveillance or manipulation—but to amplify human meaning. It's serious philosophy. In code.