<div class="text-justify">

Ask the average person what the purpose of the government is, and unfortunately, they won't really have an answer - even though they believe they are pretty savvy on what is right and wrong in the world. Ultimately though, the answer is pretty simple,

> To improve the wellbeing of citizens.

This can take many forms and requires a large amount of activities at scale, but it should be the underlying premise of every government action. And, because no country resides within a vacuum, other countries have to be factored in as well. However, if all countries had the underlying tenet of improving wellbeing for citizens, then things would function pretty well at the global scale also. 

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/2432d6LAcLzYmmJCqtcEdQuhyyZ4W4Y7Fcb6hHUhspu1wjFjUZyLLoMJpTV4QGMuX1bWi.png)

> We don't live in a simple world though.

However, there are a few things that we should consider when it comes to governments as they function today. One is whether there should be political parties at all. The reason to consider this is that there are a few mechanisms that the government has available to affect the wellbeing of the citizens, and if wellbeing is the goal, then it is silly to think that one side has all the answers. Instead, there should be professional groups that work in each area, more like a corporate entity, but instead of profit, wellbeing is the currency to maximise. The "president" is a common point for communication, but doesn't have power to affect direction. It is ridiculous to have an individual have power over areas they don't understand.

> "The government" becomes one unit with members changing depending on the needs to improve wellbeing, like roles in a business.

But hey, people like to fight for one side over another, because it makes them feel part of a group. But I will let you in on a secret - none of the sides are good enough. While they fight back and forth under the influence of lobby groups and investments that line their pockets, our wellbeing keeps declining, as resources are wasted on other activities.

But, that all aside (and the many caveats and nuances included), I think that while there wouldn't be a full change of the governmental process, I think that it would be possible (after a collapse) to potentially change some significant parts of the system and how we approach aspects of governance. For instance, decentralising parts of the process into the hands of the stakeholders, the citizens themselves. 

An example of this could be similar to the Hive DAO, the Hive development Fund (HDF). Let's say that the government direct responsibility is limited to particular parts of the wellbeing function and covers things like infrastructure, healthcare, and education. However, other aspects such as military spending is dictated by the people through a DAO system, funded by tax money. 

For simplicity, the tax system should be flat, and corporations should pay what they owe in the countries the revenue has been earned. And, with the government tenet of "improve wellbeing" (rather than the current on of maximise profits), business fundamentally changes anyway. However, still for simplicity, lets say the tax obligation needed for the government-led functions was 50% of tax resources, then the other 50% becomes taxpayer allocated. 

Using a DAO system like the Hive development fund, proposals for tax spending would be submitted and it would be up to the citizens to support, with each requiring to get over some kind of budget threshold to start. And, perhaps other than a small defence force, military action and especially aggression would not to be agreed to through the DAO, not through the government directly. Obviously, an oversight function would also be required, but this would allow *the people* to have control over how and where their money was being spent. 

It is hard to imagine this system in practice, because we have become so accustomed to firstly putting power in the hands of a government to do our thinking for us, and secondly, because there is so much economic disparity that we can't see it working. However, the disparity in wealth and wellbeing has largely been created because of the decisions of economic spending being put in the hands of those governments, as they favour some outcomes more than others, and the wellbeing of citizens is not high on their list - their actions prove this over and over. And, because they have uncontrolled power, they keep growing themselves, and protecting themselves. 

> This shouldn't be possible for "the government". 

The point of considering governance at all, isn't to provide a solution to the problem at this point. Rather, it is about building a very clear understanding of the purpose of governance and that despite what we have been led to believe, there are better ways than we have. It isn't just about the governments making better decisions, it is about us as stakeholders in our outcomes as taking real active responsibility for how we get there. Decentralisation is the way we have to move, because centralisation is wrought with inherent risk, with the largest being *power corrupts.*

>We can see the corruption of our wellbeing as a society and a species.

It is not that we can do better.
We have to do better.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]



</div>