In Our past systems of governing, We pass "laws" - whether by consent of the "governed" (seldom) or by decree from a body of one to some number of Individuals who are making decisions.  (They aren't really Laws, for there are only three Laws.  If You look, You will see they are all statutes, codes, bills, declarations, constitutions, regulations, mandates, edicts, decrees, rules, and so on.  They are NOT Laws.)

So We operate under these decisions for Us as best We can.  We vote for "laws" that Others must follow, and justice is served poorly with the letter of the law at times being clearly opposed to the spirit.  (Or at least the spirit We were sold it as having.)  Or We vote for a representative who is supposed to vote in Our interest, but money nearly always buys that One out.

This is how democracies and republics operate.

Many of You know My work showing that We can eliminate the need for money and provide richly for ALL on this planet, with tools Humanity JUST NOW has, and if not, please see My other work, especially The End of Entropy.  Once We remove the need for money, most of the "laws" will be meaningless.  In fact, there are two types of "laws," the bulk dealing with commerce issues (and "drug laws" fall in there too, because they are there so some will make money).  With the removal of the need for money, these commerce "laws" become meaningless.  The few remaining deal with issues covered in the ancient three Laws:

Do not willfully hurt or kill another sentient, sapient Being

Do not willfully take or damage another sentient, sapient Being's property

Do not willfully defraud another sentient, sapient Being

Without a profit motive, these Laws are pretty easily kept.  Why would One defraud another of something when that something can be ordered on the web and delivered all for free?  Why take things that belong to Others?  And murder is a money thing.  So rare is murder outside of wars - drug wars, corporate wars, "elite" wars, domestic wars (all about money/power) and ordinary war profiteering wars.  No, can't solve for jealous lovers who lose it.  Can't solve for a few others - but the bulk of issues are solved for, the biggies:  poverty, oppression,  wage/debt and outright slavery, and profiteering.

In a society that has solved for profit motive (i.e., gotten rid of the need to exchange to survive), is democracy really what We truly want?  Many have said that democracy is "mob rule," and because it imposes (or is presumed to) the will of Others over the will of One, it can easily turn out that way.

Here is where I offer up the idea of a solutocracy.

Rather than voting on whether or not We want to (try to) make People behave a certain way, perhaps We should address whether some behavior is a PROBLEM in any given case.  Beyond the three Laws - which, when broken are always a problem to one degree or another - a problem can be quite subjective.  The more who look, the closer to objective perspective overall will be perceived.  If a community looks at a reported issue and also see a problem, then a problem likely exists.  On the other hand, if no real problem is seen, then it's probably best left for the Ones involved to handle.

With the web now covering a large portion of the planet, a central site could be set up, open-source programmed, where local, regional, continental, and global levels can be accessed, where reports can be made at the local level of problems, big and small.  Solutions can be discussed, and if enough People think it's a problem and vote for it, it goes to the next level.

Each time it moves to a higher level, more People are available to offer solutions.  In this way, local problems can be solved locally, but if the problem is big enough and there are no soltions locally, additional resources from a wider scope can be drawn on.

No One is limited to voting on just Their own local issues.  This allows for People who believe They have been wronged to put a call out to friends to vote and comment, as well.  In turn, if both sides have many They call to vote, the problem can be moved up a level and more objective a perspective will emerge.  Solutions will be more "fair."

Also, involvement will tend to be amongst Those who care about solving a given problem; no longer will People be interested only because there is a money angle.  Either the problem elicits concern or it does not.  It is small indeed if very few see a problem at all.

From such a structure, the People most skilled at solving a problem will emerge - as each Person offers a soltution, Others will evaluate the solution and will implement it if enough see it as a good solution.

This differs greatly from "mob rule" because:

1.  Most looking at the problem will NOT be vested in it.
2.  If a group is pushing for an "unfair" solution, a larger group will emerge to push for a better solution.
3.  Mobs are more a function of physical proximity than distanced by a lack of immediacy over the web.  (Thus We see People speaking Their minds on the web as They never would in face-to-face interactions.)
4.  In a system that does not set rules, but rather examines each problem as it arises, mob rule (as the term "rule" implies) cannot "rule."

So rather than voting for People to vote for "laws" that apply whether there is a problem or not (and frequently creating more problems), We only look at things if there IS a problem to begin with.  Rather than expecting one Individual to have expertise in solving all problems, the BEST Individual(s) for solving any specific problem will emerge.

In such a system, One is then free to do anything and everything One wants to do within the three Laws, and as long as Others see no problem.  And when a problem arises, a high degree of objectivity can be achieved in solving it.

I suggest that We consider this form of governance over governMENT (controlMIND).  From this system ALL are able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness with ease.