[atoav]

That's the point of it.

If we would do traffic like we do IT today every city would have their own graphic designer coming up with Stop and Yield signs.

[oever]

No, every city would license the $BigCorp logos for Stop and Yield and let $BigCorp police the streets. The logos would be updated frequently and drivers would need to have mandatory new training. Some cities would have a cheaper license in exchange for requiring citizens to share their movement data with $BigCorp.

To get from A to B, drivers would have to pass through $BigMac and wait 1 minute with the option to buy a 'meal' and continue on quicker.

[kwere]

land of the freest!

[rad_gruchalski]

> That's the point of it.

I would argue that this is a side effect. The point is: code paid for with taxpayers money is not some proprietary bigco ip.

[atoav]

Yeah, but these are intended side effects:

- less duplication of work (=spending of tax money) between structurally very similar communes

- less lock-in that keeps you bound to that one corp forever (=more incentives for them to deliver good work for the money)

- potential collaboration and improvements from outside actors (private persons, other communes, organizations, companies, ...)

The idea is basically: if we need to spend money for software anyway, why not develope it in a way that produces lasting value for society as a whole?

[rad_gruchalski]

Bluntly speaking, as a taxpayer of country A I don’t care if country B benefits. It’s okay if they do but as a taxpayer of country A I wouldn’t like my money to be spent on solving country’s B issues.

I agree with your general premise, though.

[atoav]

Some truth to that on a national level, but what about the communal level? Wouldn't your whole nation be a better place if its counties didn't have to spend money for solving the same problems over and over again (and put the money into other infrastructure instead)?