> And why not ?

Because you are advocating for the government to fail due to under funding. Do you not realize that every piece of government has some group that wishes it didn't exist? You are advocating for the de-funding of everything.

Living with other people requires compromise. We cannot all have the government we want, because most of those governments are contradictory. Instead, the goal should be to guarantee the ability to change government.

> regardless of competence

That's a feature, not a bug, because there isn't (and never will be) agreement on the definition of "competence". In the past, for example, tests of "competence" were used to disenfranchise people.

> best tech

You cannot define this either.

> Why not write them in a special programming language

I would love to have laws written in a strict, machine-checkable grammar. "Legalease" already approaches this idea, with many defined terms and standard formats for some things. There is a lot of room for improvement, of course.

> executed against facts from reality ... no judges, lawyers and lawmakers

You should really hang out with lawyers more, because this sentence is wildly detached from reality. You're pretending that "facts" and the interpretation of how the law applies to them are (or ever could be) some sort of automatic process. A large part of trials is deciding what the facts are, as there is often disagreement about that.

> coming from sensors

Sensors fail. It requires interpretation and argument to decide how to handle those situations.

> input facts, click and get the judgement.

Automatic judgment of law is terrifying. Consider that from the perspective of people that don't have your level of privilege. Minority groups regularly have to fight democratically created prejudices, and human judgment - judges, juries, etc - that has the option to not apply the law is an important safety mechanism.

> Use collaboration and communication tools like Github to write the laws.

Sounds great. When are you introducing these tools to your local government? Also... "collaboration and communication" to decide how to run society is called politics. I strongly recommend participating in that process; just remember that you may have to do a lot of remedial work before everybody else is ready for tools like git.

> Log the public opinion and gather feedback in real time.

I'd love to have that. If you know of a way to do that which isn't trivially broken and doesn't allow coercion by employers or other people in positions of power, do share it. It would solve a lot of problems. Right now, we already try to do this in the voting process; adding in the internet or a phone "app" is guaranteed to create problems. For an explanation of why, see this[1] talk by Andrew Appel (CS prof at Princeton).

--

I suspect you're suffering from a tech-focused variation of the Just World Fallacy[2]. Reality just doesn't work that cleanly, even when you use computers. In fact, computers have a nasty tendency to amplify and automate mistakes and prejudices, just like they can amplify and automate useful work.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abQCqIbBBeM

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis