A public tasked honestly with the formation of a
government will have to answer this and other questions before the
public or anyone can design a democratic government to serve them. That
is a requirement of any system that claims to be a democracy. We
skipped this in America. We consolidated power and then made other
decisions by proxy, on a false foundation. This new power quickly
validated ITSELF, voting that representation was a valid _expression_ of
the public will. These decisions were the product of self interest,
because they could not have been the result of a devotion to
philosophy, a commitment to democracy, or the available evidence.
In the beginning, do we really assume that the
people would have given up their right to vote on war, which ravaged
every country they labored to escape? Do we believe that they would
trust this government, coming from lands led by leaders with little
interest in the serfs they controlled? Would they have given up this
right if asked directly?
No. It was taken, as were all other democratic
rights when representation was not validated explicitly by the
governed. The omission of a referendum process at the creation of the
union is proof positive that this government was not an _expression_ of
the public will... even the white male landowning public will, which is
a low bar for legitimacy indeed.
233 years later, we defend the decisions of the
representatives of white, middle and upper class males. But why?
We, the people, are afflicted with the tendency to
stick to our positions once they are publicly stated. We are also
susceptible to propaganda and conditioning. Combine with these
tendencies a mass media and endless repetition, we begin to understand
why the correct information sometimes takes a long time to surface.
Geocentricism, witch hunts, alchemy, theories of gods on mountaintops
throwing lightning and the luminiferous ether... not to mention modern
macroeconomics and the healing power of magnets.
Yes, there are benefits to representation, in theory
and practice. This is a supportable position. By focusing on this side
of the issue, it is easy to judge in favor of its existence.
We do not sufficiently appreciate the magnitude of
harm that representation causes, harm that can only partially be
mitigated by selecting the correct people for the job. We must be the
United People of America, apart from artificial institutions and
princedoms. We must be held completely accountable for the decisions of
our government, and we cannot, unless we are the same.
Direct democracy is not perfect. "One man, one vote"
is not a bulletproof concept, but it is the best of the available
choices.
I have been in favor of representation for over 20
years. I didn't change my mind until I actually started talking to
people about their views of society. I spoke to hundreds of people, a
few every day, venturing from my apartment in Seattle to simply discuss
politics with different people at Seattle Centre.
Very slowly, I realized that my comparative
advantages in decision making were illusory. Perhaps I underestimated
the masses because it fed my ego. Perhaps I had just seen SO many news
reports and political commentaries that I began to see people through
the their skewed lens... caricatures of reality. It is more than likely
both reasons that supported my misconceptions.
I would trust a vast majority of the people I
have spoken with to vote on issues, which they express to me in very
plain terms. Sometimes these terms are crude and sometimes they are
different than mine, but that's okay.I may not agree with a person, but
this is their country, too. We must decide together how to progress,
and I would rather collaborate directly than through some convoluted
and corruptible process. It is to everyone's benefit if this process is
honest and transparent... simple and efficient. We sacrifice all four
of these benefits to some degree with representation. We must be sure
it is worth the sacrifice.
When I talk to these same people about
candidates, the conversation is sometimes about political ideas and
understanding of the issues, but often it takes a back seat to other
considerations. Many times, a desire for change is evident, but not a
direction. Could it be that the actual changes we long for are
impossible, so we settle for picking a team that will let us feel we
have some control over a system that no one controls... a system out of
control?
In all, I find that these "stupid" people know far
more about the issues than they know about the candidates they are
electing. It is a far easier task to research an issue than it is
to correctly judge the character of a man who seeks power.
If people are easily duped and lead, then the
correct course is to limit the impact of their ignorance. If they are
responsible, then a direct democracy poses little threat. Hitler was
elected, after all, so ignorance of the masses does not necessarily
imply that representation is superior... one could convincingly argue
quite the opposite.
Initiative/referendum states (and
Switzerland) effectively give the public the ability to override or
pass any law that the public chooses. Our analysis MUST include the
quality and effects of these laws, as well as the admission that the
"public is stupid" argument would make this situation a disaster... in
theory...
How it actually plays out should dispel any fears,
but we cling as barnacles to the rock of our individuality... the
makeup of which must include our passionately held beliefs. If we
correct our positions when we are wrong, we lose a part of ourselves,
but it is a cancerous part. We should rejoice in its excise. Socrates
sought wisdom for the joy of it. Philosophy. He said to be right, and
to understand was a far greater treasure than winning an argument. What
we gain is wisdom, understanding, and a proper humility.
I cannot help but apply the most extreme scrutiny to
the practice of representative rule making. When one supposes this may
be correct, and analyzes the world through this lens, many new
questions... fulfilling questions come to the surface.
Communism, for example... if the peoples' soviet
union had been directly controlled, how would it have evolved? Would
the distribution have been more rational? Would they have evolved into
a merit based system of quasi-market distribution with limits on profit
margins for enterprises? We will never know, but this is FERTILE
THINKIN' GROUND.
A look at US History is another great intellectual
pursuit. We read the inspiring words of the founders... we see the
wisdom they displayed in the checks and balances system. Why did the
creation of these people turn into what we have today? Representation
plays a primary or secondary roll in almost every bad decision, war,
and scandal in American history. This lens is clear as day.
Consider any historic issue. Say... slavery. Was
there popular support for slavery? Was it 50%? Did anyone ask? It
really didn't matter, did it? No referendums... just politicians...
making all the decisions.
How about this. Extradition laws. Would the people
of the north submit to the demand that they return southern slaves and
pay taxes to support enforcement of fugitive slave laws? This was done
for political interests, and was never supported by the people. What
would have happened if any slave could simply gain their freedom by
crossing a state line? In any state with slavery, it would be
excessively expensive to employ slave labor, which could run a
manageable distance to safety. This would be extremely pronounced in
states close to Pennsylvania... freedom... so close.
Oooh... Maryland. How would that have unfolded? The
state is really thin, and it would be expensive to protect against
their flight to Pennsylvania. Would the mass of white male landowners
pay to support this enterprise, even though the majority owned no
slaves in Maryland? Would a domino effect have killed the economic
viability of slavery, because the masses would not consent to socialize
the high costs of keeping a slave state? This was pro-plantation
policy... not pro-white landowner. The two groups are not synonymous,
and without the plantation dollars lobbying representatives, would
slavery have evaporated?
History is explained so well when we pin the blame
on representation itself, as a core defect in our governing system.
Every war and a vast majority of historical blunders would not have
been undertaken without the distortions of the public will that
representation inevitably introduces.
Is our belief in representation simply a result of
conditioning? How much influence can repetition and conditioning have?
Can an entire population fervently believe some set of ideas with no
proof, simply because of the prevailing attitude?
Do I really need to answer this? Consider religion.
We believe fervently that the masses are vulnerable
in this way, but we vainly believe we are not subject to these same
forces individually. I believe that representation only exists because
it exploits our blind spots. Everywhere I look, I find evidence
supporting this finding. I just looked up the history of referendums in
my state. In the house, referendums sailed through. They were popular
at the time... unions and other groups threw their support behind them.
There was excellent public support. And it failed the senate... and
failed again... and then got enacted to much hoorahs, with the
provision that the public couldn't modify the basics of the
government... the constitution and such... like... how elections were
run... districts were drawn... trivial stuff like that.
About two hundred times a year, I stood with my
classmates and pledged my allegiance to a flag. I pledged my allegiance
to the republic for which it stands. Every morning I met with my young
impressionable peers, we faithfully recited this promise.
I no longer pledge myself to the republic, but to
the people. I pledge my support to the meek, that they may finally
enjoy their inheritance, purchased in tears and blood.
"I found that I was the wisest of all these men,
because I knew I was not wise" - Socrates.
Reason and truth above self.
Parrhesia
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at
8:56 AM, Antonio Rossin
<rossin(at)tin.it>
wrote:
Hi Lata,
No, you are not a mad, as far as I can see.
At a first sight, I like your Citizen Mundi initiative
very much. I realize, it is an excellent endeavour
to rise people's participation from bottom-up, thus
consistent with the (Direct) Democracy we look at.
IMHO, it looks like the very opposite of the top-down
"truths" with which some crazy scientists and other
aspirant leaders of Democracy (?) keep on inundating
so insistently the Yes-Men herd they want to head.
Cheers,
antonio - psychiatrist
Lata Gouveia ha scritto:
Thank you Antonio,
So I'm not crazy? Great!
I always suspected that was the case but for the last 8 weeks I've been
running Citizen Mundi and the data I've ben collecting confirms that is
the case even among relative intellectual elites. If you have a minute,
come and visit us at:
https://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/
Thanks again,
Lata
From:
Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent:
Friday, 9 October, 2009 8:35:56
Subject:
Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Lata,
I totally agree with you: (the utmost democratic
majority of) people are not fit to govern themselves.
Very simply, average people do not want to take any
political responsibility upon themselves, so they manage
to depend on others (i.e., Representatives) for this basic
requirement of Democracy.
Now the problem becomes, analyzing why when and how
such a dependent trait has been embedded into people's
relational brain.
I mean, once this imprinting mechanism had been exposed,
its reversal could be all what today's Democracy needs of.
Regards,
antonio
Lata Gouveia ha scritto:
Thank you Joseph,
I've just read your response.
Whilst I agree with most of it, I am not so confident that the "one
person/one vote" mantra is necessarily fair or sensible.
Moreover, from the point of view of a long term strategy to push for
more direct types of democracy, it is the biggest thorn on our side.
Equal opportunity, yes, but whilst demanding individual responsibility.
Let me put it this way. If you talk to any politician, any business
leader, any political analyst, anyone in positions of responsibility
about Direct Democracy, a very high percentage of those people will
laugh in your face. "It would never work!!" they would say. Why?
"Because people are too dumb to govern themselves and you must be
incredibly naive to think otherwise"
The main reason for the preservation of Guardianship and representative
systems is, above all others, the notion that people are not fit to
govern themselves.
Let me give you an example. Ireland has just approved the Lisbon
Treaty. Many people believe the Irish people were blackmailed,
intimidated or brainwashed. Others say that they were informed, as
opposed to a year ago, when they rejected the Treaty.
Let me ask you this, would it really be so unfair to ask people to fill
in the following questionnaire and shouldn't people have a
responsibility to do certain basic research before demanding that the
powers that be step down and hand everything over?
1)
The treaty of Lisbon is:
- A) document that concerns the Republic of Ireland exclusively.
- B) A document that primarily concerns the European Union.
- C) A document that primarily concerns the trade relationship between
Ireland and Portugal.
2)
The two main decision-making institutions within the EU are:
- A) The Council and the Commission
- B) The Parliament and the Commission
- C) The Parliament and the Council.
etc.
Can anyone tell me with a straight face that a person who does not know
these basic things is just as fit as someone who does to make a binding
and irreversible decision for their country and for the future of the
entire premise of geopolitics?
I guess this is my dilemma. I am a supporter of democracy, I criticise
democratic deficits wherever I see them and I believe that the next
evolutionary step for Mankind is, somehow, related to the improvement
of democracy. However, if I had to make a choice between giving the
British people a referendum on, say, the Euro, or giving a handful of
people at the top the decision, I would have to go with the second
option... simply because I don't trust the British people to know
anything that's not been fed to them by Rupert Murdock.
Bring in the multiple choice test and the weighted vote and I would
totally support the referendum instead.
Simple.
Lata
From:
Joseph Hammer <parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent:
Thursday, 8 October, 2009 10:26:37
Subject:
Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
I would tend to agree with Hamid and Jim.
The American Medical Association is a great
case study for this issue. They have more knowledge about the medical
industry than the average individual, but that is not necessarily a
good thing. It would be good if the motivation of the actors was the
unbiased betterment of mankind. This is folly. No person can recognize
the extent of his or her own bias. History tends to exonerate the
idea that any group who possesses superior knowledge will use the
information asymmetry to enrich themselves rather than society in
general.
I strongly believe in the "one person, one
vote" principal. If forced to compare the relative effects of
ignorance and power consolodation, it might be a toss up. However, we
will have ignorance through bias in any category of man. What is in our
power to prevent is the consolodation of power. Wise kings start
wars... uneducated peasants seldom think it worth the cost in blood.
In most decisions of governance, it is ethical
principals rather than specific knowledge that should drive our
legislation.
Plus, most people with "education" in a field
will claim the ability to make better decisions. This education is
market driven, and not motivated by truth unless the market rewards
accurate, unbiased information.
Take economics, for example. The biggest
employer of economists is the Federal Reserve. Like the alchemists of
old, these rascally intellectuals buy into a completely fictitious
notion... that you can create money from thin air... or out of lead, as
the alchemists believed. In the heyday of alchemy, many scholarly types
insisted that the layman, who doubted the wisdom of the alchemists, was
unrefined and uneducated. A college cannot attract many students to a
class that says, "Alchemy is bullshit" or "The best monetary policy is
non-intervention by the state" or "None of these sophisticated economic
models that we teach you have ever actually worked". All of these
notions would kill the entire fields of curriculum.
Plus, over a three-year period ending in
October 1994, the Fed awarded 305 contracts to 209 professors worth a
total of $3 million. Wow... that's about 15k per professor.
Plus, to get tenure, you must publish. One
critical way the Fed exerts control on academic economists is through
its relationships with the field's gatekeepers. For instance, at the
Journal of Monetary Economics, a must-publish venue for rising
economists, more than half of the editorial board members are currently
on the Fed payroll -- and the rest have been in the past.
"Knowledge" is easily perverted by self
interest. The assumption that individual scholar can make better
decisions is wholly dependent on the subject of inquiry and the
incentives to mislead.
If the subject of inquiry is highly technical,
then I agree with Hamid. It is in the best interest of society to hire
one or more researchers to investigate the topic. There are many ways
to make this work well, but there are far more ways to screw it up...
like letting representatives choose the investigators (unless we
structure incentives to reward politicians for effective,
honest choices... a far cry from the current situation).
We need the knowledge, but we need to guard
against interested dogma, and letting intellectuals have more say is,
like Jim said, manipulable.
Parrhesia
- Vanity is hemlock to those who seek truth.
Be careful what you consume.