Sender: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) <•••@••.•••> There are two types of people who are beating the drum for hyper-democracy nowadays: very well connected scoundrels and very unconnected street organizers with unknown moral character. Larry Grossman (ex-head of NBC News and of PBS), Alvin Toffler (guru to Gore and Gingrich), Jim Lehrer (PBS newsguy), John Kennedy Jr. (prince-in-waiting), John Perry Barlow (EFF's hype-master) and Ross Perot (scary dude) are just some of the scoundrels. And, you, I take it, are one of the purportedly pure-of-heart street fellows. Why do you think the street-types will win this one? Why do you think that your grassroots efforts won't be sucked up by the whirlwind the scoundrels are organizing? Why do you think that all or most of the street-types are even pure-of-heart? With a population that we both know to be easily swayed (no I'm not trying to start another OJ jury debate so don't start in now) and zillion times more bucks and celebrity cleavage on their side, it would take a mighty dose of pixie dust to tip this battle towards the honest activists. Plus, these scoundrels already know how to rule -- a not insignificant skill set, after all. This is not a fair fight. Not at all. But, that's not the worst of it. Even if the honest activists somehow miraculously prevailed, we'd still be stuck with a technocratic regime. As we resolved in our extended dialogue earlier this year, the world is far too complex for even the most thoughtful, dedicated citizen to fully comprehend. Therefore, some one else will *always* have to make most of the tough decisions. Either we elect (and unelect) 'em or we allow them to appoint themselves (for life). Either it's professional politicians or it's professional "experts" -- the technocrats. (Or, like today's system, some sort of mixture of both.) Every detailed plan for hyper-democracy that I've seen explicitly devolves into a technocracy. In Italy, they embraced technocrats (without the hyper-democracy) because all the politicians were grossly corrupt. Hopefully, we have not and will not sink so low in this republic. I'm sorry that the distinction between opinion and judgement has escaped you. It's quite fundamental to this discussion. Opinions are easy to come by, need no logic or reason and are usually driven by peer group pressure. Judgements are hard to form, must stand up to rational examination and represent the best that humans can do when faced with difficult dilemmas. These are two completely different animals. Opinions, as they say, are like assh*les -- we all have them but it's not polite to show them in public. But, Talk TV, Talk Radio and there-is-no-truth so-make-up-your-own educational curriculums (among other modern cultural highlights) have exalted the posterior sphinter. We have taught our kids to not form judgements (being "judgemental" is right up there with "racist" in modern value structures) at the same time that everyone's idiotic, half-baked opinion is enshrined as personal enlightenment. We live in an age when people can publically denounce science and proudly embrace magic, fer chrissakes. Finding wisdom in the land (or on the Internet for that matter) is a herculean task. But, governing must be based on judgement -- not on opinion. In fact, whether it's a tribal council or a corporate board, governing is almost always done in exactly this way. Otherwise, things tend to fall apart very quickly. The trouble, you might rejoin, is that the wrong judgements that favor the wrong people tend to win out in the current system. Perhaps. But, replacing (or even paralyzing) the consitutional representative democracy we now live under with the "will of the people" is a bitter sham. It doesn't and cannot work that way. Instead, you would be replacing one groups judgements with another. The inevitable result of hyper-democracy would be manipulation of opinions by skilled opinion shapers to support their particular collective judgements. To be sure, a lot of this already goes on; hyper-democracy would enshrine this destructive and cynically manipulative social engineering propaganda game and hand over policy making to the technocrats. Call me a four-legged grass-munching methane factory if you wish, but the burden of proof that I'm wrong is on your head. You are the advocate here. I prefer our constitutional republic -- alas, with all of its imperfections. You are calling for the revolution, not I. It's up to you to show how the judgements which would prevail under your proposal would be superior to the judgements which rule today. Having been down that road with you and all the articulate hyper-folks you could rally earlier this year, I'm not going to hold my breath. No such demonstration of better judgemental results can be constructed. "It can't get any worse" is about as thoughtful as the hyper-folks answers have gotten to date. Sorry, but it could get a whole lot worse. In fact, in this place at this time, a dramatically worse fate for us all is virtually inevitable under hyper-democracy. Therefore, reasonable men and women have no choice but to oppose hyper-democracy with all their hearts and minds. No choice, whatsoever. Mark Stahlman New Media Associates New York City •••@••.••• ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages for non-commercial use, pursuant to any redistribution restrictions included in individual messages. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
