Freedom versus Democracy

I think Kevin's last post was interesting.. A government as an agreement between people being governed. This obviously makes sense because the whole point of having a government is to preserve some sort of order in a community we are living in.

So when people aren't happy with a government, they obviously disagree with the framework that it entails, therefore either changing it or forking it are options, which Kevin nicely explained.

If changing isn't an option separatism seems like a good thing to do. The only problem is, it is also a very hard and quite unrealistic thing to do for many people. In the current reality, can people dissatisfied with the current US government really separate? Can they change the current one to something they and everyone governed can agree with? Both seems quite hard.

So there's where things fall back on the quick fix we call democracy. If you can't create a new government and you can't just flip a switch to change the existing one from one mode of functioning to another, at least you can TRY to make some sort of a difference by talking and voting on issues you find problematic.

Pity that even this much we often lack. When we can't even keep our nations genuinely democratic, how can we ever hope to build a world in which even more than democracy would be possible?

So.. is there any role for any form of democracy? Well, this is it, it is the best tool we've got so far to make a difference, a fall back, a failsafe option, but NOT the perfect way.

How can we keep even this failsafe option from corruption? That's a damn hard question.. especially considering that all this energy put into making democracy genuine is not about solving the problem, but rather merely coming closer to a level at which we can hope to solve the REAL problem of government.

What's the alternative to democracy? Perhaps nothing, at this level. If democracy is a pre-requisite, a foundation on which to build the government that would change to those who want to change the agreement and let go of those who want to separate from it completely, then democracy is not something we need to find an alternative to, just something we need to achieve FIRST, to even begin of thinking of going to the next level.

Good points there. Yes, my belief in democracy is relative to known alternatives, but it is not an extreme belief (these days!).

Again inspired by your virtual world idea:
Five fully automated ships each with a million people from one earth continent are set to land in five years time on a virgin class A planet light years from earth. Earth II also with five continents and one ship will land on each continent. The new ecosystem can support 100 million humans indefinitely, has similar resource types to earth, and similarly not evenly distributed among continents. Meanwhile on the ship we're all there in our life-support pods and can communicate with brain interfaces within and between ships.

We'll be starting out without existing roles, having been nurtured from zygotes by the ship to varying degrees of maturity on arrival, and have been educated like Cal-El on human history. We also have a ships database of science and technology up to the point of departure from earth, by now destroyed by that pesky meteor. We are as flawed as ever, with all the usual physical and mental weaknesses. We have the choice of designing a civilisation - what system would we agree on, if any?

So, would we have five governments with zero interaction or one government? Would we trade and if so on what terms? Would we have free movement of capital and people?

My preference is to balance regional autonomy with global agreements. On intercontinental trade an updated version of Keynes' original proposal at Bretton Woods - A single global currency and central bank, and five continental central banks who's interest rates are adjusted based on trade deficits or surpluses to create a negative feedback loop whereby capital flows react and keep economies in long term equitable equilibrium. Anything other than that goal of fair cohesion is elitist in my view and reflects the psychopathology of the hegemon.

Assuming we're going to have five continental governments and some global forum on earth II, how does the will of the people shape what goes on in these institutions? We can't have a referendum on everything, so some degree of representation is indicated. I think the Swiss are most advanced. We elect representatives who normally run things, but any citizen can initiate change - get enough signatures on a petition and a referendum is triggered.

Kevin pointed out a key flaw in the tyranny of the majority, that's certainly not a point that would attract someone to democracy. What we mostly have at the moment is about 1% making the rules. Compared with that option I'd go with the 51%. But a better solution is the Concordance System where consensus based on fuller representation is more important than a simple majority. This form of democracy can be achieved from global right down to local.

But the devil is in the detail, how much is decided through democracy?
That depends on the balance we want between individual liberty and co-operation on earth II. Co-operation typically occurs to establish legislation/law enforcement/judiciary, national defence, social services etc. The preferred balance varies from person to person, from total anarchy to the totalitarian state, there's no one correct answer.

For example, in the following areas is democratically agreed law or individual freedom appropriate:
War, Trade, Murder, Slavery, Paedophilia, Sex between consenting adults, Divorce, Abortion, Transport and Communications Infrastructure, Media, Healthcare, Education, Scientific Research, Sports, Arts, and so on.

Clearly in some areas it makes sense for a group to agree minimum standards and to collectively fund organisations to achieve this through tax contributions, but above those minimums and in other areas we should reserve the right to choose for ourselves and let individuals forge their own destinies, after all it's the individual that is sovereign rather than arbitrary groupings. To what extent we agree collective government will always remain an ongoing negotiation, I can't anticipate future circumstances and consequent perspectives, so I won't commend a universal prescription.

One thing is for sure, we ought to insist on knowing what representatives are doing. This "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" cloak and dagger charade is beneath us. Transparency is vital, without it we guarantee corruption and risk war. Earth II would do well to co-operate on building an internet with government information from local to continental to global available online using free software and open standards and formats. How sweet would that be.

This could go on so I'll wrap up on enterprise. By default we're all sole traders, but most of us don't bother to trade. I'd want entrepreneurial studies embedded in the education system. When it comes to groups, rather than the profit-driven shareholder owned wealth-concentrating corporation, the default form of enterprise I'd encourage is the democratic co-operative with social responsibility. Anyone can pursue the career of their choice, there's a minimum wage, but slackers can be sacked while further reward accrues to those achieving better results. Entrepreneurs looking to dominate are free to set up classical corporations, but would find it hard to predate on others, as those others would have better options.

Thoughts?

Sorry for a late response.

The system you described for Earth II sounds good overall, or better at least, but there's one thing I'd like to add, also inspired by Kevin's ideas - separatism. No matter what you do with a given state there is a chance that there will be a significant amount of people who would have to put up rather than willingly participate. So I think a good idea would be for any given government to allow for separation of those who wish to do so, even within the state's territory, considering that it is big enough. If one state would at first be a whole continent then this does make sense.

Of course, for this to work the inhabitants of Earth II would have to base their patriotic feelings on something other than the territorial sovereignty of their state, let it be patriotism for this beautiful new planet and what they can achieve on it. In other words, this new society should put nationalism behind. Countries would merely be an efficient form of organizing people according to their own values, beliefs and preferences. If there would be any emotional attachment to a given country it would have more to do with the values that this country represents than with its territoriality and unbreakable cohesion.

But I realize that this may be a bit of an utopia. As soon as people start attaching anything physical and tangible to their own values they become overprotective of it, as if their values wouldn't exist without the physical representation of them.

No apology necessary, my post was so verbose, and it's one of those topics we may or may not come back to with months passing in between.

It certainly seems predictable that people will seek ways to differentiate their identity, and diverse cultures make the world a more interesting place. With enlightened education we have a better chance of avoiding that being twisted into "us and them" propaganda by those seeking power through conflict.

As for autonomy via separation, that diversity gives people choice in value systems, I think I much prefer that idea to what the Chinese Communist Party did to Tibet where Chinese planters now outnumber natives, as planned.

Another point in favour of nation-states is that our laws and governmental policy are often tied to geography, from the rules of the road to who pays for the road and how much of central tax goes on roads versus say schools and hospitals. So I don't see a single world government as being the best idea, it's a single point of failure and offers the corrupt too great an opportunity.

That said, the opportunity for co-operation is not zero either. Countries can save a fortune in spending by eliminating duplicated effort and sharing the results. ODF for example offers great advantages, but then there's a risk the ISO could be corrupted - it's kind of a microcosm of one dimension of the local/national/global government balancing act.

France went on strike.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13692
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/world/story.html?id=c0908fb0-e743-4503-b142-1a70cfc5634b

It is both beautiful and troubling to see the power of the people cause a ripple like this, but one question comes to mind, something really relevant to this discussion.

Shouldn't it be clear what the will of the people is before there is a whole strike to show this? Just because he was elected doesn't, or at least shouldn't, give the president the power to push a legislation that most of the people oppose.

Do we need to start organizing mass strikes just to tell the powers that rule us that we don't like something? Apparently that's what "democracy" came down to.

Still, it is interesting that, at least from what I saw, french people are usually most bold with these matters. When was the last time we saw a mass strike in any of the US states? US people can't care less I guess.. Most just take it up their a** - and proof? Well gosh, they went to war, lost a significant portion of their freedoms and privacy... and it still wasn't stopped.. what more proof is needed. Yet even France, who apparently has many more people who do actually care about the government serves them is still not in an ideal situation.

It just portrays a spectrum which clearly indicates just how much things have to change. On this spectrum USA is rapidly the least free country in the "enlightened" western world and France is near the top - yet still troubled.

Cheers

Yes, well that's representative democracy for you:

WHILE ($gits_in_power){
  IF ($promises != $action OR $nasty_surprises > 0){
    $outrage += $nasty_surprises + $promises - $action;
    IF ($outrage > $doziness){
      $strike = TRUE;
    } else {
      sleep($days_to_next_election);
      switch ($vote)...
    }
  } else {
    $cup_runneth_over = TRUE;
  }
}

IMHO most of us are being shafted with this beta release of democracy, while the Swiss have 'production stable 1.2007', not perfect but at least meeting user requirements better.

A French official visiting Ireland once said "you have no sense of outrage", that perspective said as much about the French as it did the Irish. It seems the revolutionary spirit is still very much latent in France and ready to express at the first sniff of power being used in an aristocratic way, that is, unilaterally.

Only last month 73,000 United Auto-Workers Union members went on strike in the US and after two days gained commitments from GM to protect jobs as well as terms and conditions for workers and the retirees.

In both cases we have an employer trying to get more work for less cost. It doesn't matter if the employer is the state or a private company, the drive for productivity is our good friend globalised competition. We're almost brainwashed into accepting productivity as a holy grail, the more the better, but how it is achieved is the question. Slavery was extremely productive, but far from a fair deal.

Most of us want the same basic deal. We'll work and pay our taxes in return for food, shelter, education, and healthcare. Once we have the necessities of life secured we can be content and on that foundation be happy. Sometimes it seems that for the vast majority of humanity the work required is going up and the returns are going down. Our needs are under intensifying threat and we are plunged into perpetual insecurity. On the other hand, the obese now outnumber the starving on our planet, so it's not all bad news.

Billions are being lifted out of poverty but many farmers are also losing their livelihoods and ending up in shanty towns, so much that urbanites now outnumber the rural. Manufacturing jobs in the most developed nations are going abroad, bar some exceptions.

Globalisation is driving big changes so fast that people aren't prepared when the old ways of making a living end. Protectionism is not the silver bullet, we all love diverse shopping choices, but our environment is the prime imperative, we've got to be more efficient by producing the right things in the right place. The free market can take credit for piling on the pressure to do that.

So how do we replace risk with security? Education is one part of the answer, lifelong learning and the will to re-invent yourself and your nation. If we want to go on strike to achieve some protectionism, the environmental cost can only be justified if we commit to reduce, re-use, and recycle to make up for the inefficiency. Feeling optimistic today :-)