A reminiscence with a point to it regarding Net Neutrality.
(I guess it's about time I set down this bit of history. In the context of the Net Neutrality debate it seems like something which ought to be made public, and as the youngest participant in these events I may eventually become the last surviving eyewitness. Photo to right is me in 1979 with hair and everything.)…
Article comments
26 - Dr Dreadful
If we all participated directly in all the decisions that would need to be made on our town level, we would also need to participate in some way with decisions that are made beyond our town level. However things would be organized, we could select 'leaders/representatives' who would meet with the 'leaders/representatives' of other 'towns' to communicate the decisions our own town has arrived at.
They would be delegates, you mean: sort of under the Platonic system, wherein the only person with no say in government is the governor, who is elected to carry out the people's wishes whether he likes it or not (preferably not). Modern democracy works the other way around. The person running for office decides for himself that he wishes to govern (although he will claim that what he actually wants to do is "serve"), then tells the people what he believes should happen and says, "If this is also what you think, vote for me". In this way it is the governors, not the governed, who set the agenda. (The governors can be swayed, but seldom completely stopped, by public opinion.)
The obstacle to your model, Cindy, is that the more "towns" get together to make mutually beneficial decisions, the more they tend to arrive at the conclusion that they're stronger together rather than separate. This is how the modern political entity known as the country evolved.
However, there may be a sort of yo-yo effect in operation. When a country becomes too big and unwieldy to function as a unit, it tends to break apart. We've seen this in Europe, particularly with the former Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, it happened in South Asia after the British withdrawal and it's also happening in Africa. There are even rumblings of it here in the US, where states' rights is a significant issue, although this is a young enough country that the impetus to fracture into 50 (or more) self-governing units isn't yet stronger than the concept of national identity. (Since the US is, largely, an artificial state, it will take some time before its citizens start to think themselves as, say, North Dakotans first and Americans second.)
A happy medium would be what I guess is Roger's ideal, where we can get the human population functioning as small, stable units for most everyday matters of governance and as a global whole when major issues affecting the entire planet need to be addressed. We are, however, going to have to prise loose the death grip of those attracted to political power before that can ever happen. (Perhaps by making it a criminal offence to seek office!)
27 - Cindy
Dr. D,
'Units' can replace 'towns' in my example.
I am going for the familiar, in order for folks to visualize something new within the current physical set-up. To help begin thinking based on how can we do this from where we are now.
This is part of my attempt to try changing from simply hawking political views and work on helping people see that we can change from where we are.
Units, counties, communities, camps, groups, zones, territories, families, etc. Pick your name.
"they're stronger together rather than separate"
Indeed they are stronger together. But not in the way they have been taught to think. We do need to break away from the model of hierarchy and power. There are other ways.
I would expect that this cannot even begin to come about until and unless enough people already have some sense that 'strength' should be based on something other than brute control and force.
28 - Cindy
(Perhaps by making it a criminal offence to seek office!)
Good idea! We can do that right after we execute anyone who isn't a pacifist! ;-)
29 - roger nowosielski
Cool analysis, Dreadful. In support of it, witness the rise of the Athenian city-state to its position of hegemony, virtually squashing the autonomy of previously independent city-states and asserting its own will. Of course, the Persian invader provided the rationale and the impetus, so the first order of business would be to eliminate the possibility of aggressive behavior of any one community towards another, a tall order, I should say, in this unstable world.
BTW, the members of the Athenian assembly, if it is to serve as a kind of prototype, were not elected but simply chosen by drawing lots, to serve for one year and one year only. Pericles was a notable exception, having been chosen for twenty consecutive years, again, because of the thread from Persia.
30 - roger nowosielski
threat ...
31 - Dr Dreadful
Perhaps criminalization wouldn't be necessary. We could simply say that exhibiting any ambition to hold office would automatically disqualify that person.
Another major concern I have with your model, Cindy, is that left to their own devices some "towns" would inevitably adopt draconian policies such as revenge killings, the execution of homosexuals and adulterers and the persecution, enslavement or expulsion of minorities.
On a global scale, we would have to retain at least the spirit of the UN Declaration of Human Rights in some form.
32 - roger nowosielski
Re #27
The strength of a community or a federation of communities is of value only in the face of the possibility of aggression.
33 - roger nowosielski
#31 That is indeed a problem. On the one hand, you want to give individual communities the right to self-determination, and on the other ...
Some of the original Star Trek episodes dealt with just such dilemmas.
34 - Dr Dreadful
Indeed they did, Roger. I sometimes think that the world could do much worse than to adopt the constitution and system of governance of the United Federation of Planets.
Among other things, isn't money abolished in the world of Star Trek?
35 - Doug Hunter
Cindy, et al.
We live in a representative democracy. It's not a different government you're describing, it's a different people.
36 - roger nowosielski
I believe it is abolished as a universal means of exchange, and come to think of it, there isn't much mention of "money." Of course, the concept can't be altogether avoided when it comes to the individual communities. And there is also the problem of trade and exchange between the communities, but I don't think it insurmountable.
To tell the truth, I haven't made up my mind as to the merits or demerits of there being a universal, world-wide currency. The positive aspect is immediately apparent - equalization of value. I can't think yet of the negatives.
Anyways, Merry X-mas to you and yours. I should be in California in the next six months or so, for good. And when done, I'll make certain to visit you in Fresno if you won't object.
37 - roger nowosielski
"dispensed with"
38 - roger nowosielski
Doug, it's the very idea of representative government/democracy that is in question here - I'm certain you've surmised that much. And in light of that, I really don't get your point. Could you elaborate?
39 - Cindy
We live in a representative democracy. It's not a different government you're describing...
I am describing a direct democracy. It is extremely different.
It is the difference between directly having a say about what you want and voting every so often and hoping one of the stooges present even knows or cares what you want.
A direct democracy is very much like what you have when people of equal power come together. Say, you and your wife, you and your friends, etc.
This is what real freedom and equality is about. A representative democracy really give you no real say.
40 - Cindy
It is the difference between determining what the world will be like and having to go along with someone else's world. Someone else's world which may benefit you, or which may not.
But like a child who must answer to a parent, if the world is not to your advantage or liking in a representative democracy, there is not much you can do about it. Unless you already have power, you can pretty much argue to the wind. Because a representative democracy is based on power and hierarchy, not on every person having an equal say in her own destiny.
41 - STM
The best thing about Dave's piece is his pic from 1979. Lol.
Dave, skinny ties have come back into fashion :)
42 - STM
I also present the Australian model of governance:
1) Vote in a federal government every three years
2) Keep partying, even on election night, no matter the result. No one needs any excuse anyway.
3) Go for a swim (beach or pool)
4) Have a barbecue and get drunk.
5) Get drunk on a weeknight with your mates; twice if need be, but turn up to work the next day, even if you're so hungover you can't lift a finger. (Australia's worth ethic motto: "Play up, front up").
6) Keep working, keep paying taxes, but keep both to the absolute minimum necessary for the country to function perfectly, despite whatever it is the politicians are doing.
7) Pretend to ignore everything of note the government says, but then protest about it in the newspapers, on the web and on talk-back radio, ad infinitum, until the political spin doctors go bananas and the government becomes so worried about its popularity ratings in the polls that it falls into a kind of soporific inaction.
8) Do all these things over and over again until the next federal election, in the meantime voting for local councils and State legislatures along the way, and using the same criteria as you would for the feds.
9) Vote in a new federal/state/local government, or give the old one another go.
10) Repeat as neccessary.
43 - roger nowosielski
Isn't that a satire?
Merry X-mas, Stan.
44 - STM
No Rog, it's really pretty much how it is. Cheers mate, gave a good one!
45 - zingzing
roger: "I haven't made up my mind as to the merits or demerits of there being a universal, world-wide currency. The positive aspect is immediately apparent - equalization of value. I can't think yet of the negatives."
would it actually equalize value? or would it thrust billions into poverty? i dunno. one should look at what the euro did to europe. was it a boon? (noting of course that those countries who took on the euro were relatively stable economies as compared to what can be found in many countries around the world.) will it continue to be a boon? (if it is, and will be, then why don't more countries sign up? or are they not allowed?)
also, when you have one currency, the effects of a serious recession or depression could be absolutely devastating worldwide. although stronger economies could prop up weaker economies, no one would be immune, and all could fall apart like a house of cards. the troubles of one country would be everyone's troubles (although that may actually help to reduce amount of wars, or our shared interest in stopping them).
even today in our "globalized" economy, we have groups like the world bank and the imf that prop up struggling countries, but at a price. to forgive their debts and get their currencies stabilized, they have to submit to a set of demands that opens up their country to multinational investment, creating an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor.
if we had a worldwide currency, and there was a struggling country, we'd obviously want to offer them help for the sake of our own economy, but it would be in the best interest of the currency to keep them like an addict to our funds which keeps them afloat and, only slightly unfortunately, creates an underclass incapable of surviving in the new economy, while it enriches us. if they can't hack it, fuck em, eh?
the complexities of international finance does create a lot of inequalities. unfortunately, the introduction of a worldwide currency may actually make those inequalities worse, and may undermine the sovereignty of a great many peoples to decide their own fate.
if you want a one-world government, that may be a good thing. but you must realize that the rich and powerful nations will dominate the rest, and unless humanity becomes far more altruistic than it is presently, may actually create a world far more unequal than we see today, if that is possible.
i say all this while acknowledging that i have very little knowledge of economics (a fact i am currently trying to remedy to a certain degree,) and i may be completely talking out of my ass. but i think i'm presenting fairly simple concepts and their possible outcomes. it's highly possible i'm completely wrong.
46 - zingzing
"although that may actually help to reduce amount of wars, or our shared interest in stopping them," i say...
although that may also make war far more profitable than it already is... and therefore more attractive. destroy a country, create money by rebuilding it and taking all the profit from your new colony.
47 - STM
"although that may actually help to reduce amount of wars, or our shared interest in stopping them,"
People should play sport instead ... proper sport, like cricket, rugby, american football.
I'm convinced the reason the Germans got so uppity all those years ago was that wanted German youth to be like grqaduates of the playing fields of Eton (or Harvard, if you like), but didn't play the right sports.
As for Japan and their predilection for baseball, I can't really comment ... except to say that they probably resented not being invited to play in a World Series, so decided to start their own, slightly different, version.
At some point, sport MUST replace war on this planet of ours, or we're all for the high jump.
Merry Christmas Yanks!!
48 - roger nowosielski
#45, got a point there.
49 - Doug Hunter
#38
And I've seen no viable alternative provided. Direct democracy is still subject to propaganda/the person with the most marketing has an advantage. It still means 51% of the population can fuck over the other 49% and indeed in some ways actually makes it easier. For example, if 60% of the population sorta doesn't want something while 40% feel it is of utmost important our current system does a reasonable job of balancing that, it's not just how many want something it's how badly they want it (which has it's own flipside as well one person desperately wants a $300 million corrupt payday from the feds, 300 million citizens really don't want to pay $1 each in taxes but it's not as critical for any one of them).
The other portion is local decisionmaking, those same ideas were embodied firmly in our constitution which attempted to limit the power of the federal government to a few specific functions and leave everything else to lower bodies (our country was much smaller then so the effect would be even more pronounced). Through civil wars and many "progressive" governments we've completely abandoned that, but it's good to see you've come around.
Just reading through it, it doesn't sound like the system is so incompatible as the people. You want educated engaged voters (who no doubt agree with your values) and representatives who represent, or if that fails direct voting in their stead (which is indeed different but not remarkably better).
#31 and #33 indicate that you can't even get through this simple thought exercise without beginning to make the same compromises that our system has already been through. The "but"'s have already come out. But what if someone has differnt values and wants to create a society without some of the 'rights' as I understand them. Sounds like you're hammering away towards a bill of rights type document and a powerful fed to keep those who would advocate slavery inline. Welcome to the 1860's!
50 - roger nowosielski
Decentralization is the key, and direct democracy does work on a small, communal level. You may have gathered I'm dead-set against statism.
51 - Dave Nalle
Dave, skinny ties have come back into fashion :)
How about white tuxes with black shirts?
Dave
52 - Dr Dreadful
Or black tuxes with white shirts, worn as everyday business attire?
53 - Dr Dreadful
Decentralization is the key, and direct democracy does work on a small, communal level.
I was going to make a similar observation, Roger. The running of small towns and communities usually proceeds on quite an amicable level, with very little partisan infighting even though the council members may identify with a particular party.
Of course, the issues those council members deal with are not, on the whole, of sufficent gravitas to get really worked up and adamant about.
54 - roger nowosielski
But they would be if they were to impact the welfare of the community (concerning which there is sufficient divergence of opinion and conflicting interests.) For example, there's always much ado in California on the matter of zoning regulations. Should there be another 7-11 in a given neighborhood, for instance, or multiple-level housing?