What is direct accountable deliberative democracy and why is it the path to an ecologically sound, inclusive, just and secure and profoundly prosperous future?* *(It is important to note, this system does not require a single person to make a single decision. In fact a person could go on just as they have been for decades, and others would be making the decisions around them and their property taxes would remain static. So seniors who dont want to participate could sit back and enjoy watching others make their decisions just as they always have. However, the ability to sway a whole city by discrete discussions with a politician cease to exist.) First, let us start by assuming a system where everyone with property (some capacity for risk from which a person cannot flee without disproportionate collateral economic loss) is permitted to vote on a preferred solution to a problem. (In effect, putting our money where our mouth is). (In Ancient Greece this is called Timocracy) Let us assume a winning solution turns out to be poor, or deeply misled or incompetentantly executed or insidiously voted upon by a majority of self serving persons, involving backroom deals, self interest etc as is characteristic of most political decision-making in representative democracy. To contrast, I n this proposed system, the cost of restoration to the previous state would be bourn by the people that negligently brought about the failure of the application of knowledge so unwisely. Because the forums are online, the process of refining decisions is recorded with great fidelity and detail. A logician could quickly identify the source of the problem, or team of lawyers if there are no logicians available. At that point, specialists in a field can identify the actual market value of restoration to the previous state, and that cost for restoration would be distributed proportionate to culpability. This, whereas in our secure the system, amateur political ideology suggest taxing pollution. Taxing pollution fails to pro phi it pollution. Our legal system has proven invariably that by fining a company at a small percentage of the profit from breaking the law, we in effect become accomplices to that criminal activity and the fine is technically nothing more than a special levy. In order for something to actually qualify as a sufficient disincentive, the cost of destructive and unintelligent decisions must meet or exceed the damage done (it is always more burdensome cleani up than making a mess). If and when it does not, it cannot be considered in any way restorative, or just. As anyone lazily misrepresenting or trying to con others with untrue assertions is, along with everyone else, recorded and their identity registered with their statements, there is truly no escaping accountability. To qualify the validity of the statements made, unlimited access to academic journals is made available and portions can be scrap booked into the forum to help articulate and identify problems and solutions at no limit of detail. Much like steering and inertia on a road where people are compelled to truly avoid collision and injury, users of this system are thus liable for two things over the course of deliberation; the principle of rational accommodation (interpreting someone of a differing opinion to be making the strongest case they could from the words chosen), and the duty to qualify the epistemological status of a statement within the statement itself (no one can know better than yourself the extent to which you are certain of the inherent truth of what you say, and no one can more efficiently tease out holes in your assertion better than yourself in the context of risk of loss). The prize is finding the best solution, and finding the best solution (innovocracy) determines the value of your mind - and in turn, your innovation and your appeal to more advanced research, which in turn takes you to more and more exciting places, and gives you more and more opportunity for contribution all over the world. In effect, by applying these two logical patterns to a forum (the rational accommodation of differing opinion and self assessment of each statements certainty), we will have created artificial intelligence and circumvented the innumerable problems rife in online discussion. In fact, the forum becomes a non-monotonic logical identifier of attractive conclusions to a sequence of statements, and the users are on the hook for ensuring statements used to build the argument are true. Technically speaking, without training, this rewires brains to abstract away the habits of self-concerned mutilation of perspectives and binds self interest to truth, knowkedge, science and formal logical thinking, which I contend is intrinsic to the brains of regular people. After the statements (premises) are established, creative people interested in a given problem may use that knowledge (and challenge portions) thereby formulating a valid argument from those premises and thus a sound solution from the premises can begin to be drafted. Now all this said, accidents happen, and sometimes no one is intentionally causing failure and to carry the automotive analogy, as with accidents caused by poor road conditions, where no one is at fault, ICBC would not hand down demerit points, so too would there exist circumstances beyond our best intentions for foresight. It would be cruel to punish good intentions. Where no knowledge or sound reasoning foretold the calamity, no person would truly be at fault. The important matter as to measuring the systems profound improvement over contemporary politics is the avoidance of poor decision-making, and the interest in making he most intelligent solutions, the elimination of corruption and backroom deals, which stifle good businesses from honest competitive edge and force them to allocate budgets to interface with democracy in an insipid and profane fashion, which thereby causes people to hate businesses when in fact every time they vote, they reinforce the representative (liberal, conservative etc) political system which in turn forces businesses to conduct themselves this way. In fact, our biggest problem is not business, but politics. By removing these clowns from office, we can interface directly with industry, and I am certain that with time, we can realise unlimited prosperity and certainty, both ecologically and economically. What these simple rules do is take human intelligence and form an aggregate of collective intelligence - a naturally occurring singularity (kurzweill has proposed many technological predictions on this matter, but for reasons I wont go into here, these fancy cybernetic technologies will invariably be inferior to what I am designing here, if only serve to expedite these systems - and yes at that point this really could sound like the Borg, save for the fact that this system thrives on diversities of perspectives but I digress). The system turns self-interest into a driver for academic and scientific and logical integrity and honesty. To return, by calculating the cost of restoration for those decisions that are found after the fact to clearly have been voted upon in poor competence and to constitute plainly foreseeable conflicts of interest (voting to give yourself benefit) or do something foreseeably unbecoming or foreseeably unwise or foreseeably damaging. The value of these poor decisions, by being calculated through restorative justice into an owners property tax or income tax, are inalienable from the individuals relationship to the state. In the interim, for practical purposes, this would intuitively be integrated into the calculation of property tax since the jurisdiction for accountability is so small, we would not have the reasonable ability to maintain accountability otherwise. The cost for restoration is added to the perpetrators property tax or income tax. HOWEVER, simultaneous to this, that same person has the option to completely work off their tax on projects voted into application where their skill set matches, and they remain liable for their work just as with voting. This is much like the punative process involved with ensuring that people operate motor vehicles in such a manner as to avoid collisions and injury. The mere existence of such a system causes he incidence of injury and collision to approach an absolute minimum, and it is amazing such a vast array of people are able to share and cooperate on roadways with so few accidents. Now, to this right to vote and fear of being wrong, we enable knowledge to quell our anxiety such that the concern for being wrong and suffering loss compels due diligence through free ease of access to the entire world of academic journals by means of our (already publicly funded) university. So by use of the freely accessible academics on our free wifi systems, we are compelled to make measured and careful statements on the truth on an ideas viability by collaborating on the details using forums. Sound cumbersome and uninteresting? Again, not everyone would vote on everything, and his is a design that would be scale able to the decisions of nations. Most decisions made in most municipal governments are nowhere near complex enough for significant risk to exist to users. So let us test this idea by considering the outcomes using a hot button issue. Using this system, users would determine whether a pipeline should be cut through the province to deposit diluted bitumen into tankers. As we saw off the coast of Haida Gwaii, the perils of shipping on the coast are not always predictable and it is known that there are risks. So in this system, people can vote to put in a pipeline, in spite of the plainly foreseeable consequences of grizzly bear hunters putting stray bullets into the pipelines and tankers washing into rocks and gigantic volumes of fuel contaminating the whole coast. In this event, those whom voted to take the risk, would bare collectively the full cost of the cleanup. If the cost could not be collected from their existing taxes, it would pool from pensions, Medicare, and their access to other forms of social welfare. So yes, by choosing to disregard risks in plain pursuit of profit, you can bring yourself enormous destitution, and why shouldnt these be inherently linked? Is it not absurd to build a system where risks are borne by anything but those who stand to profit? Why should anyone make decisions that have enormous implications on the planet and the future of our species without weighing and risking their lives and own childrens futures upon it? Now, to return to municipal logistics... By means of our free citywide wifi, I intend to make one-stop shopping for community emergency RSS feeds, a complete list of local news and initiatives, meetings, symposia, and cultural events to which people as an add their own announcements, and to which we can all go for information. Because free broadband wifi would be at odds with certain commercial providers, access to entertainment sites would be eliminated. In honour of David Shebibs freestore, we could list things that are free without leaving them on the boulevard, as well as post links to services offered by local Colwood residents and merchants. These would be a low bandwidth free service piggybacking upon existing lines and networks by which residents could access without a cell antenna, thereby enabling interfacing through simpler cheaper devices. This also helps to make the community profoundly resilient to any calamity. My tax relief system will attract specialised industries that can count on major tax breaks in exchange for offering services at actual cost minus corporate tax rates (less than cost) thus attracting industries to set up shop. Our current mayor counts the creation of a Dennys and a Holiday Inn as signs of civic accomplishment? Really? Oceanfront city and we celebrate a Dennys??? This model will sweep the world for the simple reason that it properly distributes business and industry into non-redundant locations so as to maximise the likelihood of enjoying opportunities of partnership with the city. Industry and science sectors of the economy will also wish to move to democratic centres where the level of knowledge of the people is continually advancing, a knowledgable and highly educated youth will be available for fast paced short term contracts (the future of employment whether you like it or not) and smart, empowered, enlightened customers make outstanding partners as co-creators of products (the future of commercial manufacturing).
Posted on: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 19:07:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015