Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/My Left Wing/Revolution 2.0 Outline RFC/fidelity"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(another 3 minutes of writing)
(not just government institutions)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
The question is '''How do we prevent The Revolution from being co-opted (again)?''' Movements and organizations typically start out with the best of motives and principles, but soon begin to compromise those principles as they become more powerful and more able to actually carry out their plans.
 
The question is '''How do we prevent The Revolution from being co-opted (again)?''' Movements and organizations typically start out with the best of motives and principles, but soon begin to compromise those principles as they become more powerful and more able to actually carry out their plans.
  
−
It may be argued that this is just the nature of things -- but I think we can use the tools we now have available to improve on this.
+
One key to the solution is that the problem happens when too much power is in the hands of too few. We need to make sure that power is distributed in ways that ''inhibit improper use'' without ''preventing necessary use''.
  
−
The short answer is that we need to use a variety of safety mechanisms and backups. The Constitution does this, but it didn't anticipate modern media -- which is partly responsible for the failures of those safety checks, but also offers us the tools to build better ones.
+
Another key is that we need to use a variety of safety mechanisms and backups. The Constitution does this, but it didn't anticipate automation and modern media -- which is partly responsible for the failures of those safety checks, but also offers us the tools to build better ones.
  
−
Another short answer is that the problem happens when too much power is in the hands of too few. A good solution is to make sure that power is distributed in ways that inhibit improper use without preventing necessary use.
+
A third key is that the system needs to provide an easy way for citizens to ditch parts of it that become corrupt, without cutting themselves off from vital services. A monopoly on many vital services is one way the current system sustains itself.
−
==A Proposal==
 
−
This is intended as a discussion-starting proposal. There will be significant problems with it, but it gets us out of the box of asking "who can we elect?" or "what law can we change?", when what we really need is a better system.
 
  
−
Instead of tying political representation to geography, let's allow people to ''choose'' which representation group to join. As with Obamacare, everyone would have to join ''some'' group, and pay dues (presumably income-based) to that group. If we don't like the way the group is managing itself, we join another one -- or ''start'' another one.
+
When I first wrote this section, I dove straight in and suggested a design for a new form of government -- but I'm thinking I need to unbundle that suggestion to see if there is agreement (or not) on each of the parts.
  
−
What I just described is the final goal -- but it doesn't have to monolithically replace the current system; instead, the new can ''compete'' with the old, and spread "virally" until it dominates. Here's how I see that happening.
+
There are actually three ideas here:
  
−
The first step is to create Grassroots Org 2.0 (or is that 3.0?): an organization which thinks more like a government than like a movement. I'll call these entities "microgovernments".
+
# political change within the system is insufficient; we need new organizations outside the government
−
===Microgovernments===
+
# those new organizations should ultimately aim to push the buttons of the old system like a modern computer program talking to a mainframe text interface
−
Unlike a grassroots org (GrOrg), a microgovernment:
+
# if you grant the first two, then we need one or more design proposals for a new, less-corruptible government ([[../microgov|here's mine]])
−
* has no predetermined causes -- only the aggregate opinions of its members
 
−
* has a way of aggregating the opinions of its members so as to express a consensus
 
−
* provides negotiating services (in the present political environment, this would include lobbying) on behalf of causes decided upon by its members
 
−
* provides infrastructural (government-like) services to its members, where appropriate (possible services: tax preparation, unemployment safety net, health insurance, emergency housing)
 
  
−
Potential problems:
+
Whether or not we decide to replace the existing system, I would like to recommend the following institutions (government and social) for removal or revision:
−
* rich people forming their own reduced-tax microgovs (in the ''target'' political environment this isn't a problem, because influence is allocated per person -- 100 billionaires would have no more vote than 100 other people; in the current political environment -- well, the billionaires and corporations have already formed their lobbying groups; we're just forming our own to fight back)
+
* the [[US Electoral College|Electoral College]]
−
* microgovs expelling "less productive" individuals, leading to the same problem we have now (homelessness, poverty, no social net)
+
* the [[US Federal Reserve|Federal Reserve]]
−
{{draft}}
+
* one-vote-per-person-binary voting
 +
* democracy needs to be less "representative" and more direct (which is always presented as this Really Bad Idea; I think that's a hoax)
 +
* the job-centered economy (you shouldn't have to have a "real job" to survive at an adequate level)
 +
 
 +
Which parts of this are we in agreement on, and which parts need to be discussed further? Are there any other suggestions for (government or social) institutions which should be at least reconsidered?

Latest revision as of 19:58, 26 April 2011

The question is How do we prevent The Revolution from being co-opted (again)? Movements and organizations typically start out with the best of motives and principles, but soon begin to compromise those principles as they become more powerful and more able to actually carry out their plans.

One key to the solution is that the problem happens when too much power is in the hands of too few. We need to make sure that power is distributed in ways that inhibit improper use without preventing necessary use.

Another key is that we need to use a variety of safety mechanisms and backups. The Constitution does this, but it didn't anticipate automation and modern media -- which is partly responsible for the failures of those safety checks, but also offers us the tools to build better ones.

A third key is that the system needs to provide an easy way for citizens to ditch parts of it that become corrupt, without cutting themselves off from vital services. A monopoly on many vital services is one way the current system sustains itself.

When I first wrote this section, I dove straight in and suggested a design for a new form of government -- but I'm thinking I need to unbundle that suggestion to see if there is agreement (or not) on each of the parts.

There are actually three ideas here:

  1. political change within the system is insufficient; we need new organizations outside the government
  2. those new organizations should ultimately aim to push the buttons of the old system like a modern computer program talking to a mainframe text interface
  3. if you grant the first two, then we need one or more design proposals for a new, less-corruptible government (here's mine)

Whether or not we decide to replace the existing system, I would like to recommend the following institutions (government and social) for removal or revision:

  • the Electoral College
  • the Federal Reserve
  • one-vote-per-person-binary voting
  • democracy needs to be less "representative" and more direct (which is always presented as this Really Bad Idea; I think that's a hoax)
  • the job-centered economy (you shouldn't have to have a "real job" to survive at an adequate level)

Which parts of this are we in agreement on, and which parts need to be discussed further? Are there any other suggestions for (government or social) institutions which should be at least reconsidered?

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=User:Woozle/My_Left_Wing/Revolution_2.0_Outline_RFC/fidelity&oldid=24250"