[EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it?

[Michael Allan]

> >   3. Eventually reason prevails.  The dwellers in the favelas and
> > the peasents in the villages (despite long suppressed bitterness
> > and anger)

Juho Laatu wrote:

> No need to be suppressed nor angry. Some
> may be but better results could be
> achieved if everyone just understands how
> the system might benefit better all its
> members.

You premise an ideal.  To see the danger, we must premise facts and
probabilities.  The crucial probability is a popular direct democracy
(DD).  Here is a "proof" of it, in summary of the original post and
thread ("The Structuring of Power"):
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2009-January/thread.html#23872

Where:

  DD = direct democracy
  FS = free speech
  IT = Internet/information technology
  PD = public sphere decision-making
  RD = representative (modern) democracy

FS is a constitutional fact.  IT is a technical fact.  From the
original post (section 1), it follows that PD is probable:

  (a)  FS + IT ~= PD

PD is a formalization of speech.  It is separate from power, and is
not a "democracy", nor any other kind of "-cracy".  But PD is also a
primary electoral/legislative mechanism, and RD is a constitutional
fact.  From the original post, (sections 2 and 3), it follows that DD
is probable:

  (b)  PD + RD ~= DD

Note: this is an *effective* DD.  The qualification is necessary
because the public sphere cannot (by its nature) hold power.  Although
it can express decisions, it cannot take action on them.  Only the
private sphere (individuals and families) and the admininstrative
systems (of government, business, etc.) have the necessary power
(force and threat of force) to act.  Nevertheless, the effect is
largely DD - effectively the public sphere will force action.  It will
begin to do so in the near future, and it will do so deliberately
(such is its nature).

> - With the "strength of the masses" the
> modern (post 18th century) society with
> high number of rich and independent
> consumers (= commercial decision makers,
> often with less political interest) (I
> mean, what the society in rich countries
> is now after the turmoil of industrial
> revolution and related extreme capitalism
> and socialism) is just a bit more complex
> to control than the old and simpler
> "cultured gentlemen" approach. One must
> take a positive approach and trust that
> we find good ways forward.

Better to be skeptical.  Better to take a negative outlook and to
venture forward with eyes wide open.  Accepting the probability of DD,
what are the dangers ahead?  What bad things can happen?

  1. Class strife.  The majority of the world's people are
     economically marginalized, and will use their votes to (i) attack
     the wealthy, entrepreunerial and middle classes and the economic
     infrastructure that supports them; while those classes (ii) will
     attack back.

  2. Instability in quasi-democracies.  Introduction of PD in
     quasi-democracies (like Russia) will threaten the authorities,
     resulting in (i) the imposition of open tyranny (to suppress FS);
     or (ii) the retreat of authority, a power vacuum, and civil
     strife to fill it.

  3. International war.  Direct democacies are aggressive and
     unpredictable.  They will fighten skittish non-democracies (like
     China) and ultimately provoke an international war.

  (others? please add your own)

Mitigating factors:

  A. Slow adoption of PD to underprivledged classes owning to
     inaccessiblity of IT.  So eqn (a) is dampened and delayed.

  B. Unelected upper assemblies can block action in defiance of the
     public and their elected counterparts.  So, at least in some
     states, eqn (b) is dampened and delayed.

  (others? please add your own)

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/