[ba-unrev-talk] Re: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS & the "now" enterprises, incl. CITRIS Kickoff
Henry van Eyken wrote: (01)
> Somehow, it seems to me, if we want a viable democracy, we need a
citizenship more attuned to
> accellerating change, which probably (as far as I can see) entails a
digitally literate citizenry that
> knows how to get and evaluate information of social relevance, do so
at a fast clip, and is capable of
> meaningfully contributing to a communal decision-making process. (02)
Let's say that we empower the people with computers and somehow hook
that more directly into the democratic process.
Thus far, in business, the Internet has had a reputation for brutally
removing the middlemen. So it must be asked, just what are the likely
effects of this move upon the legislative process, and upon the present
notion of delegation of power to an elected representative executive?
Typically laws get enacted to shore up moral holes in the range of
society's activities. Either they are lobbied for, or they arise from
novel situations requiring novel litigation. The representative
executive raise, debate, tailor, and then vote in or vote out new law.
Note that the lobbies are currently representatives too, and some might
say there's a bias towards rich lobbies having more influence, but that
depends on the moral prudence of the executive.
So we are looking at a potentially radical shift in the directness with
which the executive are lobbied - and pushing that to an extreme,
perhaps the populace simply _becomes_ the executive in the future. And
we are looking at a whole new way of lobbying, wherein that activity is
again made more direct missing out the representative middlemen and a
lot of dispute.
Perhaps representation to the executive then becomes more proportional
to the desires of the populace as a whole, *assuming the removal of the
majority principle and having all votes count.*
And maybe making law becomes a matter of statistical satisfaction. But
that's assuming that the majority of the populace have sound judgement.
And there are also problems with overcoming voting apathy. So it seems
to me that the system would still require debate of issues by the
sagacious, but the possibility of a more transparent democratic process
is really there.
In short, it might result in dramatic institutional and constitutional
reform, and the only way to steer the populace after the mechanism was
in place would be through the (infotainment multi-)media. (03)
--
Peter (04)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry K van Eyken" <vaneyken@sympatico.ca>
To: <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS & the "now" enterprises, incl. CITRIS
Kickoff (05)
> After spending some time with material referenced in John's post, I
turned to the Harrow Technology
> Report. As you may know, I have a long-standing
("Pre-Unrev-II-Colloquium") arrangement with Jeff
> Harrow that allows me to extract and condense materials of particular
interest to Fleabyte.
>
> You will find some predictions mentioned in his Feb. 18 report at
> http://www.fleabyte.org/index.html#45
>
> Perhaps even more fascination are predictions in the realm of business
that may be found here:
> http://theharrowgroup.com/articles/20020304/TNSY.htm
>
> Combine these with some of John Deneen's information (such as Big
Brothers' sensors ratting on our
> dreams) and we perceive that what may be technologically fascinating
is much overshadowed by what may
> be socially
> catastrophic - especially if we consider that while developments in
tech and biz speeds up at
> rapidly, the change in social institutions is tardy.
>
> As an example of this tardiness, consider the recommendations in the
report "Technology for All
> Americans" (also mentioned in Fleabyte), how long it has taken to
assemble these and how long it will
> take to put them into effect. (This kind of tardiness is par for the
course in the edcuc. business.)
>
> Somehow, it seems to me, if we want a viable democracy, we need a
citizenship more attuned to
> accellerating change, which probably (as far as I can see) entails a
digitally literate citizenry that
> knows how to get and evaluate information of social relevance, do so
at a fast clip, and is capable of
> meaningfully contributing to a communal decision-making process.
Afterall, San Francisco Bay Area
> traffic and partially hydrogenated fats are only two out of myriads of
issues.
>
> Love to hear some realistic assessments and proposals in the Engelbart
context.
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "John J. Deneen" wrote:
>
> > Henry,
> >
> > Relative to "Augmenting Big-Time", yesterday, &c., &c.
>
> (06)