Monday, March 28, 2005

Advanced citizenship

You are warned.
What follows is a plethora of perspectives which originate from or are promulgated by one single person and his pursuit of the meaning of life. If there is one.

I decide.
I may include items which not only seem but are inconsistent with my views. Do not be alarmed, but do be aware, that in consulting other views one often finds answers or clarification in that other source’s pursuit. This then becomes a matter of interpretation, the lens through which we view data to become “information” in a sense of factual analysis. I see no irony in the observation of police investigators that a crowd viewing a crime in progress later has a thousand variations of what occurred that they can recall and some in complete contrast. I am but one person in the crowd.

I am arrogant in this effort.
I decide what to present as though my perceptions are better than others. I want to think by the inclusion of “materials inconsistent with my analysis” I gain a high degree of accuracy, because I can steer this pursuit against the flow by examining any differences between what I see against what another sees. I can change course based upon the best analysis even if not my own.

So I decide and I am arrogant. It is possible that I offer value in my pursuit. If so, it is logical to assume that some other mind’s pursuit will view my perspectives in equal manner and also achieve a higher degree of accuracy.

I am also kind hearted.
I share what I see with any who finds it of value…even…perhaps specially so, those who disagree and will present it as example of inaccuracy. That is another person in the crowd. He is also fallible. However, I must grant the possibility their analysis is accurate and mine is not. Therefore you are warned.

My first concept is that if such individual views and analysis were codified and linked via our existing means of communication medium, it would be possible to arrive at the best decisions of many persons. This concept suggests that it would be possible to not only achieve a government for the people, but a government of and by the people. I believe that the consensus of our personal beliefs and a decision process of our best minds in aggregate can achieve more (or less) in legislation than the representatives in our government houses; more justice in our courts; and much more oversight of the Executives we appoint.

If you can imagine the body politic as a human body, the concept becomes easier to understand.
We have sensors throughout our body that can instantly advise our brains via a nerve system.
Technology can provide a similar communication system that would enable each of us as sensors. My point is not that a majority rule can run our world quickly now. My concept is a system that can be capable of advanced consult with the best of us in making decisions for the public good and individual rights.

History has documented human behavior that government revolution arises eventually when the desires of the citizens are not in the rule of the country.

One argument is the degree and relative environment of dissent necessary to ignite the effort of change.

Another argument is that the means to present the desires of citizens is and has been too slow to effectively steer the course of government.

A third argument is that not every sensor in the body is capable of addressing the variety of input that is presented to our consciousness. Democracy is fine, but we don't seek the advice of every neighbor to determine a majority in making a medical diagnosis for surgery. However, in fact, a majority of some group does determine medical diagnosis and treatment. In fact a majority of some group does make the decisions. My thought is that whatever group that does it is often much less than the available intelligence for any specific discipline.

A fourth argument can be demonstrated as a desire to permit all persons to have their turn at being right - to decide what and how. Their sense of fairness suggests that out of every one hundred decisions, they get to make at least one with no other justification for their decision.
All decisions are arbitrary anyway, so why can't theirs be? Or why do all decisions have to be justified anyway, can't you have some made purely from sentiment, charity or mercy? Their decisions would not necessarily be in the best interest of all of the people.

A fifth argument is that the flaws of government merely reflect the flaws of humanity. This is my thought. The flaws of government are that the reflection of the governed seen by the governing, is a poor one. Further, even seen accurately, some of the governing choose to ignore what they don't want to see. sometimes even for personal gain. It would seem as though any human group is inevitably doomed to flawed government. My thought is that within any area of expertise there are large numbers of people who excel in one or more specific disciplines. Why is it that given a decision to be made, we can't get the best answer from the best mind available for that data analysis? None of us is perfect, yet the sum of our collective best decisions would enable a best of all worlds if not perfect progress in our pursuits.

This concept and details of topics could be expanded in many directions. It is a search or journey as you wish. If you have no interest or expertise in a topic I have presented, do not reply or comment...be quiet and learn. If you do have some degree of interest or expertise then I welcome your input. You extend your ability to form the sensors of government in my concept by the degree of attention or importance a pursuit should receive and provide the most informed decisions and thereafter monitored by everyone.

Although I said I would decide, eventually you decide. You who read these commentaries and post your thought and observations decide and so do I as just one in the crowd and perhaps a more attentive observer.

One of my mentors described systems as a balloon When you push your finger into the balloon in one place, the air just pushes out at another. The bigger the balloon the less effect of a single finger pushing will shape it. His point was that in resolving any specific problem, a resulting problem arises or is created.

What I see is another aspect. If the sum of the areas to be pushed can communicate and be collectively advised...the shape of the balloon will not necessarily be round. The analogy further portrays that while the shape achieved will not be exactly as intended, it will be as close as you could expect overall. In this fashion we could shape the governing and their reach and advantage into our lives.

All of this presupposes advanced citizenship - citizens who contribute their best answers in areas they have interest or expertise. To be unselfishly honest.

I imagine. If I have an automobile accident, I can reliably get the best advice from all those who reported having had an accident, and determine thereby what to do and who best to do it with.
Imagine knowing that you could trust what needed to be fixed was fairly fixed by a competent mechanic. ..because you elected to go in the direction experts advised if you wanted.
I imagine. When an individual asks you for the job as county commissioner you can get the knowledge of everyone who knows him well regarding his ability etc. Not the guy who looks good in a campaign or got the most money to advertise. Not a mouthpiece for one organization special interest group or another. Well, you might get a lot of honest genuinely good candidates who have the ability to do the job... Then you decide. If you have no interest or expertise don't vote. If you do and you've consulted the information of other experts in deciding, then vote.
I imagine. This system would invariably identify dishonesty...people who like sensors that consistently send false reports and thus are ignored. This system does the same regarding accuracy and excellence.