1 PM. 12 or so cabinet ministers. 650 MPs. 1,000 chatterati inside the Westminster media / politics bubble . . . 68 million citizens. At what point does useful discussion simply break up into different and largely introverted groups? I can’t see how a country can talk intelligently and openly with itself. Even a village of a few thousand with a parish council has trouble. I agree with you about Substack (especially the commenters) but even here we gravitate towards like minded others. As for the rest . . .
Many thanks for the comment, David. There are several things here.
As you point out the 1 PM , 12 Cabinet Ministers, etc. have an overwhelming influence on what is and isn't discussed and decided and they do indeed exist in their own introverted echo chamber. Their tribe holds sway at the moment. The current system allowed 'Midazolam Matt' to blunderbuss his schoolboy ideas without opposition.
In a panocracy the other 68 million will include vast numbers of smarter, more creative and more insightful individuals and they all will have their opportunity to speak. Most of them, 67.99 million, will say nothing most of the time. Occasionally someone might be interested enough in something to put in their 2p worth but mostly the RFC battles will be fought by people who are currently politicians, investigative journalists, academics, lawyers, ... anyone who has a personal or professional interest in whatever proposal has been made. Everyone, however, will feel that and will actually have the right to have their voice heard on every issue.
Yes, there will be a lot of groups or tribes and they will constantly be having a go at each other as they do at the moment. I believe they get a much higher profile than they deserve at the moment. In the panocracy most of them will cancel each other out and what emerges should be in the direction that suits the interest of the vast majority. However, there is a need to define how an RFC that has reached an impasse should be handled. I don't have the answer to that! Any ideas?
Openness is a sine qua non - it's essential that it's built in to the foundations of the panocracy. People will try to subvert it but openness is its own defence. Once people understand how useful openness is, they'll take it on board. The model here is science, parts of which have recently been subverted by commercial and dogmatic interests. This however is being slowly recognised and the next few years will see a change in the culture of (especially) bioscience as the awful effects of its perversion become apparent. Other parts of science are also subject to fad and fancy but reality is the gold standard and because of the openness of the debate bad theories are always superseded by those which describe reality better. It isn't necessarily an easy battle as Wegener discovered.
Thanks again for the opportunity to clarify - keep 'em coming!
I think my real concern is the nature and shape of the fora in which these things get thrashed out. What in the Panocracy will be the equivalent (or rather an improvement on!) the Athenian agora? Even as a parish councillor in a small Essex village, it was very difficult to get the village as a whole to engage with important issues. I had more luck editing the village newsletter, because I could set the agenda and be provocative about it - then people reacted or responded.
Yes, engagement during policy formation is likely to be low unless it's something that gets a lot of publicity. We're still in a better position than we are now as everyone can at least see what's in an RFC and those who are especially interested may well get engaged.
I don't know if the village as a whole got to vote on whatever was proposed at your Parish Council but everyone would vote in the panocracy when the RFC made it that far.
There's no doubt that the RFC process in the panocracy needs a lot more fleshing out. My intention longer term is to build a computer model that allows people to try it out on issues of the day so that it can be refined.
1 PM. 12 or so cabinet ministers. 650 MPs. 1,000 chatterati inside the Westminster media / politics bubble . . . 68 million citizens. At what point does useful discussion simply break up into different and largely introverted groups? I can’t see how a country can talk intelligently and openly with itself. Even a village of a few thousand with a parish council has trouble. I agree with you about Substack (especially the commenters) but even here we gravitate towards like minded others. As for the rest . . .
Many thanks for the comment, David. There are several things here.
As you point out the 1 PM , 12 Cabinet Ministers, etc. have an overwhelming influence on what is and isn't discussed and decided and they do indeed exist in their own introverted echo chamber. Their tribe holds sway at the moment. The current system allowed 'Midazolam Matt' to blunderbuss his schoolboy ideas without opposition.
In a panocracy the other 68 million will include vast numbers of smarter, more creative and more insightful individuals and they all will have their opportunity to speak. Most of them, 67.99 million, will say nothing most of the time. Occasionally someone might be interested enough in something to put in their 2p worth but mostly the RFC battles will be fought by people who are currently politicians, investigative journalists, academics, lawyers, ... anyone who has a personal or professional interest in whatever proposal has been made. Everyone, however, will feel that and will actually have the right to have their voice heard on every issue.
Yes, there will be a lot of groups or tribes and they will constantly be having a go at each other as they do at the moment. I believe they get a much higher profile than they deserve at the moment. In the panocracy most of them will cancel each other out and what emerges should be in the direction that suits the interest of the vast majority. However, there is a need to define how an RFC that has reached an impasse should be handled. I don't have the answer to that! Any ideas?
Openness is a sine qua non - it's essential that it's built in to the foundations of the panocracy. People will try to subvert it but openness is its own defence. Once people understand how useful openness is, they'll take it on board. The model here is science, parts of which have recently been subverted by commercial and dogmatic interests. This however is being slowly recognised and the next few years will see a change in the culture of (especially) bioscience as the awful effects of its perversion become apparent. Other parts of science are also subject to fad and fancy but reality is the gold standard and because of the openness of the debate bad theories are always superseded by those which describe reality better. It isn't necessarily an easy battle as Wegener discovered.
Thanks again for the opportunity to clarify - keep 'em coming!
I think my real concern is the nature and shape of the fora in which these things get thrashed out. What in the Panocracy will be the equivalent (or rather an improvement on!) the Athenian agora? Even as a parish councillor in a small Essex village, it was very difficult to get the village as a whole to engage with important issues. I had more luck editing the village newsletter, because I could set the agenda and be provocative about it - then people reacted or responded.
I think I should look at your RFC model
Yes, engagement during policy formation is likely to be low unless it's something that gets a lot of publicity. We're still in a better position than we are now as everyone can at least see what's in an RFC and those who are especially interested may well get engaged.
I don't know if the village as a whole got to vote on whatever was proposed at your Parish Council but everyone would vote in the panocracy when the RFC made it that far.
There's no doubt that the RFC process in the panocracy needs a lot more fleshing out. My intention longer term is to build a computer model that allows people to try it out on issues of the day so that it can be refined.