You may have witnessed some of the extreme reactions by ordinary people on social media to last weekend's attempted shooting of Donald Trump - foam-at-the-mouth rants about why the assassin(s) missed the target.
It's astonishing that in a civilised society, rabid proselytes who claim to be on the side of peace and goodwill are baying for someone’s extermination.
Most people don't have the time or the inclination to analyse the policies or backgrounds of those in the political arena. They go by what the pundits tell them. And the journalists write what pleases their paymasters. Journalists are trained to put across a good story that provokes their readership.
It was ever thus, even in the days of clay tablets.
So it's not so hard to see why such hatred, amplified by commercialised public repetition, is directed towards figures in the public eye.
Sometimes reinforcing these beliefs tips some individual over the edge and they feel emboldened to 'do the right thing'. Are such brainwashed people perpetrators or victims? Is there always someone at the top of the propaganda pyramid or is this an outcome of ordinary social behaviour within peer networks?
But mainly, what can we do about it?
One approach is ever more 'security'. Our reaction when things go wrong is invariably to pull down the shutters. The powers that be introduce hate speech laws or the EU's Digital Services Act to curtail the ability of people to 'say the wrong things'.
Do we really want our world to be locked down so tight that we're not free to do anything without official sanction?
Perhaps we could try to screen out those who are most likely to become bigoted by exposure to propaganda. Identify in advance those simple-minded fools who won't know they're being manipulated. Easy to do, but unhelpful, because it's all of us.
Should, instead, potential targets be kept out of the public view and, like royalty of old, be seen only on postage stamps or by priests and courtiers?
Panocracy has a simpler approach: don't have any targets in the first place. With no prominent figures, our panocracy will have no lightning rods for the conspiracy theorist, the brainwashed or the crackpot.
No individual will have enough political power to pose a threat - real or imaginary – to any group within the citizenry.
Not having someone to hold accountable for all the wrongs of society will be a transformative experience. The citizens of the panocracy will have no one but themselves to blame for any policy failures; and no one but themselves to take the credit for policy successes.
But how do we know what has been successful and what hasn't?
Pilot Error
In September 1920 Geoffrey de Havilland (1882-1965) formed the De Havilland Aircraft Company which rapidly rose to become one of Britain's leading aircraft makers. The Mosquito was the company's major contribution to Britain's WWII effort. It was made principally of 'moulded' plywood (http://aviation-history.com/theory/plywood.htm)!
After the end of the war de Havilland began work on the first commercial jet airliner.
Quite a jump from making wooden aircraft.
With its first flight in 1949, the de Havilland Comet was a breakthrough in commercial aviation. It flew faster, higher and more efficiently than its rivals. To do this it introduced many constructional innovations including a thinner Aluminium alloy and a new riveting technique for improved aerodynamic efficiency.
It was the combination of these that led to its demise. Microfractures developed around the rivets (metal fatigue) which led to catastrophic failure of the airframe after a relatively small number of flights.
After two crashes in 1954, the Comet's airworthiness certificate was withdrawn.
Most countries now have some official bodies for investigations of different kinds.
For example, when an air incident occurs which involves civil air transport in the UK, the Air Accident Investigations Branch is called into action.
For serious incidents they despatch a team of investigators to the scene to gather and process evidence and for minor ones they work via correspondence.
The objective of forensic investigation is to prevent the same thing happening in future. That's why even apparently insignificant incidents are reported.
If the cause isn't discovered and cured, a planeload of people might die. This rigour is what makes mass air travel safe.
It would be be quicker and easier to put all air accidents down to pilot error. After all, the pilots are often unable to defend themselves. But fortunately for air travellers, air authorities take their responsibilities more seriously than modern governments.
Modern air travel is a triumph of engineering and the principles it's based on. Its continual progress should be a paradigm for government and administration.
In the panocracy, investigations would come under the remit of The Panocracy Engineering Board (PEB) (see panocracy 5). Not exactly a snappy label, but intended to capture the idea of diligence, integrity and probity.
The key feature of the PEB – and other panocracy agencies – is that they are apolitical, rigorous and continually under the scrutiny of the public. Their remit is to get to the bottom of problems, in whichever area they occur. Whether it's a failing rivet on an airframe or a failing policy, the PEB, and possibly its daughter agencies, are there to ferret it out.
To torture the air safety metaphor further, the PEB and all other agencies of the panocracy will have their own 'black box flight recorder'. This won't of course be an actual black box but a collection of procedures and data stores. The 'black box' may be implemented by manual procedure or automated monitoring but it will record the agency's operations in fine enough detail to allow a complete investigation if and when it's required.
That's the way to prevent similar problems in the future.
It's called progress.
“Panocracy has a simpler approach: don't have any targets in the first place. With no prominent figures, our panocracy will have no lightning rods for the conspiracy theorist, the brainwashed or the crackpot.” Anyone remember the last political assassination in Switzerland?
I have long though that our systems of government are ante-diluvian: they belong to age before mass communication and education/literacy of the masses (although that has morphed into a system of moulding and propagandising in the 21st century). Governance in the middle ages should not be a template for the 21st century - but it is! A top down, don't ask questions, pyramid of power. In fact, this is why schools today are run in the way that they are - to train children to be compliant with a system that renders you powerless; from the age of 4/5 until possibly 21, or beyond, you are inculcated with the idea that you are at the bottom of a power pyramid and you obey to avoid punishment. The idea is reinforced with prizes for the ones who submit willingly and perform required tasks; and extra prizes for those who excel at the regurgitation of approved 'facts'. This creates a population who have been primed to continue their lives in a reward-punishment paradigm, submissive to forces over which they have no control (government).