Immigration
How would the immigration crisis in the United Kingdom (and other western jurisdictions) be tackled by our Panocracy?
It's said that when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. America has been sneezing a lot more over the past half century and the disease she has been suffering from has spread across the West like a metastatic cancer.
Here in the United Kingdom we have, it seems, had our fill of it.
Unrest and ill-feeling within the UK continues to rumble around like an approaching thunderstorm – with the odd flash of lightning to remind us just how violent these things can get.
It's clear from recent street protests in the UK that there's a lot of ill-feeling permeating the non-credentialed classes. It's not surprising (to anyone outside of politics) that suppressed resentment at the loss of status and decent job opportunities for many, especially younger, UK workers over the past half century is beginning to boil over into outright protest.
It shouldn't be surprising either that this fall in status is attributed to the most obvious change that has occurred – a sharp and manifest rise in the immigrant population, the ghettoisation of its various cultures and insulation of them from assimilation into local culture by the ideology of multiculturalism.
The clumsy attempts of the credentialed classes to dismiss the frustration of the people have come across as patronising and insulting.
It's clear that the UK government believes it can keep a lid on this by issuing heavy-handed and draconian orders to its police and judiciary to come down hard on those who protest on this issue.
No one should pretend that the solution is easy but we should be clear that no current government is capable of implementing one. By solution we mean administrative actions that lead to a permanent reduction in the level of resentment and consequential violence.
On the one hand, the UK government clearly doesn't want to risk offending the native population so much that it foments outright rebellion. On the other hand the government is wedded to an ethos of virtue signalling by positive discrimination – a position that is anti-egalitarian and which therefore must be maintained by force.
This has been allowed to become an unstable equilibrium. Like a pencil balanced on its point, the slightest disturbance (for example, the Southport atrocity) risks sending the system irretrievably into one extreme or the other: tyranny or physical conflict.
We can think of several ways in which our Panocracy would have been better.
Because everyone has a say, the rise in net immigration and its consequences would have been both observed (as many did) and any fears of negative consequences brought to the attention of the government (i.e. the general public) much earlier. Decades ago in fact.
People who saw the danger would have publicised it and possibly even raised RFCs to try to avert it. Full disclosure requirements on the proposers and commenters would identify those with commercial and ideological biases. The atmosphere of honesty and integrity encouraged by the panocracy would have allowed the public voice its soapbox without being smeared into silence.
Eventually – over the course of a few years, perhaps – a consensus would emerge among the vast bulk of us. Regulations that dealt with the issue and nipped it in the bud would have been introduced.
It's likely that these would have been approved but let's say they weren't and the resentment continued to fester.
Again and again, the issues would be raised until public sentiment had moved sufficiently to endorse the original RFC or a reworked version. For Britain, it's clear that this would all have happened pre-Brexit as that was effectively a referendum on this very issue. Thus a descent into frustration and violence eight or so years later would have been avoided. Indeed, Brexit itself may not have happened!
The Brexit referendum was ostensibly about leaving the European Union. However, it became clear that it was decided very much by a fear of uncontrolled immigration, partly from the EU but also from trouble spots elsewhere. (And a rising disenchantment with the attitude of the credentialed classes.)
Have Your Say
As we've emphasised in the past the administration in our Panocracy is not free to do as it pleases – unlike our elected representatives. The administration of our panocracy and its agencies have a mandate to implement the democratic will of the people in the letter and spirit of the approved law and in a timely manner. There has to be a really good reason to ignore it.
In this case the administration would have implemented the solution approved by the legal authority of a majority of the voters, not the 20% who voted in the current UK government (i.e. as of August 2024) many of whom didn't realise this was what they were going to get.
The only way to get the will of society done is to find out what it is and make sure it isn't perverted by middle men in the course of making it happen.