Electracy: Evil Revisited

Buried in my latest delirious rant were multiple *pragmatic*
descriptions of Electronic Democracy, and to my great chagrin all have
been virtually completely ignored, save one thoughtful soul responding
to me in email, who I've exhorted to post to the list. Where is the
picking apart of the pieces? I expected the highly suggestive details
to be pounced on like scrumptious food for further thought or (more
likely) carrion for vultures, but instead get the standard vague
marshmallow-philosophical Libertarian and Anarchic Promotional Literature.

I'm really quite amazed at all the deathly pessimism and antipathy
herein toward genuinely improving our governmental system. It seems
that many believe that the natural state of `their' government is
oppression, and that the goal is only to minimize it. The perverted
Majority is fundamentally and invariably Untrustworthy, Capricious, and
Painfully Stupid.  It is always stated in terms of Us and They. But
*we* *are* our government. How can it not be more obvious? What does it
say about our character if we are resigned to deprivation?

As I've already stated, the future will hold many developments that
will gradually shift opinion, and give working models that won't be
subject to immediate ridicule and vague philosophical ramblings about
Inherent Evil. It seems everyone here is interested in debating the
issue in terms of how they see government, how it has functioned in the
past, *irrespective* of any novel mechanisms presented (which I took
great pains to put on the table, to specifically address virtually all
objections, with the same dramatic effect of shouting at a chasm).

I've written about this in the past, and will write about it in the
future, but for now I'm going to focus on a comment by N. Szabo
<szabo@netcom.com>, to elaborate on an earlier item everyone conveniently ignores:

[electronic democracy (electrocracy? electracy?)]
>* A basic problem with E.D. is that nobody has an
>incentive to vote correctly.  People's political opinions
>can be as stupid and wrong as can be and it won't have any
>negative impact on their own lives, or at least none that 
>is disproportionate or easily recognized to be a result decisions
>based on that opinion.  Other people might have great opinions, which 
>if implemented would solve world hunger, clean up the environment, 
>grow the economy, etc. etc.  but there is no special benefit to these 
>people for having done their altruistic homework and arrived at effective 
>solutions to these problems.

Here are some ideas that my lone anonymous respondent picked up on, but
that I've been taking as obvious and given, perhaps because I've
thought about it for a long time, and overestimated the imagination of
the reader (quite unexpected in this crowd).  To make this more
specific and tangible, consider a system where people can choose to
vote non-anonymously (choosing to vote anonymously is of course always
permitted). Now suppose that a `vote' is not something static but
rather a pledge of support for a proposal that can vary over time. That
is, one can revoke or increase support of a proposal over its entire
lifetime, not at an instantaneous blip in a curtained booth. 

Further, imagine that people can propose different categories for bills
such as National, Local, Environmental, Law Enforcement, Infrastructure
Maintenance, National Information Infrastructure, Unemployed
Programmers, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam. When a bill is created the
creator suggests the category. Categories are created and deleted by
anyone. Others can propose the same bill in a different category if
they think it merits it. People can refuse to vote on bills or against
them based on the classification.

Now imagine that everone has Status or Credit associated with their
votes in any category. Under certain circumstances, with a certain
amount of global support or combination of support based on tabulation
of votes and the status (weight) associated with each, a bill becomes
Law. The requirements for a bill to become National Law are themselves
subject to modification but of course eventually stabilize (a bill to
modify the current voting system itself can be introduced under the
system). However, a whole set of different characteristics can be
associated with bills that become Laws in each category (again subject
to modification), and many less `formal' laws can be passed with less
constriction in smaller spheres. When a new category is proposed under
the system itself, the presenter also indicates that `status formula'
associated with it.

The status or `credit' is such that it can be impacted in various ways.
If one consistently voted for bills in a category who declined in
support, one's status in that realm would be diminished by intrinsic
mechanisms (remember, a `vote' is dynamic and can change over time
based on the owner's `maintenance'). Note that this can be done even
with an anonymous voting record by an automated but concealed system. 
Also, there might be a way that people can trade their status to others
whom they admire or respect in that category, based on past experience
or their non-anonymous voting record. The status of people might become
closely associated with not just their proposals of bills but their
successful *real* implementation of them.  Under this system, the
status becomes very much like a currency system! The `status' itself of
people may be advertised or hidden for further effect. (``How much is
he worth, anyway?'')

In fact, it is not really the case that this system sounds like today's
currency, it is the case that our monetary system is actually a very
small microcosm of this future Electronic Democracy. Look at all the
synonyms associated with money: Power. Status. Influence. Money is the
economy's built-in `voting mechanism'. It is an abstraction that, when
implemented, causes a competition for improvement and superiority, an
*incentive* for *evolution* and *success*. Similarly, under the new
system sensible classifications, status formulas, and bills will
prosper and persist, while nonsensical, inferior, and obsolete ones will die out.

These ideas are all very cypherpunkesque in their allusions to digital
cash, reputations, social upheaval, `anarchy' in the sense of a
government so unobtrusive and natural it is virtually invisible yet
omnipresent (sort of like God, eh? ah, well, a good role model.)

I call on patriotic and guerilla cypherpunks to implement this system,
to be a model for the world! all the critical features of technology
are already in place -- methods of providing universal communication
called `email', guaranteeing accurate voting via authenication called
PGP, a widespead `proposal dissemination and discussion system' called
Usenet, a library for past proposals and bills and resolutions called
FTP.  I guarantee that by *far* this will be the most important of all
cypherpunk projects, if in the amazing odds it were actually adopted by
one (considering the recent formidably frosty reception, currently all
that is left of my attempt at a burgeoning snowball is a Dissolving Drip in Hell).

In fact, the sheer dischordant cacophony on this group might be
ameliorated through such a system. Imagine that we as a group (the most
disorderly and uncooperative group ever to be called one) could vote
and stabilize Cypherpunk Resolutions.

(Nah -- some things are just fundamentally impossible.)

While I'm dubious about the trend towards E.D. with our current
physically-bounded, coercive governments, I'm quite interested 
in this proposal which seems to (embedded within the hoopla :-) 
be for starting an E.D. system outside the boundaries of normal 
government, a virtual area of what Extropians call "Privately Practiced
Law" (PPL) within the anarchy of the Internet.  

The Extropian list (extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
has been experimenting with a kind of mini-totalitarian 
justice system for a while, and we are now experimenting with
the Hawthorne Exchange reputation market.  Both experiments
have revealed much room for improvement, but they are
valuable as tentative first steps towards virtual
PPLs, an important part of the cypherpunks vision.

It would be quite interesting to set up an E.D.-based PPL,
with both public reputation-based and anonymous voting.
Especially interesting, but seemingly difficult, would be 
mechanisms for evauluating the consequences of specific laws 
being enacted, so those benefits or penalties could be fed back and 
added/deducted from accounts of those who voted for for/against
the law.  Quite interesting!  I look forward to more specifics, 
perhaps I'll think of some myself.

Nick Szabo				szabo@netcom.com

"L. Detweiler" says:
> Buried in my latest delirious rant were multiple *pragmatic*
> descriptions of Electronic Democracy, and to my great chagrin all have
> been virtually completely ignored, save one thoughtful soul responding
> to me in email, who I've exhorted to post to the list. Where is the
> picking apart of the pieces? I expected the highly suggestive details
> to be pounced on like scrumptious food for further thought or (more
> likely) carrion for vultures, but instead get the standard vague
> marshmallow-philosophical Libertarian and Anarchic Promotional Literature.

Look, people on this list have many different political views.
Political views qua political views do not belong on this list.
However, you seem to insist. I will therefore indulge you.

> I'm really quite amazed at all the deathly pessimism and antipathy
> herein toward genuinely improving our governmental system. It seems
> that many believe that the natural state of `their' government is
> oppression, and that the goal is only to minimize it. The perverted
> Majority is fundamentally and invariably Untrustworthy, Capricious, and
> Painfully Stupid.  It is always stated in terms of Us and They. But
> *we* *are* our government. How can it not be more obvious? What does it
> say about our character if we are resigned to deprivation?

WE ARE NOT OUR GOVERNMENT.

I have an interesting fact for you, Mr. Detweiler. I did not choose
the government I live under. I chose none of its parts, agreed to none
of its actions, selected none of its members (not one person I've ever
voted for has been elected, and I only vote in self defense, not as an
endorsement of the system), and I agree with virtually none of its
actions. Sadly, this is the best country I know of to live in, so
leaving is not an option. However, don't for one minute claim that
this is *my* government. It is the government that rules me, to be
sure, but it is my master, not my servant. I would not choose to have
it operate as it does were I given the choice. It is not mine. 

Perhaps you are in control of the government, in which case I would
ask that you explain to your servants in Washington that I am not
undertaxed, am old enough to choose my own lifestyle and decide for
myself whether I should ingest any chemicals I happen to find, can
fend for myself in negotiating with employers and shopkeepers, and in
general have no desire for their protection or, as I view it,
opression.

So far as I can tell, government is run Of the Bureaucrats, By the
Bureaucrats, For the Bureaucrats. It is an oozing flatulent behemoth
that eats everything in sight and then blames the state of its victims
on the fact that it doesn't have enough to eat.

The very notion of voting on issues makes no sense. From whence does
the majority gain the right to rule me? If five people are sitting in
a room, and three of them vote to rape the other two, that does not
make it right. If one hundred people are sitting on a desert island,
and 70 of them vote to enslave the other 30, that does not make it
right. If a gang of 15 people comes upon a couple sitting in a park,
and they decide to hold an "election" to decide whether or not to beat
up the other two, that does not lend legitimacy to the actions of the
15. Why, then, should the whims of 100 million people sitting in their
living rooms with video game consoles decide the fate of those who
find themselves on the losing end of the vote?

In ancient Athens, they had a direct democracy. Allow me to describe
to you what they did with it. Among other fun practices, like
enslaving half the population because they felt like it, the Athenians
would periodically get together and decide they wanted to kick someone
out of town, so they would get together Ostracons, meaning pottery
shards, and write down the names of the folks they didn't like on
them. The guy who got the most Ostracons was Ostracized. Fun folks,
eh? Well, thats what you want to do, but on a national scale.

Athens would periodically get a charismatic leader, like Pericles, who
would manage by demagoguery to take control and impose nearly
dictatorial rule. (The word demagogue comes from the same greek roots
as the word democracy, by the way).

Imagine if every year only one company was allowed to make cars, and
we picked the company by vote. One year we would get Chryslers, and
one year Fords, and we could never compare them or choose a car of our
own desiring. We would just get this massive campaign every year for
the franchise. Well, everything government does is like that -- no
chance for comparison, no efficiency, choices made on the basis of
short and massive campaigns, and no sense.

I will be happiest when all that is forbidden is initiating force
against others or their property. I will be reasonably happy when the
government is crippled enough that it can make no decisions -- the
founding fathers tried that, and sadly it didn't work for long, but it
did last for a while. It is often said that no man's life, liberty or
property are safe when the legislature is in session. In an Electronic
Direct Democracy the legislature will never be out of session. It will
rule people's lives like the most iron-fisted dictatorship you can
imagine. 

People often confound liberty and democracy. The one means freedom --
the other is merely a form of government. Democracy does not
necessarily generate liberty, and more democracy does not mean more
liberty. 

Perry