[MG] Global advisory parliament

[Michael Allan]

Wybo Wiersma wrote:
> ... Wikipedia could start out small, because a small Encyclopedia
> (especially when indexed by Google so people find the article if it
> existed) is already an Encyclopedia, and useful in its own right.

You may say that if you wish, but it seems indefensible.  You make two
assertions that both hinge on calculations of utility:

  (1) A general encyclopedia in draft form is still useful as an
      encyclopedia no matter how few articles it has, or how generally
      incomplete those articles are.

  (2) A single article in isolation of the whole is useful to readers
      because it is indexed by Google.  The drafters who contribute to
      the article are motivated mainly by this calculation.

Would you try to defend either of these?  Neither seems plausible.
Even if you succeeded, then you'd have to defend two other points:

  (3) Such calculations could not motivate the early contributors to a
      compendium of draft statutes.

  (4) No *other* calculation or cause could sufficiently motivate the
      early contributors.

Only then would you reach the conclusion (unhappily for us) that a
grassroots legislative initiative is doomed to marginalization unless
it first achieves critical mass.  Do you still wish to make that
argument?

> While on the contrary, a small group of people interested in some X
> and drafting/voting about it among themselves is, politically
> speaking, nothing but a fringe interest-group that is managed 
> somewhat democratically.

More misunderstandings?  I apologize if I wasn't clear:

  * Restricted to drafting/voting media
    Not so, they also employ discussion media

  * Communicate only amongst themselves
    Not so, they communicate in public

  * Fringe interests only
    Not so, they seek consensus in mainstream

  * Only somewhat democratic
    Radically so

> To people outside that specific organisation, and to politicians, it
> will be nothing, and completely uninteresting (thus not grow further).
 
  * It is an organization
    They are everyday people, non-exclusive and unorganized

> At best such an organisation would be looked at for it's management
> techniques, but not for its political views. Politics is about 
> participation in numbers (or other forms of leverage such as money if 
> one is cynical), about people realizing others are critical of some 
> situation as well, and politicians facing numbers, it is about 
> critical mass.

You see public affairs and mass politics as inseparable, but they were
not always so [1].  C. W. Mills draws a distinction along moral lines.
I feel his approach is more useful than an underlining of the status
quo as a brutal fact.  Fact or not, it ought not to be. [2]

  In a *public*, as we may understand the term, (1) virtually as many
  people express opinions as receive them.  (2) Public
  commununications are so organized that there is a chance immediately
  and effectively to answer back any opinion expressed in public.
  Opinion formed by such discussion (3) readily finds an outlet in
  effective action, even against - if necessary - the prevailing
  system of authority.  And (4) authoritative institutions do not
  penetrate the public, which is thus more or less autonomous in its
  operation.

  In a *mass*, (1) far fewer people express opinions than receive
  them; for the community of publics becomes an abstract collection of
  individuals who receive impressions from the mass media.  (2) The
  communications that prevail are so organized that it is difficult or
  impossible for the individual to answer back immediately or with any
  effect.  (3) The realization of opinion in action is controlled by
  authorities who organize and control the channels of such action.
  (4) The mass has no autonomy from institutions; on the contrary,
  agents of authorized institutions penetrate this mass, reducing any
  autonomy it may have in the formation of opinion by discussion.

Speaking of moral arguments, have you given any thought to my question
below?

> > > Why only advisory: - Because it will provide the best
> > > interaction with existing institutions, and will be seen as
> > > reasonable by the majority. ...
> > 
> > If we could somehow limit the public's influence on government to
> > an advisory role, then how would that result in the "best
> > interaction"?  I gave reasons why it *cannot* be so limited, but
> > why do you say it *ought* to be?

Why?


 [1] J?rgen Habermas.  1962.  The structural transformation of the
     public sphere.  Translated by Thomas Burger, 1989.  MIT Press,
     Cambridge, Massachusetts.
     http://books.google.ca/books?id=e799caakIWoC

 [2] C. W. Mills.  1956.  The power elite.  New York.  p. 303-304.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/



Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org