The Open Source Party: A Proposal
By RU Sirius
The duopoly will have its way again in this year's election. Ralph Nader and whoever the Libertarians and Greens nominate as their candidates will drag their asses around the country, sometimes saying interesting and important things, sometimes not. Many of us will wish, once again, that there could be a dynamic discourse about the many real issues and problems that get ignored and then we will vote (or not) for the one who has at least a fingernail grip on sanity, or for one of the sad and hopeless alterna-candidates.
But we could make the political season less depressing by using the net and other networking tools to create a very large and dynamic discourse about the things that we believe really need to change, and we could evolve a new political organization that could be ready to kick up some noise by the time the next political season (2010) rolls around.
Therefore I propose a Liberal/Libertarian/Other unity party that will develop ideas and solutions to America's political problems through an open source process that will be engaging and fun. We will have online conferences, social networks, and wikis, we will have meetups, we will have parties, we will create games that model likely real world responses to our proposed ideas, we will field candidates starting in 2010, get "crazed" antiauthoritarians on TV and radio, and maybe change a few things before the apocalypse, the singularity, the second coming, the compete conquest of the world by Google, the election of another generation of Bushes and Clintons, or whatever other event you may be expecting.
There are two ways to go with an Open Source Party. One way would be to just throw it open to everybody. Everyone gets to throw their ideas into the maelstrom whether they're anarchists or fascists, conservatives or moderates, or if they just miss Ross Perot.
But I'm not an absolute believer in the wisdom of crowds and all that. I prefer another idea. I would bring together people who feel they are in agreement with at least 5 of the 7 points in the party platform below – giving us a starting point from which to launch activities on the basis of the platform and to have interesting fun in a democratic process adding to or subtracting from the platform.
Here then: the Open Source Party Platform:
1. Let's Have A Democracy!
It's a wacky wacky idea that may have started in early Greece and then was cautiously revived during the American Revolution in 1776 when voting rights were granted to property owning white males living in most states of that union. Since then, the hint of democracy has grown and spread, but the actual practice has been far from perfect. Recently, many citizens of the US have questioned whether democracy is still in practice here at all. It's an excellent question. The Open Source Party suggests two steps to insure actual democracy.
A: One person/one vote: Every US citizen over 18 has a Social Security number. Many activities on the internet are protected from fraud by strong data encryption. Surely, computer geniuses thinking together in an open source process can come up with a way that every person over 18 can use his or her number to effectively and efficiently vote once and only once. Citizens can vote from their homes or they can vote from public polling stations using ss#s tied to data encryption. If this solution isn't possible, let's brainstorm others. Shouldn't actually having a democracy be a priority for the world's oldest "democracy"?
B: There are dozens of rules and regulations designed by the two political parties that have had a virtual monopoly on power for many decades that prevent other political parties and independents from competing on a fair playing field. We should eliminate all those barriers that give unfair advantage to the ruling parties.
NOTE: There are a number of other ideas that we are not now advocating including direct majority voting on presidential elections; run-off votes when candidates fail to win 50%; various scenarios to control or change campaign finance and media access in the electoral process; and even direct voting on legislation that will provoke controversy and discourse within the Open Source Party. Some of these ideas may be added to the platform following a radically open and democratic process that will be suggested at the end of this statement.
2: Let's Have Civil Liberties and a Bill of Rights!
Here we have yet another notion that only cranks subscribe to — that civil liberties can survive crime, mind-active substance use, and even terrorism. For starters, we seek the return of civil liberties, rights, and basic, sane conduct by the executive branch of government that has been lost in the post 9-11 environment. This includes the reform or repeal of the (mostly) unnecessary Patriot Act; the return of Habeas Corpus; the end of essentially infinite surveillance rights for the federal government; limits to privilege and secrecy in the executive branch; the end — or the imposition of judicial limits — on presidential signing statements, and (what have I forgotten? You tell me.). Beyond that, we support strong free speech that includes an end to implicit censorship through government intimidation, and an end to the so-called "War on Drugs," which has resulted in frequent violations against limits on search and seizure and an abhorrently high percentage of US citizens imprisoned.
NOTE: There is plenty of room here for dynamic, open debate among Open Source Party members, including whether to reform or repeal The Patriot Act and what kind of surveillance is necessary and appropriate for the defense of the nation. Also, ending the "drug war" could involve anything from reform of draconian policies and medicalization of illegal drugs to an outright end to prohibition. Again, we will follow a radically open and democratic process that may add to the party platform that will be suggested at the end of this statement.
3: Let's End the Imperial Foreign Policy.
…or if you prefer, let's stop playing the world's policeman. However you view it, we should no longer invade or attack sovereign nation states, either directly or indirectly, that haven't attacked us by force of arms. The emphasis of American foreign policy needs to change from "defending our interests" to "defending our sovereignty."
NOTE: Here we can have a dynamic discussion about many possible aspects of defending the US, including the size of the military budget and the interests of what President Eisenhower called a military-industrial complex, what to do about weapons systems and weapons testing – including nuclear; whether we should provide weapons to other nations and under what circumstances; whether to allow mercenary groups to operate out of the US; whether and when to participate and help in peace negotiations among other nations as a humanitarian act; whether and when to participate with other nations in interventions in extreme cases of genocide; whether or when to intervene in extreme cases if and when another nation launches repeated interventions of its own and seems clearly bent on regional or global conquest in the tradition of Genghis Khan, Napolean and Hitler; how to cope with the development of nuclear weapons by other nations (and by our own); whether or not to have military alliances and what our degree of commitment of them should be; and wither the UN(?).
4: A New "Energy Task Force"
A tremendous number of energy pioneers have been thinking and working for decades on energy solutions that don't involve oil, natural gas or coal. These organizations include Rocky Mountain Institute, Pliny Fisk’s Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems, and the folks at WorldChanging, ad infinitum. Let's bring people like these together to map out how best to bring us as completely into the age of clean energy as possible within 10-20 years – whether through the state, the market, decentralized volunteerism or all three.
NOTE: Obviously, there's nearly infinite room here for debate and discussion about these solutions, but we imagine a passionate discourse about whether the transition can happen primarily through encouragement of the market or whether it should emphasize government solutions. We also look forward to an interesting debate among Open Source Party members over whether to develop and deploy more nuclear power.
5: Let's Explore the Possibility of an Open Source Monetary System
Monetary policies and systems change all the time and it is always necessary to remind ourselves that "money" is a symbol (presumably) of wealth, and not an actual material value. We should encourage and empower a public discourse around how money should be issued, understood, defined and valued. Ultimately, we may want to think in terms of an "open source" monetary system and we may want to encourage "alternative" forms of currency.
NOTE: Again there is clearly nearly infinite room for new ideas and for debate here, including even questioning the essential premise – thus the "let's explore" aspect of this part of the platform. Open Source currency may be achievable through networks of trust, through virtual money (like Linden Dollars) or simply by removing the state from the equation and then publicly encouraging a multiplicity of exchange signals. We are most of all intrigued by ideas that might lead toward a post-scarcity monetary system.
6: Let's End Corporate Personhood and other Rules that Unfairly Benefit Corporations
Corporations today have the rights but not the responsibilities of persons, and our laws are riddled with other advantages that tilt the balance of economic and political power in favor of these giants. This platform suggests a simple libertarian approach toward disempowering what some have called the corporatocracy by removing their state advantages.
Note: There is tremendous room for discussion and debate about other measures to rein in corporations, including – no doubt – discourse about whether to simply take away corporate advantages or to regulate them, democratize them, utilize the corporate approval process to punish corruption and/or anti-social activities, ad infinitum.
7: Let My Web People Go! (Support Open Source Culture, Reasonable and Looser Copyright Laws, Reasonable File-sharing, etc.)
Digital stuff exists in a land without scarcity. It is natural and spontaneous that when people reside there, they tend to share and to repurpose content without guilt. On the other hand, "content creators" need to pay bills just as much as programmers and other virtual laborers do. We need to support the natural evolving ecology of copying and sharing on the web. At the same time, we need to find a way to sufficiently reward creative content.
Note: This requires lots of real creative thinking and there is lots of room for discussion and debate around the nuances of netiquette and law.
Democratic Processes Within an Open Source Party
We suggest that decisions to take on "official" activities and to make additions or subtractions to and from the Open Source Party platform would take place along the lines of "near consensus." We would suggest a 75% yes vote among registered members would be requuired to adopt any action or platform point. We also suggest that the democratic process would include serious campaigning and some degree of hilarity.
We suggest that erecting a pay wall – a $15 fee for Open Source Party membership — would be instrumental not only in helping to finance a dynamic organization but necessary to keep out all but the most motivated griefers and help us to verify the legitimacy of voters, who would vote only once. Naturally, we would hope that enthusiasts who can would contribute substantially more.
Final Thoughts
We imagine that this in-group, open-source, participatory democratic process could be a way in which people who have been more or less on the fringe of American politics can encourage one another to think clearly in terms of actually eventually making policy. It's very easy to stand outside the system and protest or call for some absolutist ideological solution (anarchy dudes!), but it's more interesting and valuable to try to realistically envision the consequences of policy. We also want to emphasize again the ample potential to keep this playful – to create dynamic virtual worlds (in Second Life or wherever), to create games, fanciful as well as serious candidacies, videos and podcasts, songs, ad infinitum. The possibilities are limited only by our imaginations and even if we don't succeed in making the changes we hope for, we can learn from the experience.
Note: Special thanks to Jon Lebkowsky for help and encouragement with this document. The Open Source Party is currently a gleam in the eye and not an extant organization.
The duopoly will have its way again in this year's election. Ralph Nader and whoever the Libertarians and Greens nominate as their candidates will drag their asses around the country, sometimes saying interesting and important things, sometimes not. Many of us will wish, once again, that there could be a dynamic discourse about the many real issues and problems that get ignored and then we will vote (or not) for the one who has at least a fingernail grip on sanity, or for one of the sad and hopeless alterna-candidates.
But we could make the political season less depressing by using the net and other networking tools to create a very large and dynamic discourse about the things that we believe really need to change, and we could evolve a new political organization that could be ready to kick up some noise by the time the next political season (2010) rolls around.
Therefore I propose a Liberal/Libertarian/Other unity party that will develop ideas and solutions to America's political problems through an open source process that will be engaging and fun. We will have online conferences, social networks, and wikis, we will have meetups, we will have parties, we will create games that model likely real world responses to our proposed ideas, we will field candidates starting in 2010, get "crazed" antiauthoritarians on TV and radio, and maybe change a few things before the apocalypse, the singularity, the second coming, the compete conquest of the world by Google, the election of another generation of Bushes and Clintons, or whatever other event you may be expecting.
There are two ways to go with an Open Source Party. One way would be to just throw it open to everybody. Everyone gets to throw their ideas into the maelstrom whether they're anarchists or fascists, conservatives or moderates, or if they just miss Ross Perot.
But I'm not an absolute believer in the wisdom of crowds and all that. I prefer another idea. I would bring together people who feel they are in agreement with at least 5 of the 7 points in the party platform below – giving us a starting point from which to launch activities on the basis of the platform and to have interesting fun in a democratic process adding to or subtracting from the platform.
Here then: the Open Source Party Platform:
1. Let's Have A Democracy!
It's a wacky wacky idea that may have started in early Greece and then was cautiously revived during the American Revolution in 1776 when voting rights were granted to property owning white males living in most states of that union. Since then, the hint of democracy has grown and spread, but the actual practice has been far from perfect. Recently, many citizens of the US have questioned whether democracy is still in practice here at all. It's an excellent question. The Open Source Party suggests two steps to insure actual democracy.
A: One person/one vote: Every US citizen over 18 has a Social Security number. Many activities on the internet are protected from fraud by strong data encryption. Surely, computer geniuses thinking together in an open source process can come up with a way that every person over 18 can use his or her number to effectively and efficiently vote once and only once. Citizens can vote from their homes or they can vote from public polling stations using ss#s tied to data encryption. If this solution isn't possible, let's brainstorm others. Shouldn't actually having a democracy be a priority for the world's oldest "democracy"?
B: There are dozens of rules and regulations designed by the two political parties that have had a virtual monopoly on power for many decades that prevent other political parties and independents from competing on a fair playing field. We should eliminate all those barriers that give unfair advantage to the ruling parties.
NOTE: There are a number of other ideas that we are not now advocating including direct majority voting on presidential elections; run-off votes when candidates fail to win 50%; various scenarios to control or change campaign finance and media access in the electoral process; and even direct voting on legislation that will provoke controversy and discourse within the Open Source Party. Some of these ideas may be added to the platform following a radically open and democratic process that will be suggested at the end of this statement.
2: Let's Have Civil Liberties and a Bill of Rights!
Here we have yet another notion that only cranks subscribe to — that civil liberties can survive crime, mind-active substance use, and even terrorism. For starters, we seek the return of civil liberties, rights, and basic, sane conduct by the executive branch of government that has been lost in the post 9-11 environment. This includes the reform or repeal of the (mostly) unnecessary Patriot Act; the return of Habeas Corpus; the end of essentially infinite surveillance rights for the federal government; limits to privilege and secrecy in the executive branch; the end — or the imposition of judicial limits — on presidential signing statements, and (what have I forgotten? You tell me.). Beyond that, we support strong free speech that includes an end to implicit censorship through government intimidation, and an end to the so-called "War on Drugs," which has resulted in frequent violations against limits on search and seizure and an abhorrently high percentage of US citizens imprisoned.
NOTE: There is plenty of room here for dynamic, open debate among Open Source Party members, including whether to reform or repeal The Patriot Act and what kind of surveillance is necessary and appropriate for the defense of the nation. Also, ending the "drug war" could involve anything from reform of draconian policies and medicalization of illegal drugs to an outright end to prohibition. Again, we will follow a radically open and democratic process that may add to the party platform that will be suggested at the end of this statement.
3: Let's End the Imperial Foreign Policy.
…or if you prefer, let's stop playing the world's policeman. However you view it, we should no longer invade or attack sovereign nation states, either directly or indirectly, that haven't attacked us by force of arms. The emphasis of American foreign policy needs to change from "defending our interests" to "defending our sovereignty."
NOTE: Here we can have a dynamic discussion about many possible aspects of defending the US, including the size of the military budget and the interests of what President Eisenhower called a military-industrial complex, what to do about weapons systems and weapons testing – including nuclear; whether we should provide weapons to other nations and under what circumstances; whether to allow mercenary groups to operate out of the US; whether and when to participate and help in peace negotiations among other nations as a humanitarian act; whether and when to participate with other nations in interventions in extreme cases of genocide; whether or when to intervene in extreme cases if and when another nation launches repeated interventions of its own and seems clearly bent on regional or global conquest in the tradition of Genghis Khan, Napolean and Hitler; how to cope with the development of nuclear weapons by other nations (and by our own); whether or not to have military alliances and what our degree of commitment of them should be; and wither the UN(?).
4: A New "Energy Task Force"
A tremendous number of energy pioneers have been thinking and working for decades on energy solutions that don't involve oil, natural gas or coal. These organizations include Rocky Mountain Institute, Pliny Fisk’s Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems, and the folks at WorldChanging, ad infinitum. Let's bring people like these together to map out how best to bring us as completely into the age of clean energy as possible within 10-20 years – whether through the state, the market, decentralized volunteerism or all three.
NOTE: Obviously, there's nearly infinite room here for debate and discussion about these solutions, but we imagine a passionate discourse about whether the transition can happen primarily through encouragement of the market or whether it should emphasize government solutions. We also look forward to an interesting debate among Open Source Party members over whether to develop and deploy more nuclear power.
5: Let's Explore the Possibility of an Open Source Monetary System
Monetary policies and systems change all the time and it is always necessary to remind ourselves that "money" is a symbol (presumably) of wealth, and not an actual material value. We should encourage and empower a public discourse around how money should be issued, understood, defined and valued. Ultimately, we may want to think in terms of an "open source" monetary system and we may want to encourage "alternative" forms of currency.
NOTE: Again there is clearly nearly infinite room for new ideas and for debate here, including even questioning the essential premise – thus the "let's explore" aspect of this part of the platform. Open Source currency may be achievable through networks of trust, through virtual money (like Linden Dollars) or simply by removing the state from the equation and then publicly encouraging a multiplicity of exchange signals. We are most of all intrigued by ideas that might lead toward a post-scarcity monetary system.
6: Let's End Corporate Personhood and other Rules that Unfairly Benefit Corporations
Corporations today have the rights but not the responsibilities of persons, and our laws are riddled with other advantages that tilt the balance of economic and political power in favor of these giants. This platform suggests a simple libertarian approach toward disempowering what some have called the corporatocracy by removing their state advantages.
Note: There is tremendous room for discussion and debate about other measures to rein in corporations, including – no doubt – discourse about whether to simply take away corporate advantages or to regulate them, democratize them, utilize the corporate approval process to punish corruption and/or anti-social activities, ad infinitum.
7: Let My Web People Go! (Support Open Source Culture, Reasonable and Looser Copyright Laws, Reasonable File-sharing, etc.)
Digital stuff exists in a land without scarcity. It is natural and spontaneous that when people reside there, they tend to share and to repurpose content without guilt. On the other hand, "content creators" need to pay bills just as much as programmers and other virtual laborers do. We need to support the natural evolving ecology of copying and sharing on the web. At the same time, we need to find a way to sufficiently reward creative content.
Note: This requires lots of real creative thinking and there is lots of room for discussion and debate around the nuances of netiquette and law.
Democratic Processes Within an Open Source Party
We suggest that decisions to take on "official" activities and to make additions or subtractions to and from the Open Source Party platform would take place along the lines of "near consensus." We would suggest a 75% yes vote among registered members would be requuired to adopt any action or platform point. We also suggest that the democratic process would include serious campaigning and some degree of hilarity.
We suggest that erecting a pay wall – a $15 fee for Open Source Party membership — would be instrumental not only in helping to finance a dynamic organization but necessary to keep out all but the most motivated griefers and help us to verify the legitimacy of voters, who would vote only once. Naturally, we would hope that enthusiasts who can would contribute substantially more.
Final Thoughts
We imagine that this in-group, open-source, participatory democratic process could be a way in which people who have been more or less on the fringe of American politics can encourage one another to think clearly in terms of actually eventually making policy. It's very easy to stand outside the system and protest or call for some absolutist ideological solution (anarchy dudes!), but it's more interesting and valuable to try to realistically envision the consequences of policy. We also want to emphasize again the ample potential to keep this playful – to create dynamic virtual worlds (in Second Life or wherever), to create games, fanciful as well as serious candidacies, videos and podcasts, songs, ad infinitum. The possibilities are limited only by our imaginations and even if we don't succeed in making the changes we hope for, we can learn from the experience.
Note: Special thanks to Jon Lebkowsky for help and encouragement with this document. The Open Source Party is currently a gleam in the eye and not an extant organization.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Biviano on -
I like this but Rule one has to go. Stop being brainwashed into thinking this country was founded as a democracy. It wasn't it was founded as a Republic. In a Democracy 51% are the majority and the other 49% get shafted. In a Republic, no matter who the majority is, everyone's right's get respected. The of a Republic as Democracy 2.0. Other than that. I am will to contribute articles op-eds, dessiminate information, etc. Count me in!
-
Permalink Reply by Biviano on
-
You got it all backwards. This country was founded as a Republic and it was turned into a Democracy. Read your history. Better yet read the writings of the founding fathers.
-
Permalink Reply by Biviano on
-
I do agree with lrkr, small steps. the first one is the mistake that a Democracy is all that great in the first place. No current policies need to get changed or sweeping social reforms needed to be made here. Just learn the difference between the two forms and then proceed from there. Trust me it will change your whole approach. In a democracy majority rules, like majority ruled in the passing of the Patriot Act and the Federal Reserve Act. The majority is not always well informed.
The voting system is one of the first things, I agree.
PS if your going to read up on the founding fathers and concentrate on their slave owning practices, keep in mind that although it is not right it was accepted then, still doesn't make it right. Kinda like today we take authority as the truth rather truth as the authority.
-
Permalink Reply by Destiny on -
There's been real (and documented) shenanigans when people attempt to cast their votes in America. I think that's part of what being alluded to with the platform "Let's have a real democracy."
Another separate problem is the unwillingness to vote by large chunks of the governed. One reason given is the lack of sufficiently credible candidates, so that could be another way to increase participation.
Changes could be made to the voting process-- i.e., abolishing America's electoral college -- but I think the system, as is, could also be greatly impacted by a massive shift in the will of the people. Or to put it another way, a massive shift in the will of the people would inevitably produce a corresponding change in the political system
-
Permalink Reply by Biviano on
-
Now this is a discussion. The question then is what to do to spark the people? The people need to be sparked. Who knows, maybe just let the necon plan take its coarse. Seeing is believing, some people say. Let them see. When "the View" and 'American Idol" no longer suffice to keep the masses quiet when they are no longer left in peace even in their own homes, maybe then they will rise up. Then they will see that government is OUR servant.
Let it burn. Nature takes care of itself. We, people like us (this website for example and people like mister Sirius) are the evolutionary step that nature is taking. We are nature taking its coarse, if it takes 100 years or further corruption of the planets resources and violation of humanities rights, it is only natural. Thanks to people like you Destiny and you lrkr and the Open Source Party we can come together and meet and talk to each other and share our hopes for the greatest experiment ever undertaken, this nation.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
Let it burn. Nature takes care of itself.
Precisely the Trotskyist-cum-neocon rationale for whacking the hornet's nest in Iraq.
Give people a reasonable alternative, and they will be reasonable. It might take a damn long time, but really -- that's fine. You have to build for the long term.
-
Permalink Reply by Jerry Grim on -
A democracy doesn't have to be based on a simple majority. Lets take a page from Heinlein in 'the moon is a harsh mistress', and have a 2/3rds majority to pass laws and a 1/3rd minority to repeal them. That should keep the number of laws down to a manageable size.
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Lebkowsky on -
I'm also suspicious of democracy at any kind of scale, and as one of the drivers of the Open Source Party initiative, I've already suggested that we be cautious with the d-word. Makes sense to discuss at length.
Here's a comment I made on the OS Party proposal when RU first ran it by me:
"What might make more sense is something like fuzzy voting, where the populace is constantly polled in a process that's not owned and controlled by pollsters, where there's ongoing metadebate the numbers and the weights and everything else that goes into the process. A better, more open source polling process would take us closer to democracy than we are now if it feeds into swarms of civic action groups that work effectively to influence legislators. There's down sides to direct democracy, where you vote policy into existence, and I can talk at length about why that's impractical."
-
Permalink Reply by Jerry Grim on
-
So basically taking constant input and adjusting policy accordingly? That seems feasible at some scales.
In true Open Source Fashion, local groups would be able to invent and test policies on smaller scales, and if successful/effective it could then be spread depending on what the neighboring areas think?
-
Permalink Reply by Biviano on
-
I like this. How to, then, make voting a daily part of the life of the citizen.
--- Hey lets log on to congress and see how the bill is going.
How to make it easy enough for everyone to do in a simple easy to read and understand manner so they can get involved quicker instead of having to read boring information. Maybe involving multimedia in the civic process. I love to read but I love having video or animations and links to relevant material on the page.
--- Hmmm... this candidate is opposing bill number so and so... Click on the link to see what that's all about....
quick, at hand information. No time for the Corporate media to put together BS news to distract you from what you are doing or having to listen to some talking head pretend he knows what is best for you. You make up your own mind from your own easy to access information on the topic at hand.
Yikes looking at this, it sounds kinda complicated... We would need geeks to build these web pages... hmm.. just an idea anyway. But I like it. Live politics.
-
Permalink Reply by Jerry Grim on
-
That actually makes more sense to me then most of the other ideas we've been throwing around.
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Lebkowsky on
-
Yeah, this is really it.
When Mitch Ratcliffe and I put Extreme Democracy together, we meant "extreme" in the sense of extreme programming... agile.
Here's what we posted at the site to explain what we were thinking:
"Extreme democracy" is a political philosophy of the information era that puts people in charge of the entire political process. It suggests a deliberative process that places total confidence in the people, opening the policy-making process to many centers of power through deeply networked coalitions that can be organized around local, national and international issues. The choice of the word "extreme" reflects the lessons of the extreme programming movement in technology that has allowed small teams to make rapid progress on complex projects through concentrated projects that yield results far greater than previous labor-intensive programming practices. Extreme democracy emphasizes the importance of tools designed to break down barriers to collaboration and access to power, acknowledging that political realities can be altered by building on rapidly advancing generations of technology and that human organizations are transformed by new political expectations and practices made possible by technology.
Extreme democracy is not direct democracy, which assumes all people must be involved in every decision in order for the process to be just and democratic. Direct democracy is inefficient, regardless of the tools available to voters, because it creates as many, if not more, opportunities for obstruction of social decisions as a representative democracy. Rather, we assume that every debate one feels is important will be open to participation; that governance is not the realm of specialists and that activism is a critical popular element in making a just society.
Extreme democracy can exist alongside and through co-evolution with the representative systems in place today; it changes the nature of representation, as the introduction of sophisticated networked applications have reinvented the corporate decision-making process. Rather than debate how involved a citizen should be or fret over the lack of involvement among citizens of advanced democracies, the extreme democracy model focuses on the act of participation and assumes that anyone in a democracy is free to act politically. If individuals are constrained from action, they are not free, not citizens but subjects.
The basic unit of organization in an extreme democracy is the activist, a citizen engaged with an issue of concern about which they are willing to invest their time and effort to evolve relevant policy, whether at the local, state, national or international level. They engage their fellow citizens seeking support rather than demanding it at the point of a gun. Small groups of activists have changed the world repeatedly and at every stage in history. Martin Luther was an ecclesiastical political activist and Martin Luther King was a civil rights activist. Gandhi was a political activist, just like Benjamin Franklin and Nelson Mandela, though Franklin finally advocated a violent break with England and Mandela laid his guns down before he successfully ousted the apartheid government of South Africa.
About
Blog Posts
Don't Tase Me, Bro!
Posted by RU Sirius on January 17, 2008 at 10:22am — 4 Comments
RU Sirius -- I'm Away...
Posted by RU Sirius on December 20, 2007 at 4:54pm — 5 Comments
Pranks, Pranksters, Trickster & Tricks at Maybe Logic Institute
Posted by RU Sirius on December 17, 2007 at 4:59pm — 2 Comments
The Keystone Problem
Posted by Carl Ballard Swanson (banzai9) on December 10, 2007 at 9:01am — 6 Comments
QuestionAuthority's Bush Rights Timeline featured on Reason.com
Posted by MondoGlobo on December 4, 2007 at 3:18pm
© 2009 Created by MondoGlobo on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
