The original problems with monarchy were “solved” with habeas corpus, limitation of monarchs, rejection of divine right of kings etc. Prime Ministers and Presidents ARE how pre-moderns fixed “monarchy”. Modern democracy was part of the solution not something deified in itself.
-
Show this thread
-
But “the people” were elevated to divinity just as “the king” and “the law” once were. Both have now been brought down to earth, subject to critical human scrutiny. Governers criticize Presidents as barons once did kings. Lawyers criticize the law. Who criticizes “the people”?
2 replies 3 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Traditional answer has been “experts” or more generally Straussians. A subset of self-important humans using privileged control of media to create false consciousnesses based on noble lies. Because “the people” couldn’t handle “the truth”. That hasn’t gone too well lately.
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
To refactor democracy, we can only look in one place. Since ”the people” is everybody, it must check itself. More clearly, we need “the people” in grasshopper state to rein in “the people” in locust state, and vice versus.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
We’ve already invented technologies that do that. The “market” is really “the people” in a selfish state policing “the people” in selfless state and vice versa. The tech we use to divide and rule ourselves there is money. It creates many problems but it sorta works.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
Media distancing technology should be seen in this light. And do it without violating parts of democracy that work. One key idea is
@noUpside principle that free speech/expression is not free reach. Reach should cost you.1 reply 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Yes there are algorithmic ways to slow/arrest media contagion but that creates “Straussian platforms”. It just moves the problems with human Straussianism into algorithms. Algorithmic noble lies. Back to square one. Let’s... not do that?
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
But free speech + paid reach. Now we’re talking. Democracy 2.0 as freemium democracy. One vote, one voice, whatever dollars you earn. You want to infect others with your thoughts? They have to either trust you personally (opt-in audiences) or you pay to reach them.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
But not paid reach like the advertising market. Not paid reach as in Putin buying voices to mash like/RT buttons at wholesale prices. No. Paid reach as in: each of us verified humans has to pay out of pocket to like/RT/share. WoM is no longer free.
4 replies 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
as far as 1 person, 1 voice/mitigate the mob, Reddit's persistent pseudonymity offers an interesting model. Their Federalist moderation structure and enforced distancing, as you've called it, for new accounts are both worth emulating.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
What’s the best place to develop this into a viable political proposal
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.