Promoting One

Cancels Everyone Else

When we ‘elect’ one person to ‘represent’ 600,000, we are effectively canceling ourselves. It is not hyperbole, it is just a fact. No one we send to Congress or put on a bench can even ‘represent’ another. Only individuals can ‘present’ themselves. It is called free will. It is this peculiar thing given to every individual by the creator. It is therefore fair to say that anything that negates that individualism is by definition, ‘Satanic’. Any system or process that cancels a free will is a bad thing and should be avoided whenever possible.

Which brings me to the argument that we should work towards a system where instead of cancelling everyone in society, we give everyone in society what they want. Instead of electing a few to rule us while we tell ourselves they are representing us, I propose that we declare every citizen in a community a voting member in that community’s governing council. This is easily achievable using our smartphones where every function of governance can be conducted online with an online legislature.

The strongest counterargument to this idea of a true democracy is the fact that some groups would just vote themselves largesse and the whole system would fail. To address this logical inevitability, any such online government must be tempered with the concept of local accountability. This means that while every citizen is a legislator within their community, every community must be an independently operated entity. This way, irresponsible populations could only harm themselves and can eventually learn what works and what doesn’t work.

Along with local accountability comes an important concept of local supremacy of law. By giving localized groups of people the absolute freedom to decide their own policies along with accepting the consequences of their own decisions, two important advantages are gained. First, everyone gets what they want and second, every community is basically a petri dish of social policy. It could be seen like the NFL where the country is the league and communities are the teams, vying to be a community that is the most successful at attending to the needs of their population.

The beauty of this construct which is a 21st-century perfected version of a democratic republic, is that it affords a maximum amount of inclusion and a maximum degree of diversity. It gives every person a seat at their table while protecting individual minorities of distinct communities from the bullying of a majority. Everyone has a seat at the table, every community is allowed to have what they want, bad policy is allowed to fail, and good policy is allowed to succeed.

So consider how this would play out. Lets say the issue is taxation. First, with an online forum, a discussion could take place as to whether taxes are collected by sales or income. I contend that sales is smarter as it can be used to promote sustainable products and retard unsustainable items without the use of force. Plus it eliminates the dissuading affect of penalizing productive individuals. Regardless, let’s say that a community does decide to tax income. Every individual can describe their idea of a tax scheme. Some might define a progressive tax, some might prefer low taxes while other prefer higher taxes. However any individual sees as correct, all those results, when compiled, produces a result that reflects the wishes of every individual in society with an equal degree of impact. The same equal representation would be reflected in the spending as every individual would submit their idea of how the public purse should be spent.

Giving everyone what they want may strike many as scary and radical, but that is only because we come from a past where essentially everyone but the rich were canceled. Ostensibly, we fancy the idea that society should be governed by learned elders of good intention as opposed to an uneducated rabble of the community. But the truth is that our system is really just a system where people no smarter than most feed off the fruits of the many; a self-interested minority preying on an inchoate majority.

Fortunately, we have the ability to have a government that is not based on cancelling the free will of millions that the creator saw fit to give us. Logically, if the creator gave us free will, we probably should strive to honor its wishes. With that, I implore those who understand, to go to their city council and propose that their community fund the writing of an online government application that will allow their community to experiment with the concept of an online legislature so that we might one day be free of governance that extorts the fruits of the many into the hands of the few.