I am a citizen not a consumer
From:
Michael Allan
Date:
Jul 25 11:10 UTC
Short link
May we look at the interchange of (2a) in more detail? I think it's
at the root of the problem being discussed. I wish to propose a
possible solution.
Our role in this particular interchange is that of active citizen. It
is unlike the role of passive consumer in (1a), which affords no
choice of service providers. Instead we are periodically offered a
choice in (2a). We can switch governments. No government can hold
power without sooner or later seeking our assent, our approval - and
that is what we supply in this particular interchange.
I wish to make a suggestion. When a government takes on the role of
"selling" itself, or of organizing "circuses", it is attempting to
generate assent. For whatever reason - either it has developed an
insatiable appetite for the stuff, or we have provided an insufficient
quantity - the government has taken to manufacturing assent. It
reaches into our homes via the mass media, and via the political
parties, and it artificially "inflates" the public sphere.
One possible solution is to enable the public sphere to generate its
own assent. The missing facility appears to be entirely technical.
All that's needed is a framework in which people can register
agreements with each other, and scale them up to the level of a broad
consensus. When this facility becomes available, and when people
start using it, they will begin to re-inflate the public sphere from
within. This will probably alter the interchange (2a) to a more
rational one (2a'), as shown here:
=================================================================
1a)
M'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Taxes
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Organizational
accomplishments
Public Administrative
sphere 2a') system
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Political
action
A'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Political
decisions
=================================================================
A = assent medium, M = money medium, P = power medium
The old input of "mass loyalty" (mediated by power) is here replaced
by one of "political decisions" (mediated by assent). Its operation
is simple. Whenever the public sphere has reached consensus on a
political decision, the government accepts that decision (input). If
the decision is immediately actionable, then the government acts on it
(output). Otherwise, it explains its reasons for inaction, and there
is further interchange (back and forth) between the two sides.
This arrangement would solve the problem being discussed in this
thread, because it would remove the need of political manipulation.
The government would be able to obtain all the assent it needs simply
by acting on consensus decisions. It would naturally ensure that the
public sphere was strong, independent and sufficiently supplied with
resources in order to deliver a continual stream of decisions.
For example: Suppose the young people in a particular neighbourhood
wish to make improvements to their local playground or park. So they
come up with a plan, and they promote it throughout the neighbourhood.
Others disagree with their plan, and propose alternative plans.
Together, they use the facilities of the medium of assent in order to
highlight their differences, and resolve them one by one. Eventually
they reach a broad enough consensus that the plan is brought to the
attention of City Council. The City agrees to send a safety inspector
to the site, and to truck in some sand. With a little help from
government, the young people complete the improvements to the park.
Leaving aside the technology (which I can vouch for) would this work?
Do you agree it would solve the problem?