tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) on `electronic democracy':

Actually, this is my worst nightmare of what this country could become: a direct democracy of the most populist sort. [...] "Electronic democracy" could easily be the most totalitarian thing the planet has ever seen.

I'm delighted that Mr. May has come out against my vision for the future based on all the tired cliches and entrenched blind spots of the status quo of two milleniums. It is extremely dischordant and eerie to hear someone who advocates `CryptoAnarchy', black markets, drug legalization, digital pornography, digital cash (tax evasion?) and the Collapse of Governments to suddenly decide that Representative Democracy is a Good Thing (tm) because of a quotes by the snobbish elitist De Tocqueville, Milton Friedman, and a 200 year old experiment called the Federal System of America that is far from perfect and could stand some serious adjustments and fine-tuning. His beautiful statements nicely capture all the stereotypical knee-jerk reactions and objections of a prosaic minds, dulled by centuries of history's mediocre mundanities and brainless propaganda inflicted by their rulers, all who wouldn't recognize salvation if it was nailed to a cross, to the true potential of future Cyberspace! We stand at the threshhold of a new era in human interaction and social systems with the onslaught of cyberspace, but when I propose a new kind of *government* Mr. May is too uncomfortable and beats a hasty retreat to `representative democracy', an elaborate and complex system that purports to protect people from their own stupidity by diluting their demands through blundering elected officials. Perhaps what I am advocating is truly new, and deserves a new name: Responsive Democracy. If anyone would care to look up `representative' in the dictionary, Mr. May's comments will be rendered nonsensical. To paraphrase: ``Our government doesn't actually represent the people. That's why it is stable. There are unresponsive elements and obstacles to social change called `legislators' that dampen the tendency toward `wild oscillations in public opinion'. If our government truly represented public opinion we would easily have the Most Totalitarian Thing the World Has Ever Seen. People want drugs to be illegal, restricted imports, and banned cryptography. Of course, I'm certainly not implying that Lance is in favor of Apocalypse!'' (It sounds more like anarchy as Mr. May describes it, so I wonder why he's coming out against this scenario.) Mr. May, are you saying you *don't* want a responsive government? one that is an inspiration instead of a degradation? do you *prefer* to complain about injustice and wretchedness to the point you would rather wallow in it than be lifted from it? I find it exceedingly difficult to rebut Mr. May on specific points because his whole position, when I try to grasp it, comes out to be a tangle of convoluted and ephemeral contradictions, speculations, and emotional quasi-fictional references to e.g. the War on Drugs or Janet Reno. Do you like our current `representative' government or don't you? What, exactly, is the Representative Democratic Government's role in `cryptoanarchy', and why are you in favor of it? * * * Anyway, I would like to elaborate on a few of the misconceptions that are raised by his statements. 1) the world has not really ever seen a true `direct democracy' or had the technology to support one -- until now. Not even the Greeks, renowned as the inventors of democracy, had one. It seems to be every civilized person's worst nightmare, yet it has never been implemented. How do we know it would be so terrible? Does anyone even know what it is? 2) consider that our current government represents the *imbalance* of popular opinions. A vocal, powerful, or wealthy minority is able to distract attention from issues or manipulate the process to the point of influencing law. e.g., the NSA can derail cryptography exports because no one has any influence on the other side, despite plenty of supporters for loosened restrictions! e.g., some Widget Manufacturer gets favorable tax breaks or import restrictions! What if everyone could have an equal influence on *all* laws irrespective of their wealth & illegitimate influence? 3) consider that dampening mechanisms can be built in to a `responsive democracy' system. To paint a picture of `direct democracy' as people voting instantly on CNN is an ignorant insult. Conservative, deliberative, stable structures, with the formality of court proceedings and similar protocol, can be developed. What is a court but an elaborate mechanism to uncover truth, resolve conflict, and pass judgement, through presentations of evidence, opinion, and voting by a nation's citizens? Held to the utmost ideal of impartiality and fairness? Impacting every plane of human interaction? 4) I believe `representative democracy' is essentially a mask for the idea of saying `some people should have more influence than others in voting and influencing social conventions, because they are leaders, they know more about the subject, they are more affected by it, they are recognized experts, they have everyone's best interest in mind' etc. Now, consider that this `influence' could be *formalized* into a system such that people `own' it and trade it and grant it to others like a *currency system*, and that voting systems automatically weight votes in different areas based on it. 5) Mr. May says `we don't need more laws & restrictions however popular they may be' and completely missed my specific point that the citizens would have the capability to *retract* ineffective, useless, obsolete laws just as easily as creating them. He completely ignores the aspect of `competition of superior laws by selection' that is central to the idea. If laws have disastrous, outrageous, or terrible effects, the citizen-populace and collective social psyche will quickly learn and *evolve* to *avoid* them. 6) Finally, the bizarre Urban Legend that Order would Collapse or Utter Totalitarianism would Ensue if everyone could vote on issues directly without the tedious formalities of legislators, or that a government unresponsive to true citizen desires to `protect them from their stupidity' is preferrable or even existent, I simply all dismiss as utterly ridiculous. As Mr. May says, the population gets what it wants. The whole idea is far too multifaceted to explore in one essay, of course--it requires an entire Movement, a Revolution, to advance to the point that even Joe Sixpack grasps its basics and will not insult and ridicule it upon first sight. Fortunately, this is all automatic, inevitable, and underway. Cypherpunks, you will be soon seeing dynamic & interactive voting systems, `reputation currency' and all these other fantastic social mechanisms that will formalize all your vague longings for order and sensibility in the universe! I certainly don't claim that Paradise is at hand, but a new form of government, that combines elements of all previous models but unequivocally surpasses and transcends them all, *is*!

In message <9308120846.AA06905@longs.lance.colostate.edu>, "L. Detweiler" writes:

3) consider that dampening mechanisms can be built in to a `responsive democracy' system. To paint a picture of `direct democracy' as people voting instantly on CNN is an ignorant insult. Conservative, deliberative, stable structures, with the formality of court proceedings and similar protocol, can be developed. What is a court but an elaborate mechanism to uncover truth, resolve conflict, and pass judgement, through presentations of evidence, opinion, and voting by a nation's citizens? Held to the utmost ideal of impartiality and fairness? Impacting every plane of human interaction?

An alternative to courts would be the using the concept of free association so that if a decision you couldn't agree with was made in a group you participated in, you could withdraw from the group and join another whose decisions were more to your liking. Certainly there would be some actions like dumping toxic wastes that are of society wide concern, but many other questions such as how much money to spend (taxes) on roads and infrastructure could be handled on a group commitment basis. Computers could be used to implement the voting and keep track of accounting procedures that would otherwise be impractical. Such as, how many people voted (bought shares in) the space shuttle project and the corresponding benefits; access to the information, status reports, etc.

4) I believe `representative democracy' is essentially a mask for the idea of saying `some people should have more influence than others in voting and influencing social conventions, because they are leaders, they know more about the subject, they are more affected by it, they are recognized experts, they have everyone's best interest in mind' etc. Now, consider that this `influence' could be *formalized* into a system such that people `own' it and trade it and grant it to others like a *currency system*, and that voting systems automatically weight votes in different areas based on it.

I agree totally about the elitist assumptions of representative democracy. I would prefer a combination of direct voting and an issue by issue proxy system. For instance I have no problem giving Barbara Boxer my proxy on health care, but am totally unwilling to give her my proxy on gun control. This proxy system would also eliminate the winner take all system that disenfranchises minorities. For instance blacks who are 10% of the population in a district often get no representation; then there are gerry mandered districts where a black is guaranteed to win. But you might have a conservative black businessman representing a district where 30% of the blacks are more radical. The winner take all system is just a way of diluting and ignoring non-mainstream ideas and groups. PS. I wish the From: or Reply-To: header came from the cypherpunk list. I had meant to reply to this post to the group but accidently sent it to L. Detweiler instead, only. -- Edward Elhauge -- ee@lever.com -- Lever Industries, San Francisco "The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie. It is only realized by the workers themselves being master over production." -- Anton Pannekoek