Marie-Louise von Franz - The problem of evil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USii7mjbzrw

Citizens Union: an organic, multilevel, yet fully grass-roots political structure for organizing concerned citizens

Why is  democracy broken, and how can we fix broken?  How can active citizens keep up with the deluge of issues and information?  How do we cope with a government that never really truly represents us?  How can one be an active citizen these days?

These questions led me to consider an alternate.  Call it the Citizens Union for now.

The idea is that citizens could delegate their voice to *other citizens* of their own choosing.  For citizens too busy to handle the information overload, they could simply select a fellow citizen whom they trust, to carry their democratic voice on specific issues.

Picture this: *one well-informed citizen* in a community could attend a town meeting, representing 100 consenting people, providing articulate arguments on their behalf, and avoiding the logistical nightmare of scheduling, childcare, time off work, and transportation for 100 people.  This could finally level the playing field between the dispersed political power of citizens, and centralized power of government.

Imagine if *one well-informed citizen* in a community could write letters, and sign petitions, on behalf all of their voluntary supporters.  Imagine their one signature carrying the weight of 1000 citizens.

Picture the active citizens you admire and agree with the most, and imagine granting them the power to use your democratic voice directly in their work, outside the formal democratic process.

This selection could be changed at any time.  It could allow representation on a specific topic only -- for example, I might choose Alice to carry my voice on Health Care issues, and Bob for Transportation. This separation of concerns is called "un-bundling" in political science.

FAQ

• How is this different than current democracy?
• We can select any citizen we feel is more knowledgeable and active than us in some specific areas.  It does not involve running for office, or elections.  Selections can be changed at any time.  No "terms".  No "parties".  No "elections".  It does not replace the existing government, because that is a logistical impossibility.  It is meant to help citizens organize according to their own wishes. 
• How can this be implemented?
• Probably using some sort of computer technology, probably involving cryptography.  I am more concerned with the concept than implementation at this point.
• How does this differ from Advocacy groups?
• It is similar in some way.  But the idea is to provide an open field for any citizen to represent others across different issues, without the overhead of managing an advocacy group.
• Wouldn't this be subject to fraud?
• Possibly, and I want to explore fraud scenarios and how to combat them.  The most obvious one being people being paid or coerced to select someone who does not truly represent them.  More work needs to be done here.
• Isn't this just Liquid Democracy or Delegative Democracy?
• That term is used to describe real-time delegation of democratic powers.  Yes it is similar, however I am not proposing replacing the existing governmental democracy with this system; rather, using it as a way to allow active citizens to self-organize in a parallel structure, to make active citizens far more effective.
• What if the government officials do not recognize the delegated authority?
• They probably won't at first.  But it is useful in the meantime (more...).
• Could delegates themselves choose higher-level delegates?
• Ideally yes.  This would allow the wisest and most effective people, to empower those they feel are the wisest and most effective, on up the chain.  The result would be an organic, multilevel, yet fully grass-roots political structure that is truly for and of the citizens.

Lets Avoid the Top five regrets of the dying

1. I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.
2. I wish I hadn't worked so hard.
3. I wish I'd had the courage to express my feelings.
4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.
5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

Summary of the book Top Five Regrets of the Dying By Bronnie Ware, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/01/top-five-regrets-of-the-dying

All of these are directly countered by by Post Traumatic Growth:

• Their priorities changed and they are not afraid to do what makes them happy.
• They feel closer to their friends and family.
• They understand themselves better and know who they really are.
• They have a new sense of meaning and purpose and are better able to focus on their goals and dreams.

More details from the brilliant Jane McGonigal:

There is nothing new under the sun

In previous posts I started describing an idea I had about how democracy could work differently.

Well it turns out I had simply "rediscovered" a couple existing concepts, though combined in a specific way:

• Unbundling of public choice (see Bundling)
• Liquid- aka Delegative-democracy

Linking to established concepts is way easier than trying to explain this jazz from scratch.... Concision FTW!

social change is like fire building

I'm a city boy, used to air conditioning and central heating.

So when we moved to rustic Robert's Creek, the wood stove was an enigma.  Each morning the woodpile, axe, stove, and cold home mocked me.  I struggled to light the fire each morning for what seemed like ages.  Though its still not as easy as I imagined, I eventually got better.

Roberts Creek is a living postcard, and we would like to keep it that way

Another big theme here in Robert's Creek, is social change.  For historical reasons, this place has for decades been home to environmentalists, libertarians, activists, and very outspoken citizens.

Gazing into the flames and embers (we don't have cable), this analogy pretty much wrote itself.

There are a few key factors when lighting a fire, that make the difference between the warmth of success, or the bitter coldness of failure.

Fire building is an art ripe with metaphors

Goal: Our goal is to encourage the spread of energy to make a transformation, for better living conditions.

Thermal energy vs social energy.

Safety: We need to keep things under control, this energy is useful but can also be very destructive.

Social change can be risky.  The same social forces that can push for positive change, can easily turn ugly (like a peaceful protest becoming a riot).  Be aware of the dangers and take precautions.

Heirarchy: Ideally lighter lights paper, which lights kindling, whichlights smaller logs, lights bigger logs.

Don't try lighting a log directly with the lighter, intermediaries are important.  Stretching our analogy, beginning activists probably can't directly change our most conservative institutions, though through a sequence of steps change may be possible.

Readiness:  Some logs are simply too wet to light, they need more seasoning.  Putting them in the stove endangers the whole operation.

Some people/organizations are wet towels.  Identify and work around them.  Engaging them at the wrong time can send you back to square one.

Proximity: Two burning sticks on opposite ends of the stove are not useful.  The hottest bits need to kept close so they encourage each other to burn.  Sometimes a centimetre can make a huge difference.  

The trailblazers need to get together to get things started.  Sometimes it is the only way.

Air Flow:  It is critical that there be enough space between the logs to allow airflow.  I was amazed to find that a centimetre can make the difference between warmth and failure.

There is a fine line between getting close enough to collaborate, and crowding each other out.

bridging the gap from tame to wicked

In our last post we introduced Wicked Problems.  How do we bridge the gap between solving the small, tame problems we are used to dealing with, and the big wicked ones?

How do we go from tame to wicked?

Lets brainstorm a few ways we might get started:

• Baby steps: Tackle an issue at the edge of a wicked problem, which might be solvable with technical means alone.  Then after establishing a beachhead, proceed deeper into wicked territory.
• Cross-domain socializing: Network with people in the various fields where the wicked problems live, to gain a better understanding of the issues, and also make contacts with complementary skills.  Exchange time or skills.
• Top level: Take seriously the identification, analysis, and prioritization of these types of problems.  Learn more about what they have in common, and what issues underlie them.
• Meet the players: Look at organizations who are already dedicated to solving such problems.  Try to understand the strategy and scope of their work.  How do they fit in the whole picture?  What is missing?

Are there more?

Wicked problems

The very hardest problems our world faces are often lately called "Wicked Problems".  From Wikipedia on Wicked Problems:

Real life wicked problems make 10,000 piece puzzles look like a cakewalk

"Wicked problem" is a phrase originally used in social planning to describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. The term ‘wicked’ is used, not in the sense of evil but rather its resistance to resolution.^[1] Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems. 

... 

Classic examples of wicked problems include economic, environmental, and political issues. A problem whose solution requires a great number of people to change their mindsets and behavior is likely to be a wicked problem. Therefore, many standard examples of wicked problems come from the areas of public planning and policy. These include global climate change^[5], natural hazards, healthcare, the AIDS epidemic, pandemic influenza, international drug trafficking, homeland security, nuclear weapons, and nuclear energy, waste and social injustice. 

How do we start solving these problems?

I spent a bit of time googling for approaches to solving these rat nests.  Most of the writing I found about wicked problems, discussed their characteristics in depth, but at most gave a few lines of platitudes about how to solve them.

Lets look at them a little more closely.  What do their characteristics imply?

• Vague / incomplete / changing requirements
• Complex interdependencies
• Economic, environmental, political issues
• Often requiring a great number of people to change their mindsets and behaviour
• Many standard examples of wicked problems come from the areas of public planning and policy

These hint at what we will need to tackle them:

First and foremost, we need effective multidisciplinary teams.  They will need real skills in the domains where the wicked problems live:

• economics
• environment
• politics
• public planning, and policy

 We will need help from other domains to solve them.  To influence mindset and behaviour on a large scale we might want:

• marketing, social science and psychology, social media
• internet, mobile, and communications technology

Where are the wild things?  Messy fields like economics, environment, politics, and planning!

Next, we will need to deal with complex dependencies and changing requirements.  This calls for strong Management and Project Management skills.

It's clear to me why most startups focus on solving a small technical problem instead of one of these monsters:  it's way easier and less risky, you dont need an all-star multidisciplinary team, and you can get started without the type of funding it would take to support such a team.

So there is this huge gap between problems a small specialized team can handle, and serious wicked problems.  How do we bridge that gap?  Lets look at that in a followup blog post.