Democracy 2.0

A simple, legal way to put power in the hands of the people.

Tag: OWS

Why art alone is not enough to fix the broken system

As always here’s three examples:
Occupy Poetry
A particularly poorly written piece on why society is bad, man.
OWS Graffiti

This is the kind of bullshit that makes your movement lose credibility. Art (or whatever this is) does not appeal to many people. Check out this quote from this Army of Artist’s facebook page:

“Occupy Wallstreet” didn’t work, but AOA can!!! AOA is an “Army of Artists” working to bring the next Renaissance, which our world is in desperate need for. What past revolutions/calls for movement in the past have lacked is the true empowerment of each individual. Everyone who has lived and can express those experiences is an artist. Our very nature is creative. This is the true liberation, and we live in a society that is currently dominated by consumption, materialism and superficiality. We must begin to create again and to love.

Not only are there no real ideas here, the Army of Artists is claiming that everyone who isn’t an artist doesn’t count. The leader assumes that everyone thinks like her, and that anyone who enjoys consumption, materialism, and superficiality is incorrect about what makes them happy. This movement uses phrases such as “true empowerment” and “true liberation” without once explaining what the “truth” is. I actually went to this meeting last week and it had the same problems that OWS had: as soon as people start listening, leaders grow power-hungry. It’s not their fault, we’re all human and this is a natural response. At the meeting the person who created it referred to AOA as her baby. Any criticism of her idea, was considered an insult to her baby. While claiming that the purpose of this movement was to eliminate hierarchy, she chose to stand up, unlike everyone else attending the meeting who were sitting down. She wanted to be in control. She wanted the glory of being a revolutionary. Most of the discussion (just like at OWS) was people taking turns saying vaguely inspirational things.

A successful movement energizes the disenfranchised, while simultaneously not spooking the middle and convincing the rich. Democracy 2.0 does all three of these.

Energize the disenfranchised: Anyone would have the ability to change society however they want. Obviously the people suffering the most in society are the disenfranchised. D-2.0 should give them hope, and a practical plan to be the change they want to see in the world. None of them can enter politics, but all of them can obtain internet access. They have the most to gain from D-2.0. This is typically the group people try to cater to when developing their movement. Unfortunately, most other movements try to encourage these suffering people to empower themselves with their ability to inflict chaos, not come up with ideas.

Not spook the middle: Democracy 2.0 can also be used to maintain the status quo indefinitely. Initially nothing changes until the people begin to realize the power they have over society. It’s all about gradual change, instead of a violent shift. The middle class is comfortable, but they can see the problems in society clearly. It’s not that they are too lazy or evil to fix the world, but that they are frightened of losing their comfortable position. If they have some say in where society heads next, that fear is at least diminished.

Convince the rich: Rich people aren’t afraid of what’s going to happen next, and they have tons of energy because they have wealth. Like everyone else, they think they know good ideas when they see them but they also have the ability to act on them. They certainly won’t follow a movement that wants them to give all their money to the less wealthy. They won’t follow a movement that brings them down. Why would anyone? Democracy 2.0 is all about giving everyone the ability to control society. Rich people think they have good ideas. With democracy 2.0 they don’t have to play politics in order to see them executed. They don’t even have to give up any of their money.

It Works for Valve

Valve is a wildly successful PC game company. They use a version of the democracy 2.0 system in their business model. Here’s a paraphrased excerpt from the Valve employee handbook:

Welcome to Flatland

Hierarchy is great for maintaining predictability and repeatability. It simplifies planning and makes it easier to control a large group of people from the top down, which is why military organizations rely on it so heavily.

But when you’re an organization that’s spent the last decade going out of its way to recruit the most intelligent, innovative, talented people on Earth, telling them to sit at a desk and do what they’re told obliterates 99 percent of their value. We want innovators, and that means maintaining an environment where they’ll flourish.

That’s why Valve is flat. It’s our shorthand way of saying that we don’t have any management, and nobody “reports to” anybody else. We do have a founder/president, but even he isn’t your manager. This company is yours to steer—toward opportunities and away from risks. You have the power to green-light projects. You have the power to ship products.

A flat structure removes every organizational barrier between your plan and the customer enjoying that plan.Every company will tell you that “the customer is boss,” but here that statement has weight. There’s no red tape stopping you from figuring out for yourself what our customers want, and then giving it to them.

Below is a set of graphs demonstrating how Valve and the direct democracy system work. You can read the full text of the Valve employee handbook here. If this sounds reasonable to you, join the movement. We want to implement Valve’s system in society. It works extremely well for Valve, and almost anything is better than the bloated, stagnant, immature system we have today. Hacking democracy is the first non-violent way to actually alter the course of society. Hunger strikes and occupation might have worked in the past, but no longer.

Flatland map

Look around.

OWS. The Black Bloc. Clampdown on internet freedoms. Indian and muslim women speaking out against their oppressors. Every country with military is flexing their might heavily right now. Deutschland is demanding its gold back from the Federal Reserve. Alternatives to the Petrodollar exist. The passing of NDAA 2012 and 2013. The legalization of marijuana in America. A military suicide rate of at least a soldier per day. An unemployed percentage of 40%. Drone strikes. A god-damned The Punisher style superhero in real life.

There’s an exponentially rising tide of unrest worldwide. Ask any expert in societal structure or any average person on the street and they’ll tell you: the existing system is simply not sustainable. The writing is on the wall: something will give and a global revolution, whether fascist, anarchist, communist, or something else, is about to unfold. Democracy 2.0 is that something else. This idea is basically open-source legislation + internet voting tied to physical identity = democracy 2.0. This is done by decentralizing decision-making power to everyone the community who is willing to be held accountable by providing their physical location and real identity, something we all do for the existing government anyway.

This means there are no leaders in hacked democracy. Then who makes decisions? Every citizen in the state entity that votes. Then who makes the legislation that we vote on? Any citizen in the state entity that wants to. Then who does all the physical tasks like city maintenance? We pass legislation to privatize the whole thing. Using the democracy 2.0 system, we can use the system we were born into by electing new leaders that are part of the D-2.0 system. I like to call this “democracy 2.0” because we it’s the next logical progression in how humans govern themselves.

%d bloggers like this: