book_chapter/chapter_20.txt

Chapter 20 
Toward low-power government
The 2015 movie Selma [DuVernay 2015] is overtly about racism, but we found the theme of power more intriguing. A battle between LBJ and MLK emerges. Key to understanding this conßict is a quote attributed to FDR:
ÒI agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.Ó
This was never said in the movie but both LBJ and MLK behaved toward each other as if it had been. We interpret this quote as meaning that the decision maker, all other things being equal, wants to perform the way his advisor suggests. However, a president has pressure from all sides. If the pressure and his wishes conßict, that could lead to inaction. But if all criteria for making a decision point in the same direction, you donÕt even have to quibble about the weight of those criteria because the direction is clear.
Churchill said Òdemocracy is the worst form of government, except for all the othersÓ The movie depicts a time in AmericaÕs democracy in chaos: marches, divided public, even assassinations. You might conclude from this that democracy had failed, yet we suspect the movie authors would claim that Òdemocracy is inherently messyÓ and the process ultimately worked. 
LBJ sponsored the Voting Rights Act, which MLK had lobbied for seemingly unsuccessfully. We are left to believe that LBJ finally sponsored the Act not because MLK asked him to or he wanted to, but because he was made to do it.
Power forced LBJÕs hand. It was not the power of the gun, a Republican, or even money, but rather the power of the people. Observe the similarity between dictatorships and democracy: Decisions are guided by power. 
American democracy is not unusual. The deciding criteria in most, perhaps all, large states is power, regardless of the form of government claimed to exist. WhatÕs so devastating about ChurchillÕs quote is that it implies that no better form of government than democracy is possible. At least the vast majority of people believe this. Those that know ChurchillÕs statement will utter it to prove their point. But Churchill, like most, was not an inventor. Inventors arenÕt limited by what currently exists.
Power, violence and fear
Historically, power-based governments arose out of people trying to solve problems by violence. Unfortunately, we havenÕt completely grown out of that. 
A society is composed of individuals with conßicting motivations. With strong enough desires and narrow enough focus, people use any means at their disposal to achieve their goals. (You could point to this as a cognitive bias.) 
In the most extreme cases, this leads to the use of force to manipulate the behavior of others. Violence and the fear of it are effective at manipulating others, but detrimental to society as a whole, and even to the perpetrators in the long term. 
Large organizationsÑgovernment, corporations, militaries, religions, and organized crimeÑinstitutionalize forcing their will upon people by creating persistent power structures. These structures anoint certain individuals or groups as having higher status, and condemn the lower ranks to obedience. That way, decisions by those in power donÕt have to be discussed or justified, one by one.
Power is a strong motivator, but itÕs only one-dimensional. Complex decisions are multi-dimensional. The best solutions are chosen by considering many factors, not simply ÒpowerÓ [Keltner 2006]. 
In order to get citizens to accept power structures, they have to be made to believe that without the power structure, the chaos of lawlessness or takeover by another such organization would be worse. That is, they must motivate the citizens by fear. 
WeÕve seen this pattern before, in the PrisonerÕs Dilemma. The power structure of the cops presents the offer to the prisoners, using each prisonerÕs fear of the other prisoner to get that prisoner to work against their own interests, and in favor of the cops. 
One of the problems with power as an organizing principle is that itÕs a zero-sum game. ItÕs impossible to appease everybody by giving them power in a conventional sense. What we can do is give people power over their own lives and make it easier and more fruitful to cooperate with others. Our economic proposal of Makerism empowers individuals, taking away the fear of scarcity, and preventing wasteful infighting. On our small planet, all fighting is infighting. 
With Wright [Wright 2000],weÕve argued that evolution selects for positive-sum games. The good news is that, over the long term, evolution weakly, but persistently, favors cooperation. So our controlling institutions have generally moved towards more favorable organizations, less and less solely dependent upon power. 
The bad news is that the process is slow. In the next chapter, weÕll recap some history. 
We made one giant leap when US Democracy, Version 1.0, was released on July 4, 1776. More than two centuries later a lot has changed. Innovation has changed almost everything. Why should government be immune to significant improvement? With advances in psychology, statistics, the math of cooperation, information collection, dissemination and aggregation, we think it shouldnÕt. 
Still, there are aspects of the US Constitution that deserve preservation. Written processes help clarify and solidify fairness. Articulating the goal of Ògeneral welfareÓ, having representatives, and a clear process for how they are selected, are all good ideas. But with changes in most aspects of civilization and our increased knowledge of ourselves, we believe the strategy for achieving the ultimate goals of the US Constitution can be drastically improved. 
So, whatÕs the expected release date for Version 2.0? As hackers say when they donÕt really know, ÒReal Soon NowÓ. But letÕs get working on it. 
Low-power government
ItÕs now worth asking the question, 
Can we have government without power?
Well, maybe not completely. But weÕd like to introduce the concept of low-power government. Like LED lighting, low-power government would be more efficient, and better for the environment as a whole. Less heat, more light. 
When we say Òlow-powerÓ, we donÕt necessarily mean the minimal government advocated by conservatives and libertarians. They want to minimize any government activity, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. The appropriate size of government is a question that depends on what problems it is trying to solve and what the solution requires. In any event, it takes some arguing to justify any particular decision about what government should or shouldnÕt do. By low power, we simply mean that the answers should be decided by having rational debate and the constituency reaching consensus. Not by the decree of pre-ordained power relationships. 
We can reduce the heat, caused by friction between rival factions competing for power. We can increase the light, produced by the light bulbs of ideas. We need to develop a process of developing and evaluating ideas for improving society that doesnÕt depend upon the heat of power struggles. 
ThatÕs what government should be, a process for solving societyÕs problems. We can have the conversation about what makes a good process, rather than who should be the boss. We need to move from Aristocracy and Bureaucracy, to Reasonocracy.