Ending majority rule and wide engagement

handheld story artIn Copiosis, all citizens have a handheld device they use to interact with each other and the Copiosis system.  A Copiosis enthusiast recently asked the following question about our handheld devices:

Any handheld device or similar system becomes an instant tool for engagement or voting.  How do we ensure the widest possible engagement in decision making whilst avoiding the worst of “majority rule”?

There is no majority rule in Copiosis.  There is no “wide engagement” in decision making.  In Copiosis, you’re free to do whatever you want with your private property, time and focus.  There are no rules per se keeping you from doing whatever.  In Copiosis, other people’s opinions don’t matter when it comes to your choices.  “Votes” and “engagement” presume others have a say in how you employ your private property, what decisions are available for you to make and, more importantly, what you can’t do if you want to remain in society.

That seems to imply that Copiosis is a free-for-all, which is hardly the case.  NBR governs people’s choices.  Remember, to earn NBR you must make others or the planet better off.  Think about what that means.  Today, if you’re a gay person, for example, your choices are constrained—more in some places than others—by the community in which you live.  Even though society in the US has relaxed around accepting gay people, many gay people still behave as if restrictions remain.  That’s why we still have the concept of “coming out of the closet”.  Celebrities, coworkers and bosses, adolescent children of conservative parents, spouses of controlling or unwitting spouses are at the mercy of forces they believe could cause them harm (mostly economic) if they lived “out loud.”  The same is true for other minority groups.  In Copiosis, the economic harm others can cause you (e.g., publicly ridiculing you to the point where you can’t earn your keep, firing you from your work, disowning you, divorcing you and leaving you destitute, or divorcing you and taking half your net worth) doesn’t make sense for many reasons:

Society will no longer be based on money, so the “harm” public ridicule can inflict by preventing you from earning a living basically evaporates.

There will always be someone willing to provide you with necessities, and though some may not want anything to do with you, far more people will and they’ll have the freedom to exercise that desire because they don’t have to earn a living.

Marriage no longer involves anything other than an expression of love and commitment.  Divorce no longer carries with it the risk of poverty or loss of personal fortunes.  People may not want to work with you, but it is relatively easy to create work for yourself in Copiosis.  People may still not like your choices, but their choices can’t cause you economic harm.

This of course applies to behaviors or ways of being.  It is unlikely, for example that a child molester, pathological liar, or abject racist will find safe harbor in many communities.  Thankfully, there will be many people passionate about helping these people with remedies that have yet to be invented.


Will your vote count?

Voting happens only at the level of personal satisfaction when consuming a good or on citizen juries where we participate in the weighting of variables in the NBR formula.  There may be surveys conducted by owners of private property (a road, building, land, Fisheries, etc.), which might be used to make stewardship decisions.  Ultimately, however, the owner is going to make the decision.  No majority rule, no voting.  I expect people to mind their own business, while those passionate about a cause will attract like-minded people to their effort.  However, their work to solve a perceived problem will have to benefit the widest number of people, i.e., disruptive demonstrations, sit-ins, and such probably will be replaced by more thoughtful and deliberate action.

Wide engagement is a process spawned from politics.  Politicians need to determine what popular opinion is in order to keep their jobs, which translates to getting the most votes.  We see politicians these days acting overtly in this manner.  Rare is the politician who votes on a matter that is not consistent with keeping his or her job.

Cynical? Perhaps.

Public involvement—a kinder, gentler, front-end method of polling a group—spawned from the same loins as voting.  It’s nice to think about wide engagement producing the best outcome, and many times that does happen.  Sometimes the minority opinion is marginalized in the process.  In my opinion, sometimes the best outcome is the one neither side agrees with.  The judgment of Solomon resonates here somewhat (though not exactly).

Better to let the person who owns the property make the decision in how that property will be used to maximize benefits for all, as they consider how best to maximize their NBR.  If she wants to poll some people (i.e. potential customers) fine, but ultimately she gets to decide.

Leave a Reply