Imagine you’re a schoolteacher. More specifically, you’re an English teacher. It is your job to teach your students the proper way to respond to two questions. Question one: “What is progress?” How would you teach them to answer this question in English? Well, first we may wish them to acknowledge that progress involves “change,” right? Secondly, we’d wish that they understand that this change isn’t just any change, but change which improves, advances or develops an idea or process along a trajectory that we deem to be “forward” or “better,” right? Perhaps we could teach our students then to convey/express the idea of ‘progress’ as: “change for the better.”
This, of course, brings us to our second question. Question two: “Who determines what is progressive?” In other words, what trajectory is ‘forward,’? If one of the definitions of ‘progress’ is: “To move forward or onward,” then, of course, as I wish to progress — to grow, to mature — in my own life, and my decisions only affect me, then I could answer that question that I am the sole person responsible for defining progress for myself, right? Even if progress is factual, rather than simply an opinion, it is still MY responsibility to decide which trajectory — which way — my life will progress, right?
However, what if I’m faced with insuring progress within the context of family, community, state, country or world? I’m a member of all of them. Can I help determine which trajectory is ‘forward’ or ‘onward’? Of course, I can! In fact, society — as a whole — should decide what is important to progress the society. We should collectively agree that it’s in our best interest to pursue such a trajectory. One reason our Elites wish to control the narrative is for simplification. See, if everyone pursues their own agenda with special interests then people are pulling in a million different directions. There is no focus. There is no acknowledgeable trajectory. Which way is forward? Presently, due to control of the narrative — this decision is made by a select few — not by the society at large.
As Ken Blanchard said, “No one person is as smart as all of us,” so too did James Surowiecki address this in his book “The Wisdom of Crowds.” “Its central thesis, that a diverse collection of independently deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts.” (Wikipedia) This is not to say that we should encourage “group think,” but quite the contrary, we should encourage independence of ideas while also encouraging collaboration of those ideas. While “group think” should definitely be discouraged, there is no need to build a consensus anyway. You don’t need one-hundred percent collaboration, but as our founding fathers determined — you need to require a sizable majority to determine what society’s norms should be. This requirement allows us to agree beforehand as to the rules of government… on a specific metric.
Remember, our founding fathers took many of their ideas from Thomas Paine. In “Common Sense” Paine wrote that there is a distinction between ‘Society’ and ‘Government.’ It tells us that Society is ‘based on our wants’ and that Government is ‘based on our vices.’ In other words, Society is built upon the desire to associate with or to socialize with those people that we like. You and I both share a passion for reading, so we join the local book club. Hence, we tend socialize with people who are similar to us.
However, if we — as individuals, as citizens — are to be respected equally, how do you guarantee objectivity in dealing with these individuals once an argument or disagreement arises? Let’s look at an example: Perhaps you and I are roommates. You leave for eight weeks and inform me before you leave that you’ll be gone for this duration. However, during your absence, I realize I’m desperate to pay the rent. I choose to raise the money by selling your DVD collection. Once you return, you’re understandably outraged! You, of course, demand compensation, but I refuse. According to Paine then, the sole function of government is as “Arbitrator” and/or “Mediator.” Government is — in essence — keeper of the rules. Government is the rule keeper.
It is this reason that our founding fathers defined government in context of laws. Who writes the laws? Who enforces the laws? Who interprets the laws? However, to ensure objectivity, these are all open for the world to see. The precedence were not intended to be hidden away in law schools, but to be accessible to all citizens. Remember, the individual does NOT determine the norm for society, but instead the society determines the norms for individuals. If it were the individual who determined the norm, then it would be anarchy because each individual would cite his own personal belief system in defining the norm. This is why people when confronted with an embarrassing or difficult situation begin asking, “What is acceptable or tolerable within society?” This is also why the Precedent System within our judicial system works as effectively as it does. Oh, that’s how the argument was resolved in 1850 in Commonwealth v Webster. If it’s good enough for them, then it’s good enough for me, right? If our ancestors deemed it fair, perhaps it should today, right? *
Ken Blanchard and James Surowiecki then are both expressing justification for Open Source Intelligence or Crowdsourcing. If a ‘community’ is defined as a group of people sharing resources, then the greatest resource is actually ideas. What if you had a cartel who decided to hoard resources rather than share them? If you look at “The Light Bulb Conspiracy,” ** then you will learn that the advocacy of “planned obsolescence” was a means to protect jobs or to insure job-security. However, after “S. A. Phoebus,” otherwise known as the “Phoebus Cartel,” gained a foothold within society, they used “planned obsolescence” as a means to create a cash cow for themselves or as a means to guarantee a perpetual cash flow of profits. Because — you must ask yourself, “Why didn’t the efficiency witnessed in the 1920s return after the U.S. government successfully sued the cartel?” Simply, the lawsuit had no impact on the operation of the cartel. The lawsuit had a superficial impact, if any.
People — citizens — should embrace ideas. We should embrace TRUTH. Truth should be everyone’s ideal. Truth should not be feared. Truth leads to trust. If you lie to me once, who’s to say that you won’t lie again? Credibility is built on honesty and integrity. We the People are all individuals, and we should all value each and every individual within our families… within our communities — be it a state, a nation or the world community at large. In fact, when we encounter group think, we should encourage our fellow citizens to look/learn for themselves.
Open Source and Crowdsourcing are the future. Embrace truth. Embrace facts. Facts matter more than feelings.
NOTE:
* — How long have we had “A Propaganda War?” A propaganda war could be defined as a war on TRUTH. If it was their job to bury the truth then another question arises: How long did they maintain activist judges? If some precedence are determined to be propaganda, rather than an equitable decision in the pursuit of justice, then could we see a further undermining of our judiciary or its credibility? Also, it should be noted that Thomas Paine did go on with another theory, one that he is not accredited with. He is probably the rightful founder of “Social Evolutionism.” (Of course, this is another topic for another day.)
- ** — “The Light Bulb Conspiracy” (2010) is a documentary from director Cosima Dannoritzer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdHIqa53-tY