| I can't help but think politics whenever I read an article like this. Invariably, I always end up at the same place: Human governance structures are complicated. On one hand, we have Winston Churchill: 'The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter'. On the other hand, it feels like an unalienable right of a human to have equal say with their peers on decisions effecting the community. And after considering both, my mind wanders to type 1 and type 2 errors. Humans can be savages. I find solace in a system that minimizes persecution of innocents - even if solely through bureaucracy that cools tempers through inefficiency. These aren't easy questions. I feel like the ease and speed of the dissemination of information has fundamentally shifted the inputs to the info-political balance in a way which we, as a society, haven't yet accounted and balanced the system for. Voters are constantly bombarded with soundbites, ads, opinion pieces posing as news... what's the use of a representative republic when engineered information can be disseminated as broadly and quickly as it is now? The use, as it always was, is knowledge and judgment. But now more than ever, inundated with "news", meticulously crafted and expediently delivered with intent to obscure and persuade for one side or another.. we need to be able to vote for a representative whose opinions and judgement we trust. .... Human governance structures are complicated. |