Bob Goodin: Structural injustice - its mechanisms and how to disrupt them

[@Suav58]

One of the ways of improving condition of the voiceless might be moving the accentuation from anonymity of agents to responsibility of agents. On the first lesson of social choice theory we are told, that anonymity is synonymous with equality; equality of influence of individual preferences on social choice; a somehow approved ranking of desirable outcomes. How did the stress on anonymity emerge? Outwardly the concern was, that the few are going to wrestle the levers of power from the not so well to do. Indeed, concentration of power was slowed down, but hardly because of the deep analysis of the underlying processes, and measures taken henceforth, In part yes, but more through influence of social trauma, where one wave of misery and humiliation was superposed with the next*. There isn't much left to preserve. This new, but new only when a very short time horizon is taken into account, situation demands different mechanisms. Anonymity, as things stand today, is much more illusory, than it was even a generation ago and dwindles by the day. Nobody expects public opinion research and relevant agencies to wither and die the day after tomorrow, but I have strong suspicion, that they are being kept on life support for two reasons: as a suitable "sine cura et (multo) studio" for some and, more importantly, as a very convenient cover, diversion and distraction from the real holders of detailed information. Even at my, more than rape, age, given access to social network platform providers data bases and a team of young and ambitious people, our team would produce an election report not less and in cases more accurate, than the relevant electoral commission. Moreover, apart from expectation and confidence of the individual outcome, the report would contain list of factors and power of their influence on the vote itself. It is not much of a secret, that the Brexit vote was won as a result of implementation of such technologies. Conclusion should be, that privacy, even that at the ballot box, is illusory and should be debunked as such. This illusion of privacy is causing, as many persisting cognitive dissonances, a lot of strife including, at its far end, mental illness. Nothing can be done (aka TINA) mantra might be slightly annoying. There are different models of finding consensus, than anonymous vote at the ballot box. Anonymity of the vote blunts its edge. People, who prefer the shadows very seldom go into the limelight to protect common interests. They either shy away altogether, or use their privacy to forward their own interests. This leads to a Hobbesian hell. So dictator comes in either through a garden gate or through the main entrance of the palace. The task is to work out procedures engaging people more into collective decision making. No, I don't mean the kind of trees to be planted along the alley in a local park, although this is useful as well. I mean a wide programme along the other mantra; the opposite one: "We are building a country (system, planet) which a kitchen made will be able to govern". I'm sure you know where the quote comes from. Complexity tends to collapse from time to time. It might be a good remedy to simplify the system a bit; make it a bit more chaotic, but recover some level of engagement. Yes, the goal of some might be different and any to opposite. If they are as powerful as the author seems to suggest, then the result of his talk might be exposition of some simple souls, who still believe in human power to change own fate. Now, let us call all the above an attempt of unconditional defence of responsibility rule. Not only being elected, but electing is a responsibility. Aspiring to be elected is a responsibility for soundness of ones judgement in social matters. Being elected is accepting the duty of adjusting own judgement only within limits dictated by morality. Voting brings responsibility for taking part in formation of the agenda and subsequent control over implementation. *bulk of the work was done after WWII and for this reason - both world wars were fought as a result of redirection of internal pressures, or so is my view

[@gerryrodgers]

@Suav58 interesting how you frame anonymity. Often traditions insisting on distrust for ego, insists on anonymity as a spiritual foundation of unity of purpose

[@Suav58]

@@gerryrodgersIsn't it this kind of anonymity and this kind of "unity of purpose", which lead us, now and again, into bouts of collective madness? I claim we are walking into such a state right now. The other argument is practicality. There is no technical possibility to restore anonymity. There is whole industry of feigned anonymity, partial anonymity, but there is no anonymity left.

[@gerryrodgers]

@@Suav58 absolutely