DQV Experiment: The Corporation

Up to this point in the book, we have examined a lot of intuitive theories and ideas. However, to speak in a language of conventional science we still need proof, for example, evidence that success can be found in the transferable vote. Although there are groups around the world exploring governance, creating pockets of closed system groups, and inventing a way to transfer votes, will offer us the ability to create a virtual testing laboratory of various governance designs. Wecall this technology TAGDit.

We created TAGDit because Change is a constant in our lives: if there’s one thing we can be sure of, it is that things around us will change. But what about us; how much do we change? And how much of our change are we aware of? Do we want to change, and what causes us to change? If I asked you to change you would likely meet my request with resistance – you would want to know why. If I provided a reason, you might then offer a counter argument, justifying your current state of being, and defending it against an external imposition. After all, who am I, to ask you to change? What authority does one individual possess to make such claims over another? And in addition to the problem regarding where a request for change originates, is not change itself difficult? To answer all of the potential questions we created a system to collate knowledge. After all we are trying to ensure that a positive outcome from change can be guaranteed.

One of the variable that needs to be accounted for is the cost. We know that social change often comes with a cost. Every innovation, like ours, carries with it potentially negative, unintended consequences. As the French thinker Paul Virilio has argued, the Industrial Revolution’s technological inventiveness has unleashed a string of new kinds of catastrophes: the invention of the automobile gave birth to the car accident, that of the boat to the shipwreck, the emergence of the airplane to the plane crash, and so on; to say nothing of the nuclear winter following upon the splitting of the atom.

Something similar can be said to take place in the political sphere. The French political philosopher Pierre Manent speaks of the phenomenon of the “organ-obstacle” or “instrument obstacle,” whereby something that once allowed us to achieve a desired objective becomes the very obstacle to achieving our aim. The examples Manent provides includes that of the law, which has the aim of protecting the weak from the strong, but often results in privileging the strong over the weak, as well as that of the sovereign state, which was founded to guarantee peace among individuals but has become a major factor in modern warfare.

With all of this in mind we might ask about the Democratic Quality Vector itself and wonder whether it too will bring forth new kinds of political catastrophes – or at least certain inherent negative possibilities – not otherwise intended by its early advocates. Yet, is it not our duty to change, to seek betterment, to strive for what is greater – or for the good at large?

Surely, all human beings desire what is good by nature, as philosophers like Aristotle have long acknowledged. Do we not therefore have a responsibility to pursue it? We are the beings that not only can change, but are aware that we can change – both internally and externally – and consequently, we have a responsibility to initiate change for the better. This is the obligation of being human. Nevertheless, as suggested, we find much resistance to change. This is because there are many pressures generating momentum for the status quo; many factors and people adding their weight to the gravity of convention. Reasoned argument is not always successful in persuading individuals to change, or even to live up to their responsibilities and obligations. And without widespread societal change, progress remains trapped. We have but pockets of change, rather than progress for all. In our interconnected world today, we hear about global threats, or social calamities that will impact all of us. Contrarily, many theorize that there will be a “tipping point” or a point of “singularity,” whereby humanity will undergo universal change. But thus far, the present moment outweighs future considerations, and these theories are imaginative longings.

So, what is to be done? How can one initiate change and convince others of the new direction? A tool is required. But not just any ordinary tool, rather a tool wrapped in an idea: an ideational tool. Therefore, we need to tool up our ideas. By designing an idea so powerful that it will capture the imagination of individuals and the collective, we are granted access to the openness of change: reaching the imagination is key to unlocking the problem of resistance to change. Through inspiring and empowering the imagination we can answer the question, “why change?”

End of Excerpt

To continue reading the full text, please click on the button below.