This Internet-based, “free market” system for managing political ideas and arguments would borrow features from Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia. Like Wikipedia entries, the current “best” arguments (one for each side of any given issue) would be the product of many minds collaborating to form an evolving, converging consensus.
For any given issue (legislation, policy, procedure, action, proposal, etc.), those within the government branch or agency initiating the given issue would start the “free market” (wikiargument) process by providing the initial “best” argument that explains and justifies the position of the initiators. From then on, that initial “best” argument and the opposing “best” argument (if anyone disagrees) would evolve (in a Wikipedia fashion) as authorized government representatives edit/modify the two arguments.
In addition to the above two (government-maintained) “best” arguments, there would be two additional shadow (public-maintained) “best” arguments (for any given issue) that would also evolve in a Wikipedia fashion. This would allow those outside government to share their (often more extensive) knowledge and expertise on the given issue, which would not only enhance our understanding of the issue, but also tend to keep the corresponding government-maintained arguments honest. Government representatives would be encouraged to borrow anything from the two corresponding public-maintained (shadow) arguments and vice versa. Everything is done out in the open.
Using the Internet, the American people would be able to compare the two sets of “best” arguments (one set maintained by the government the other by the public) for each side of any given issue and watch as these arguments evolve (presumably improving as they mature). If mistakes or logical flaws are found, or new facts arise, each side would simply correct its arguments as appropriate. There is little need to define or restrict the content of these “best” arguments because the “free market” collaboration and open competition would determine that.
A wikiargument system would differ significantly from a forum-type venue (where people argue back and forth) because the emphasis is on an evolving, converging final product (the current “best” arguments for each side). Like robot competition, the emphasis would be on building a superior rational argument for your position, which would then compete with opposing arguments openly on the Internet. The American people would judge the competition.
Deciding which government representatives would be authorized to edit/modify a particular “best” argument entry would be determined (perhaps restricted to members of the initiating agency, branch of Congress, etc.). Like Wikipedia, a history of all modifications to the two sets of evolving arguments would be kept openly to provide a complete record of an argument’s evolution. Simple mechanisms similar to Wikipedia would be defined to resolve editing disputes.
Mr. President, under a wikiargument system, the American people would be able to examine their government representatives’ best arguments for any given issue by simply logging onto the Internet.
Why this proposal would enforce intellectual honesty
Our government representatives would no longer be able to evade rational argument and open debate because they would be required to post their best arguments on the Internet. If their positions on any given policy, procedure, legislation or action are rational, it should be easy for them to present clear, convincing arguments. Conversely, if their positions are irrational, they won’t be able to present arguments that aren’t easily faulted by their opponents (both government and public).
Mr. President, this wikiargument proposal has one simple requirement: our government representatives would be required to subject their (presumably) well-thought-out ideas to careful scrutiny by posting their best rational arguments on the Internet (to explain and justify their positions). That’s it. One simple requirement: respect the intelligence of the American people; give us your best rational arguments so we can carefully examine them for flaws. Remember, careful examination only hurts irrational ideas and arguments.
Under a wikiargument system, our government representatives would no longer be able to rely on many of the deceptive practices so prevalent under our present political system. By requiring them to post their best arguments for their positions, they would no longer get away with making false claims or misrepresenting facts or ignoring evidence against their positions because their Internet opponents would quickly expose this intellectual dishonesty within their own respective (opposing) best arguments where the American people would always be watching.
Under a wikiargument system our government representatives would be reluctant to make false or deceptive statements on TV or in other public venues. Why? Because they would know anyone could go on the Internet and check out the given issue’s opposing best arguments where their deceptions would be quickly exposed (thus lowering their “honesty quotient” in the eyes of the American people). Unlike our present political system, a wikiargument system would severely punish intellectual dishonesty.
Our government representatives would still have the power to sell favors for special interest money, but they would be required to do it transparently. For example, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency would still have the political power to subvert the interests of the American people by simply ignoring the recommendations of his scientific staff (as was done recently). But, under a wikiargument system, he would be required to explain and justify his position and post it in a “best” argument, which the American people could then compare to opposing arguments (by dissenting scientists and the public). He would still be able to sell his political influence, but it would be much more difficult than it is now.
Mr. President, our current political system makes it easy for our government representatives to deceive the American people. It’s not about finding truth; it’s about playing a game of hiding truth. Our political system allows our government representatives to make demonstrably irrational decisions without any accountability whatsoever. A wikiargument system would not stop all political mischief. But it would significantly hamper the effectiveness of the many built-in mechanisms our government representatives now exploit to evade careful scrutiny and open debate.
Conclusion
Thoreau wrote, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” Mr. President, real change won’t happen unless we the American people strike at the root—our intellectually dishonest political system.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
