But unfair policies are often supported by both political parties because both are typically bribed by the same big money. How would a wikiargument system force our "representatives" to post honest arguments against such unfair policies? By providing two additional (pro and con) "shadow" wikiarguments for each issue (that could be edited by anyone on earth like Wikipedia entries).
A visitor to the site would view two pairs of (pro and con wikiarguments per issue, one pair maintained by members of Congress and one (corresponding) pair maintained by the public at large. If our "representatives" weren't providing strong wikiarguments against unfair policies, the public at large would make those arguments for them. The two (public) shadow wikiarguments would quickly expose weak or disingenuous government arguments when both political parties support unfair policies.
All four wikiarguments would be free to borrow from each other. The four would evolve and converge toward a consensus. The most cogent argument would quickly become apparent, which would then expose which side is supporting big money and which side is supporting the people's best interests.
Demand accountability from those who claim to represent us
We have every right to demand our government "representatives" provide us with clear, rational arguments that explain and justify their positions. If their positions on any given policy, procedure, legislation or action are fair, it should be easy for them to present clear, convincing wikiarguments. Conversely, if their positions are unfair, they won't be able to present wikiarguments that aren't easily faulted by their opponents.
This wikiargument plan has one simple requirement: our government "representatives" must subject their (presumably) well-thought-out ideas to careful scrutiny by posting their best rational arguments on the Internet. 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. Careful examination can only hurt unfair ideas and arguments.
Using a wikiargument system, our "representatives" would no longer be able to rely on many of the deceptive practices so prevalent under our current political system. By requiring them to post wikiarguments 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 corresponding (opposing) arguments where the American people would always be watching.
Using 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 to the Internet and check out the given issue's opposing wikiargument where their deceptions would be quickly exposed. A political system using wikiarguments would punish dishonesty and reward honesty (exactly the opposite of our current political system).
Our current political system makes it easy for our "representatives" to deceive the American people. It's not about finding truth; it's about playing a political game of hiding truth. Our current political system often allows our "representatives" to make demonstrably irrational decisions without any accountability whatsoever.
A wikiargument system of accountability would not stop all political mischief. But it would significantly hamper the effectiveness of the many built-in mischief mechanisms our government representatives now exploit to evade careful scrutiny and open debate.
Conclusion
We need a political system that seeks truth, instead of one that often hides, manipulates, and even manufactures "truth." We need a political system that creates policy using rational argument and open debate, instead of one that creates policy using wheeling and dealing, coercion, and deception.
We need a political system that operates in plain view of the American people, one that provides a level playing field where all ideas can compete openly and fairly using clear, rational argument.
In short, we need a political system that enforces intellectual honesty instead of one that punishes intellectual honesty while rewarding deceit.
Wikiarguments is a first step toward that political system.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
