Critique of the Alternative Consensus

Further below: Can there ever be too many people?

1600 words

Note: Iain Davis is a prominent investigative journalist speaking out against the powers-that-be. In particular, together with J. D. Hall, he has demonstrated that the Manchester Arena bombings in 2017 were a false flag operation staged in order to manipulate public opinion. His essay, criticised here harshly, can be found at his substack. The arguments in Davis’s essay of over 2000 words rest on absurd and otherwise unproven premises; they also rely on non-sequiturs.

The only constructive proposal Iain Davis has is a resort to what he calls “random sortition.” I explain further below why this, itself a form of “representative democracy”, which he condemns, is the very worst method, which is why variations of it are being promoted and put into practice by the most evil manipulators in media and politics. Davis proves himself here to be naïve and uninformed.

His objection is against people being elected; he wants them to be selected randomly instead. But he does not say this out straight at the beginning, only towards the end.

In his article he does engage in competent journalism, as he has done elsewhere, and is to be praised for this. But when it comes to the topic he has taken on, namely What is Democracy, he is out of his depth.

Basically, Davis attacks the hypocrisies of gangster politicians, i.e. officials of political parties, and the failures of an already discredited system of electoral mandates, as if we needed these to be rehearsed.

He infers from these hypocrisies and failures that all representative government must be rejected. This inference is wrong and absurd. An “all” does not follow from a “some,” or even from a “many”. This is basic logic. It does not follow from the fact that many journalists lie, distort and suppress key information that all journalists, including Iain Davis himself, lie, distort and suppress key information.

Turning now to Davis’s text, he falls at the first hurdle: (Note that in quoting I spell out Davis’s infelicitous abbreviation “RD”)

>> As a concept, representive democracy immediately falls flat on its illogical face. The whole point of RD is to select the representatives who will form the government that will rule your life. The reason given for this is that we are all incapable of ruling ourselves. <<

Repeat: “The whole point of representive [sic] democracy is to select the representatives who will form the government that will rule your life.”

Two statements are conflated here, both of which are untrue historically and even presently. (1) In the UK, governments are formed from among – among! – the parliamentary representatives, who thereupon become government executives. No governments are formed from the whole body of elected representatives; for example, opposition figures are excluded. (2) Only in a dictatorship does a government (attempt to) rule your life. By definition, a dictatorship is not a representative democracy.

Repeat: The reason given for this is that we are all incapable of ruling ourselves.

This reader is unaware of this reason ever being given, at least not routinely. In any case, the statement “we are all incapable of ruling ourselves“ is too sweeping to have much meaning because what is meant by “ruling ourselves” has not been defined.

There are many important decisions which can only be taken collectively. For example, almost everything to do with infrastructure. Or does Davis wish to leave all major building (e.g. of roads and railways, power stations) to the market, which can act independently of checks & balances? He does not say.

The market itself must be policed, which needs an overriding authority. It cannot police itself.

The problem a properly regulated free market (substantially) solves is how to coordinate zillions of mostly minor preferences among millions of consumers. The problem faced by any democracy is how to coordinate zillions of opinions, a few well-informed, many based on ignorance, some held strongly, many lightly. This has to be done without making any voting unduly time-consuming and without allowing it to become so imprecise as to be meaningless.

The problem is one of the aggregation of opinion. Its only solution, I maintain, is through systems of representation. In the past, these systems have used political parties. Whatever the merits or drawbacks of political parties in the twentieth century and before, we can likely agree that they are now wholly discredited. So what can be put in their place?

While Iain Davis was engaged in investigative journalism, something I would be useless at, I was thinking long & hard about how electoral, i.e. representative, democracy could be upgraded. Meanwhile I have an extensive website, with original solutions and analyses, at www.fuzzydemocracy.com Peruse the headline topics there. These include: Rescuing Representative Democracy; Making Representative Democracy Representative; Representative Democracy for Real; and The Nature of Democracy.

Like almost everyone else, Iain Davis seems to conflate what is best called “a liberal dispensation” with “liberal democracy”. I define my words: A liberal dispensation is rule of law, property rights and freedom of expression, with checks & balances. Electoral democracy is something different and extra: it is when changes in direction (not road maps) are approved or reversed by popular vote.

My core starting point for democracy is that anyone who feels drawn to expressing a political opinion should be able to do so in a manner which carries weight, and be it ever so little. The weight will not be the same for all.

Not everyone is obliged to have or register or form an opinion on everything, nor is everyone able on many matters. Therefore the level of turnout is irrelevant. Only those with conviction should vote, which cannot be determined by others. This principle is of importance because it stands in blank opposition to the thinking behind the “random sortition” that Davis favours.

I turn now to his ill-judged solution of random “sortition.” The reader can look up “sortition.” The AI account I accessed is too long for here and does not include a web address. Davis fails to spell out how he means “random” so I assume he means genuinely random selection, without any sorting according to age, ethnicity, gender, etc. Yet it is this latter which is mostly meant when the word sortition is used. I suggest therefore that his use of the word “sortition” is pretentious or obfuscation.

UK Column, and especially there Ben Rubin and Sandi Adams, has reported frequently on how “sortition” procedures (not the word they use) are designed to manipulate the formation of public opinion and give an appearance of consensus. This occurs routinely with Citizens’ Assemblies, which undermine the democratic process while apparently upholding it.

Deranged as he is, Davis seems to imagine that the entire population is composed of rational, well-meaning people such as himself, myself and his or my readers. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are extremely varied, and it is good so.

Contrast his position with mine, which defines electoral democracy as a dispensation where every citizen who feels a calling to register opinions and preferences in the political realm can do so. Davis wishes to deprive such people of this voice. On his scheme, you will likely never be called upon to deliberate or decide policy, however well-informed you are or however passionate (because affected) by the matters in hand. Davis is playing into the hands of tyranny.

Late in his diatribe Davis introduces the phrase “natural law”. He does not mention the common law, but natural law must be something different. He imagines that, in practice, we will all agree about what natural law is, which he equates with something called “the science of justice.”

In this latter part Davis comes up with some outrageous assertions, twisting language and departing from any objective or balanced view of mankind.

« Representative democracy is not democracy. »

« If a country really were a democracy—and there are currently none—it wouldn’t have any politicians. » So, no-one skilled in the art of persuasion, and no-one to reconcile opposing standpoints. »

« The people would govern themselves through the observance and enforcement of nothing but the “Rule of Law.“ » So, how would bridges get built, or even repaired?

« Real democracy demands that the people are permanently engaged in the democratic process. They must be skilled in critical thinking and well versed in the “science of justice“—Natural Law. They must be ready, at any moment, to put their skills and knowledge into practice. » To which one might mockingly add, « Real solidarity demands that the people are permanently engaged in the caring process. They must be skilled in first aid and well versed in the “science of health”—Natural Healing. They must be ready, at any moment, to put their skills and knowledge into practice. »

Since the sky is the limit, “skilled in critical thinking“ and “well versed“ are comparative terms, like “tall”. We cannot all be tall. Similarly, I doubt we can all be skilled or well-versed at the same thing, although all may be skilled or well-versed at something. Having examined the diatribe by Davis, I fear for his critical skills.

In summary: Genuinely representative democracy as presented at www.fuzzydemocracy.com fuzzy = approximate, or as close as it gets) is not subject to any of the objections raised by Davis. Those objections are to corruptions of representative democracies by rogue politicians. Davis cannot extrapolate from them that all representative democracy is bad. His own proposal of sortition is itself a form of representative democracy, just that it does not use election. It was therefore misleading of him to present his ideas as a condemnation of all representative democracy. He could have just said he was against election and favoured random selection. He is ignorant of my proposals for re-invigorating representative democracy. I suggest he should remedy his ignorance forthwith.

Essay 2

1000 words

Can there ever be too many people? This is the taboo question among those opposed to the tyrannical measures aimed at depopulation. It merits comprehensive reflection.

The “alternative” scene does address the issue, but not straight on. It claims, they claim, that “Malthus” and his doomsday scenario (of population increases eventually exhausting even increased resources) has been refuted. Almost always the “alternative” narrative confuses, or conflates, eugenics with all policies to shape population sizes. Eugenics is about what kind of people, not the numbers. When it has been tried, eugenics has backfired. But that is not the topic here.

I. It is routinely argued that technical fixes (advances) in agriculture have proven that there is no limit on how many people can be fed. This was something allegedly not foreseen by Malthus. (Note: the topic here is not the character of Malthus as a person, or what he may have written on related matters.)

Technically, it may be possible to accommodate and even feed half the population of the world on a small territory or island. No consideration is given as to whether this would be desirable, or if many of us would choose to go there.

Indeed, it may be asked of those who claim there is no overpopulation whether they would accept (with friends & family) a one-way ticket to one of the world’s megacities even if promised there a tolerable level of affluence.

Modern work does not consist much in accommodation of, i.e. protection from, the elements. It does not consist mainly in generating immediate and tangible wealth or sustenance. Only a small portion is devoted to child-rearing and basic education.

High density population involves anonymity such that the restraints characteristic of small communities no longer apply. Hence the price paid for high populations is much mutual surveillance.

It may be countered that there is always mutual surveillance, i.e. keeping an eye on one?s own and neighbors, sometimes caring, sometimes suspicious. But as people come to live in greater proximity, whether spatial or virtual, the time expended on mutual surveillance skyrockets. With surveillance comes a reduction in freedom.

Most conflicts can be traced back to this fact of life. It is key to much in religion, whatever its form. Medieval Christianity had monasteries, as did some other cultures.

Conflict typically arises between separate communities living on shared or neighboring territory. This co-habitation can remain peaceful for extended periods. But when change comes, with one group growing disproportionately, whether in size or prosperity, resentments and tensions mount. Outbreeding other groups may be a form of long-term warfare, whether done intentionally or not.

V. One resource is the availability of solitude. Solitude in the sense of being alone, as the only human in a broadly natural environment (farmland may do). Solitude in not being able to hear the buzz of other humans, as their cars race along motorways. When there is talk of “fifteen-minute cities” it might mean, but does not, being able to reach the countryside within 15 minutes. An aside: When living in cities, this author would regularly drive half an hour and more just to be able to walk in woodland quite alone.

In densely populated areas (for example, the Netherlands or south-east England) solitude is a rare resource precisely because of the excess population.

I do not have any solution. What has happened in the past is that people have turned on each other, with massacres or underhand hostilities such that some groups lose the means to sustain themselves. Examples are Whites exterminating the buffalo so that the native Indians were deprived of this essential resource, or spreading disease (as is happening now via the WHO (the World Health Organisation). It may be that some groups lose the will to live, or at least to reproduce. There is no reason to suppose that these are the least worthy, on the contrary.

Written in 2024