Philosophy of Self-Governance

If we believe human nature is greedy and selfish, we will naturally tend to structure our lives in support of the proposition. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that plays right into the hands of a power elite who rely on a philosophy of elite authority to legitimately govern the masses who are, so structured, incapable of governing themselves.

In Libya, for example, analysts are mulling over whether "The People" are capable of self-governance after elite rule. We see how the risk assessment depends on the tendency to move from tribal to civil society, and we have to consider, even a society as tribal as Libya's, with a fast and ubiquitous new media "We" are all citizens of a global, civil society. ("The medium is the message," which implies an ontology that many political-economists refer to as "technological pull." It is an unavoidable ontology--"the risk" presented by "an idea whose time has come." Our financial system innovates with the same kind of risk ontology. High-frequency trading and risk-transfer vehicles, for example, are a phenomenon in which technology appears to be leading us into an algorithmic, quantitative nightmare, but is really nature's way of invoking good ideas that will allow us to empirically govern ourselves.)

Libyans may have become dependent on a governing authority, but they are global citizens. Libya will experience the deconsolidation of power that even the U.S. needs to experience to join a civil society of self-governance.

Both Democrats and Republicans, we notice, rely on the philosophy of risk that structures a causal dependancy. This structural dependancy induces the evidence to support its hypothesis (i.e., creating an organizational tautology to routinely conserve the distributive value of the risk proportion). It psychologically manipulates the governed into a risk-averse belief in a higher authority (the angst principle--and the gamma-risk dimension--referred to in previous articles) rather than the risk-prone dimension of freedom and self-governance. (The risk-prone, alpha-risk, dimension, keep in mind, is really the more risk-averse because it is small enough for self-governance--the risk is well defined and fully culpable.) We are more likely to take risk (and increase GDP over debt) if it is not structured to offset into a too-big-to-fail, economy-of-scale proportion like business and government is "largely" organized now.

Both major parties contend We are not capable of rationally managing our own affairs. Leaving us to our own devices is too risky--in other words, it is too risky for the elite who psychologically rely on the aversion to risk. As long as we believe it is too risky to govern ourselves, we won't.