How dedomenocracy resolves cascading injustices

In the analogy of the recent sexual controversies coming out of Hollywood, the repeated behavior by one individual results in the group ostracizing the offending individual even though each of his transgressions were satisfactorily settled individually.   When it emerges that the group is not adequately policing itself, that offends an external group such as one part of the industry versus another.   This becomes a new injustice requiring a settlement between groups. This process of cascading continues with every larger groups demanding some type of settlement from the other group. 

Advertisements

Injustice in Dedomenocracy

Government of data and urgency permits as bright-data the observations of events leading up to the then-interpreted injustice and the observation of the terms of the subsequent settlement.   The only data that is excluded is the dark-data of the now-settled prior-claim of injustice.

Delusion of injustice

The delusion of injustice is that there cannot be privately negotiated justice that may be acceptable only to the private parties based on the particular context that they agree to keep private.   As a result of this, we overrule such private agreements and require a fresh trial in a public or formal setting based on current sensibilities and on lost information about the full context of the earlier event.   In the re-airing of past events, society regresses to a more immature level where every human interaction needs adult supervision and every offense be reported to authorities for a formal justice.

Open Secrets: data with strings attached

These cases are often described as open-secrets.   Many people in the community are aware of the information about individual cases and about the pattern of behavior, but there has been some kind of understanding that the past events are resolved in some acceptable terms, and that ongoing behavior is restrained by certain conditions.   The oxymoron of open-secrets can be resolved by defining the open-part as being observed data, while the secret-part is restraints on how this data may be used in future decision making.

Do we need narratives

We need a new approach to governance at all scales in order to sustain and build upon our culture. I think a new approach is possible by recognizing that narratives are expendable. We do not need consistency of narratives over time, for all narratives at all scales from nations to individuals.

All government recognized marriages should be unconstitutional by the 13th amendment

In the near term, the question about same sex marriages seems to be centered on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Eventually, I believe the supreme court will need to address a 13th amendment question about marriages in general. Does state recognition of marriage as providing special autonomy to individuals shielded from state interference violate the 13th amendment’s prohibitions against slavery and (implicitly) indentured servitude? While religious recognition of marriage is legitimate and may vary, the state may be justified in not recognizing any marriages so that it will continue to be able to protect against abusive labor arrangements. The equal protections of the 14th amendment applies also to the prohibitions of slavery of the 13th amendment. Taken together, the two amendments should prohibit that states from offering any special recognition and privileges to marriages that are not also available to more routine corporate charters.

Government by data and urgency redefines crime and punishment

Although the types of punishments that may occur in government by data are similar to older traditional punishments we witness in parts of the world today, a future system of automated government by data can avoid some of the abuses. The government by data encourages forgiveness and clemency to minimize the need for punishment. This government requires any punishment to be quick in order to return the person back to the community as soon as possible (such as within a day). The punishment decision is automated using algorithms and data to assure consistent and fair treatment of cases. The algorithms and data for the punishment decision are to assess what minimum level of punishment for a particular person will be sufficient to encourage that cooperation instead of having some broader goal of extracting justice. The public will have access to evaluate and criticize the data and algorithms that impose the punishments, just like they will interact with the data and algorithms that generate new rules. In government by data, the automatic decision-making based on data and algorithms includes the decision making for assigning punishments to people who disobey the rules.