This interpretation presents a problem in that the first amendment is a single statement that contradicts itself. People have a right to attempt to persuade others, while the others have a right to never be persuaded.
Much has been made of the difference between rural and urban voting preferences with the implication that we need balance between different sub-economies within our country. I think this inevitably overlooks the differences between younger and older voters where there is a benefit to give more attention to the younger voters at the expense of the older ones.
For those who were surprised by this recent election, be prepared to be even more surprised by the next one.
A data-driven economy is not a free economy. While there remains promise that algorithms acting on vast amounts of rapidly arriving data can produce a better economy, I am suspicious that such an economy will eventually languish because it robs the human actors of their ability to negotiate. The vitality of a free economy derives from individual freedom to negotiate terms of engagement. Eventually, A data-driven economy may prove to be superior but it will succeed only by suppressing natural human negotiation. Human actors negotiating in a data-driven economy must negotiate with machines. Applying approaches that work for other humans to machines instead is criminalized as cybercrime. Human negotiation involves coming to terms with weaknesses as well as strengths. Exploiting weaknesses of machines is a crime.
Data deception is a concern for automated decision making based on data analytics (such as in my hypothetical dedomenocracy). I think it is already a concern with our current democracy. I fear the current enthusiasm for data technologies because I do not see much in the way of appreciation for the possibility of deception. There is a huge confidence in the combined power of large amounts of data and sophisticated statistical tools (such as machine learning). Missing from our consideration is how well the data actual captures the real world. The data is not necessarily an honest representation of what is happening in the real world. It is very possible that the data may include deliberate deception.
The point of this post is to observe there may be a valuable lesson to learn from the current controversy over the conflict of religious freedom and right to same-sex marriage. The controversy may be providing bright data about the population’s natural division by age groups. We may learn from this that the problem may be easier to solve if we can resolve the arguments in two separate groups segregated by age. Coincidentally, this provides a possible additional benefit from my earlier proposals of dividing government by age groups.
Applying dedomenocracy principles to the immigration debate, the Dedomenocratic Party can split its support by supporting the Democratic Party for allowing access to legal employment for illegal immigrants while also supporting the Republican party for demanding additional requirements for qualification for citizenship as a consequence of prior violation of immigration law.