Informationalism and Government


So, I have suggested where the Informationalist might stand on politics; so what about government?

As I stated earlier, one of the goals of the Informationalist is to shape society so that information flows freely and as quickly as possible. However, as I have attempted to clarify elsewhere, in order to maintain a situation where variation can take place, some isolation is necessary. Where is the line drawn? I have already attempted to deal with this earlier, and am sure to continue to explore in the time ahead.

As far as governmental types, I shall lay out the accepted archetypal forms:

Oligarchy- government of the few
Monarchy- government of the one
Democracy- government of all

the most commonly excepted form of government is a so-called mixture of these forms of government into what is called a "Republic".

To attempt to simplify, most western governments are organized into a republic with a separation of governmental powers into the judicial, executive, and legislative authorities. There are checks and balances to make sure the powers remain separated. Also, the base of the government is a form of representational democracy.

This is a highly complex organization of ideas that has evolved over millennia.

So, where do the Informationalists stand?

Let us begin, as many so-called good things seem to, in the city of Athens. The burst of Greek creativity was connected with a kind of direct democracy. Not in the modern sense, in this case, a sizeable citizen minority governed the city-state. It alternated between a Tyranny, not in the negative sense, and direct democracy.

Let us also consider Rome. The Romans threw off their kings and established the Roman republic. By raising a national army which grew as their empire expanded, they built what was perhaps the largest empire in historical proportions that the world had ever seen. It's only rival is the British empire of the 18th century, and the contemporary American military monopoly.

Rome's republic ultimately degenerated into a Tyranny. But one that nonetheless, often pretend to respect the republican tradition.

Other societies of note that have particular explosions of information are Enlightenment France, The transitional Prussian-German State, Victorian Britain, Ming China, Post-Civil War America, Babylon, and Egypt and the Minoan civilization on the Island of Crete.

One thing that many of these civilizations have in common is that they reach their cultural explosions in the wake of a violent social upheaval.

Victorian Britain does not match this standard. But Greece blossomed when the Persian Empire drove Greeks from Asia Minor. Enlightenment France began in the wake of defeat at the hands of the Germans, and Germany after the defeat of Napoleon.

So, obviously Informationalists don't desire the massive deaths that accompanied these drastic social upheavals. So we must look to what they have in common with Victorian Britain and the Minoans.

The Victorians are our closest example. The Victorian society was not convinced that the traditional system of thought was the best. They began to question long held social conventions. The state, allowed this expression to degrees not often equaled before.

In the wake of the violent military revolutions, governments were weak. For a brief period people had the opportunity to question their government and surroundings before the yoke of a new power was put around their necks. In the case of Victorian Britain, the yoke was returned by the First World War.

So, it is most likely not a simple War that is the consequence of these bursts of creativity. A war destroyed Victorian Britain. A natural disaster destroyed the Minoans. Most of the other cultures destroyed themselves.

This might lead one to ask if it is even possible to create a society with a prolonged explosion of information. Is it?

I do not know. Obviously not, since we do not have the advantage of being able to look at time through the eyes of the infinite.

My conclusion is that one must have a government that allows the individual to express and critique the epitomes of the time period. No argument, no matter how sound or logical should be held up as beyond contestation. However, if one wishes to contest something, they should always offer evidence as to how and why they would do so.

Therefore, the government should support an environment where epitomes and mores can be questioned with sufficient evidence. But then one might ask: How is the government to retain power if the power is questionable?

If we are speaking of a government of informationalists, it is obvious that this power would be seen as not legitimate if it were obstructing the free flow of information. I speak hear of what would be an ideal final form of government run entirely by informationalists. This is, of course, a fantasy. But only slightly more of a fantasy than the government under which any of you live.

In the contemporary political situation I shall focus on America. This is only in this instance, because it is what pertains closest to me. I will not attempt to make hasty generalizations about governments with completely different political histories.

The American government is obviously committed, in certain instances, to the obstruction of information. Certain forces exist inside the government which are supportive of the sciences, and supportive of the practice of evidential dialogue. However, this can not be found as a primary force in either of the two political parties. My suggestion then is that the informationalist focus on amplifying the forces within the government that promote these values. Overall success in this would ultimately be beneficial to everyone, if our goal is to survive of course.

The idea of representative democracy and the separation of power all have legitimate benefits. But as long as their exists a greed for power over others and for material gain the system will never remain perfectly stable or promoting of information.
The best form of government would be one dedicated to the promotion of acquiring and distributing information, founded on laws that would make obstructing this practice difficult and highly improbable. If the government can adhere to this, it will be egalitarian in standards and whatever political form it may take will not regress to the dark side of greed. If it does not adhere to these laws it will eventually fail, and precedent is not yet on the side of its success.