Occupy Power


“Make the world work for one hundred percent of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological offence or the disadvantage of anyone” (Buckminster Fuller) 


Cognitive surplus can be technologically empowered and democratically legitimised to spontaneously and cooperatively enforce a Hippocratic imperative without central coordination. Direct accountability to this new democratically adjudicated authority would allow free people and free markets to effectively meet the conditions of the challenge.

1. Introduction

2. The Nature of Nature

3. The Problem with Power

4. The Wisdom of Crowds

5. Imagining a New System

i) Constitution

ii) Design

iii) Systemic Implication & Externalities

6. Conclusion


Human civilisation is driven by the force of human will. Power defines the projection and submission of will, so it’s power that steers the engine of society and it’s power that coordinates and controls our social activity.

Unfortunately, power is always held by individuals and no matter who they represent or the nature of the system that legitimises them, all people are always and necessarily imperfect and limited by their own capacity. No person can ever ‘represent’ anything more than their own bias and limitation, so anyone who has power will always do some harm by both action and inaction when they fail to meet their implied responsibility to make ‘perfect’ decisions.

We can’t rely on any individual or group of individuals to save us. If we want to steer ourselves out of harm’s way then we must subvert the current power paradigm and redirect the energy of human will away from the problems invented by individuals, to refocus it on cooperation and ‘informed common sense’ for the advantage of everyone.

Democratic accountability is a useful tool to help deal with the problem of centralised power, but accountability needs to drive more constructive social behaviour through positive, fluid and responsive feedback, not by infrequent and meaningless ‘elections’, or the enforcement of outdated edicts from men who thought they knew what was best at the time.

There is a singular truth behind the genius of democracy: the only way to stop power from doing harm to anyone is to make it accountable to everyone. We accept this lesson in theory, but unfortunately it’s only paid lip service in the practice of our legal and political systems. 

We’ve developed a flawed system to enforce and adjudicate accountability. Our legal bureaucracy has been corrupted by money at both legislative conception and in its practical application. Our political and legal systems fail to hold power accountable for itself because they can be bought at the price of the best representation, social connection or lobbying contribution, so those who wear the rings of power remain invisible, unaccountable and they act with impunity. 

The solution to Buckminster Fuller’s challenge and the next big socio-evolutionary transformation could come with the creation of democratic cyber tools that take advantage of new technologies inspired by systems like ‘Github‘ and ‘Ushahidi‘ (see Clay Shirky’s TED talks). Programmers must create a piece of open source software that acts as a sophisticated voting platform and forum for the general public to use on a local, national and global scale. This software could naturally evolve to operate as a democratic platform for the construction of propositions, laws and as a general forum and independent news source for people to share and represent their opinions.

In order to be effective this software would have to be open source, transparent, self-regulated, cooperative and it would need to act spontaneously to make proposals, with no centralised authority or hierarchy.

This platform could eventually attain democratic legitimacy by the overwhelming and transparent representation of public will. 

Direct democracy movements have the potential to gradually replace tired and outdated political and legal systems around the globe. 

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete” (Buckminster Fuller).

The Nature of Nature

James Lovelock describes having his Gaia revelation in 1965 after seeing an early image of the Earth from space. As he reflected on what he saw he understood that the earth wasn’t just home to many individual systems running around independently of one another, but rather it was inter-connected, complex and self-regulating, behaving like an organism in its own right. In his hypothesis he saw homoeostasis achieved through feedback-loops and underlying cooperation extending across life-systems. The suggestions of his theory were both controversial and shocking… that life itself might be regulating the environment for its own benefit!

Lovelock was initially criticised by several prominent biologists who scoffed at the idea of a homoeostatic or living ‘Gaia’. They joked about the organising principles and imagined all the animals meeting up at the top of Mount Ararat to decide what to do next year to change the temperature. They rejected the idea of a living Earth and claimed it was an affront to evolutionary theory. The planet has no parents, so she can’t evolve or change, and feedback loops can be positive or negative, so how can ‘Gaia’ evolve to regulate herself to the prevailing advantage of life? Lovelock then produced a brilliant and elegant proof (please watch this clip: Daisyworld) to explain his theory of self-regulation and to demonstrate homoeostatic feedback in action. The debate has now shifted and we know Gaia today as ‘Earth system science’.

The sceptics might have laid some unfair criticism at James Lovelock’s feet, but they were right about one thing, it’s certainly ridiculous to imagine that life might be able to effectively organise itself to regulate a system as complex as global environment through hierarchy or simple biological drives like competitive reproduction and self-interest. It should seem equally ridiculous to imagine that a lone group of primates might be able to effectively regulate global environment to their advantage through the same mechanisms.

Nature doesn’t make grand hierarchies to make grand decisions. It accepts that all individuals are necessarily too selfish and too stupid to know how best to serve the interests of the whole. But organising principles need not be exclusively dependent upon hierarchies of individuals who’re making Darwinian decisions for their own benefit. It’s these other kinds of feedback systems that James Lovelock describes in Daisyworld which should inform the design of a more natural kind of system to adjudicate the accountability of power in a modern human society. 

I think it’s important to take a moment at this point to remind ourselves that Darwin never used the expression “survival of fittest” and we misuse this bastardisation to justify a lot of unnatural inequality amongst our species today. The word ‘fittest’ can mean ‘most appropriate’ and ‘most fitting’ as in Darwin’s theory, but it also carries connotations of fitness and strength which have little or nothing to do with evolution by natural selection, yet it’s these predatory characteristics that our society seems fixated upon rather than the balance and cooperation that’s actually found in nature. The species and individuals who’re most appropriate and best suited for sustained existence in their environment will necessarily prosper and proliferate. If a species becomes too dominant or spreads out of control then it runs the risk of becoming a victim of that success. If you outstrip your energy supply or outgrow your environment then you necessarily have to fall back in line with that supply or die out. Cooperation and representation are more important than competition if one is trying to achieve homoeostasis, so we need to shift away from thinking of our individualism, greed and selfishness as simply ‘good’, or the moral of an over-simplified story we tell ourselves to justify the damage we do to each other and our environment. Excessive inequality causes great harm and it’s not something we should tolerate.

What our system requires is not a ‘better’ hierarchy or a different group of monkeys at the top. Power and the projection of personal bias reach across the whole planet and give individuals far more influence than is natural or beneficial for them to possess and far too little accountability for that influence. A natural state of individual power should never be allowed to impact the freedoms of sovereign individuals without being held to proper account by them, but that’s the obvious result of using power and hierarchy as the your sole mechanism for social organisation.

We need to replace our failing justice and political systems with more natural feedback loops and fluid, self-regulation to mimic natural processes. Our challenge is to create a new ‘moral economy’ in much the same way that we use the free-market to solve the division of labour and the allocation of resources without having to rely on a dangerously powerful centralised authority.

A online democracy could adjudicate a moral economy to fix our failing free market system by creating a new bottom-line to supplant profit and refocus the energy of entrepreneurs away from harmful behaviour for fear of accountability to a higher moral standard than a commodified legal system.

The political and legal solutions to the problems of power have been unsatisfactory because they’re fundamentally flawed. Instead of trying to copy nature we’ve tried to master it. Nature doesn’t expect individuals to be capable of near perfection or grand and insightful wisdom, so why do we? Why do we let relatively simple and unimpressive people write laws that impact all of our lives? No politician or judge has ever been intelligent enough to cope with the challenge of writing perfect laws, or enforcing them without the corrupting influence of their own bias… no religion ever managed it either. Nothing should ever be written in stone and no individual should ever have the power to impose themselves on another without it being open to democratic accountability. We’ve created a very unnatural situation by perpetuating the hierarchy model with far too much technological power and concentrations of global influence in the modern world and we’ve paid a heavy price for it. Fortunately for us change is actually much easier and more attainable than most people seem to realise.

The Problem with Power

Power is the projection of will. When people have power they can project their bias into the world without feeling or understanding all of the consequences to their actions. Power is influence without accountability to the subject. It’s an unnatural aberration because there’s no feedback between the person exerting power and the people being affected by it. The rings of power are harmful and corrupting because they allow an unnatural state of influence without accountability, of cause without appropriate effect.

There are a lot of mechanisms for power to manifest itself in a social species such as ours (fear, ignorance, trust etc), but I don’t want to waste time discussing them in detail here, so if you’re interested I’d suggest watching The Power Principle in the ‘recommended‘ section when you’ve finished this essay. 

I think it’s important to mention the Milgram experiment here. Authority and deference to power is the chief mechanism by which people are able to project their bias into the world without accountability to the subject and subsequently cause harm. In a nutshell, when we defer responsibility for our actions we also open ourselves up to participation in the spread of ‘evil’.

So how do we stop powerful people from harming us, and how do we stop impressionable people from being misled by authority?

The most obvious answer to both of these problems is to enforce a sense of personal responsibility ‘not to do harm’ for fear of accountability, this was the underlying logic behind the formation of ‘law’.

The threat of democratic accountability is a great way to stop people from harming one other or their environment and unlike a legislative proscription for proper behaviour it actively encourages people to think about their actions through the eyes of others rather than blindly obeying, so they can grow and mature as a consequence. A fear of direct accountability for harm caused encourages the regular practice of empathy… “How will most other people feel about me doing this and how will it affect them?”

So why doesn’t the law work as an effective deterrent to the misuse of power and why does accountability to the electorate rarely have any real impact on the decisions of politicians? Laws force people to conform to the proscribed behaviours of a power elite. In the world of law societies are capable of all kinds of horrors because they do not act as independent moral adjudicators and they cannot easily overthrow any established power base if they disagree. Law does not control power, it’s always power that ends up controlling law. Conforming to the edicts of government does not protect us from harm and it does not encourage us to learn and grow by seeing ourselves through the eyes of others.

“We could raise a Jewish boy in a Nazi culture and he’d become a good Nazi” (Jacques Fresco The Choice is Ours).

Political accountability is a myth. Money may not be the only thing affecting how we vote at the ballot box, but it is certainly the key factor in deciding the result. All politicians break their election promises with little or no consequence and four years later we find ourselves making the same choice between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. Politicians are aware of our impotence, so they must pander to powerful interests if they want to realise their own aspirations to power.

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”

We all know this expression, but it’s important to consider the correlation between the amount of power and the amount of damage done by the people wielding it. Human beings are extremely flawed and simple creatures. We exist only in the moment and we’re only aware of a few things at any one time. We’re limited as much by the things that we think we know as by the innumerable things that we will never be aware of and the only true wisdom can come from humility. When an individual human being projects its bias out into the world it carries with it all the unseen and unintended consequences of that person’s ignorance. The more power you have, the more harm you will do with your inevitable mistakes, so any power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The most dangerous people are those who’re confident in their ability to rule because it implies ignorance to their own ineptitude and yet we necessarily draw exclusively from this group when we choose our leaders… or more accurately, when our leaders aspire to power over us.

No matter how well-intentioned, or intelligent any person may be, the fact is that when a very limited being is able to project their bias into the world far beyond the bounds of a small social group, they necessarily cause great harm with every action and inaction because of the scale of the consequences to their actions that are unknown and unseen to them. The burden of ubiquitous power is far too great for any individual monkey, no matter how clever or wise they might appear to be. 

If we accept that individual human beings lack the capacity to make ‘perfect’ decisions and that an unnatural escalation of power means that individuals will unknowingly and necessarily escalate the harm they cause, then we must ask ourselves about the alternatives to centralised power, what they might look like and how they might be implemented?

Wisdom of Crowds

The most common arguments against direct democracy are that it’s logistically impractical and that people are too stupid to make their own decisions, so the obvious solution is to have an elite political class who are professionally informed about the issues and can act on their behalf.

In reality all of the necessary skills and expertise for civil infrastructure lie the with the civil servants and practitioners. Politicians are, by necessity, instantly replaceable and fundamentally superfluous. They come and go with no necessary qualification for their post and they always do what’s in their own interest, that of their party, or that of a supporter/donor who they choose to represent. Politicians are incapable of representing ‘voters’ because we’re all different and no one can represent you other than yourself.

I’d like to discuss this BBC clip (4m48s), so now would be a great time to watch it –

BBC Wisdom of Crowds

Decisions are just guesses based on experience and limited understanding, no matter how reliable or educated they appear to be. Our senses and intellectual capacity don’t allow us to fully understand all of the outcomes and implications for our actions, so life is all just informed guess-work. As we all know, in a world of white swans one can never be certain not to stumble across a black one.

What this clip demonstrates is the natural tendency towards equilibrium in group guesses that makes them more reliable than individual ones, all other factors being equal. There appears to be a relationship between the average human guess and the correct result. This relationship might be thought of as analogous to the relationship between supply and demand in determining financial value. If the population can represent its right-wing tendencies as well as its left, then you necessarily find the middle ground by obtaining a democratic consensus. In such a model you can tolerate the ignorance of all the actors on the stage because bias on both sides balances the result. The challenge of this model is simply to try and ensure that our voters are as accurately informed as possible and that the information stream they receive can’t be effectively corrupted to pervert or control their voting decisions/tendencies. I’ll discuss a potential solution to this challenge in greater detail towards the end of this essay.

In truth, the argument that ‘people are too stupid’ is quite correct, if misplaced. The politicians and global leaders are ‘too stupid’ to wield as much power as they do and the people are too poorly informed to represent their own thoughts and sensibilities about complex issues. The difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is only that we all know that we aren’t up to the challenge, no right-thinking individual could possibly believe they were capable of making huge decisions that affect millions of people without causing harm by their failures and ineptitudes. This is also why politicians have to try to elevate themselves in your eyes, so they can convince you that they are smarter and better than you. They have to be very careful not to reveal their stupidity, but of course, they are not clever enough to conceal it very well or for very long. Everything must be either scripted or avoided and we’ve all seen the embarrassing fumblings of a politician who has been thrown by a question, or is trying to control the sound-bite the media will publish (Ed Milliband). The principle is the same with all the monarchies and dictators of history. Individuals must elevate themselves in your eyes to justify their dominion over you. In the past powerful people have used things like divine right, breeding, genetic superiority, imposing ceremonies and grand statements of power to justify their right to rule. Today rulers claim legitimacy by merit, but I only need to say the surname ‘Bush’ to remind you of how ridiculous that idea is. We all know the wisest and best-intentioned people are rarely found in politics and they’re certainly never found in power. Politics is not a meritocracy, it is a slimy crawl down a slippery slope to try to grasp the coat-tails of the people who really do hold all the money and have all the power.

Democracy is an ancient idea and an obviously appropriate response to the problem of centralised power and the fallibility and corruptibility of individuals. Until very recently the practical reality of any kind of true and informed, direct democracy was completely unthinkable. But technology has broadened our horizons. The advent of social networking, the proliferation of technology and the creation of clever version control systems like Github have suddenly created the possibility for a transparent and truly democratic machine operating under a fluid constitution that’s legitimised by itself.

Technology and Open Source Tools

There are two very good talks by the wonderful Clay Shirky that I’d like to discuss further and I’ve already referred to. The first explains a bit about the nature of the open source philosophy and the Github version control system. The second talks about cognitive surplus and the human fuel for our engine of democratic will. If you haven’t watched them already then I’d appreciate you taking some time now to watch both as they are critical to the underlying thesis of this essay.

Distributed Version Control Systems – Clay Shirky


Cognitive Surplus – Clay Shirky

Democratic Legitimacy

Western-style governments claim their power by the representation of voters who legitimise them. Elections are the accepted means of allocating responsibility (power) fairly and with democratic accountability. 

“…Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (The Declaration of Independence)

If electoral legitimacy is accepted as the moral basis for democracy then all that’s required to empower a grass-roots, online democratic assembly is that the number of registered, transparent and active voters exceeds the number of votes given to the ruling party or elected representative being challenged. Democratic authority and legitimacy is derived from the representation of public will, so if more people have voted on a given issue than voted to elect the authority figure making a decision, then the higher authority is obviously the democratic consensus and any ‘public servant’ should be morally bound to obey the higher authority.

So how might we assure the enforcement of a legitimate democratic authority and what empowers group decisions? I think the answer to this must come in the content of the proposals we vote on. The threat of democratic accountability is what empowers action in accordance with democratic will, so we must direct specific individuals to action and hold them accountable to their duty whilst using the same arms of government that we currently use – police, civil service etc. I would not be surprised if we needed to make a few shows of strength and solidarity in the early days of the empowerment of democracy, but it shouldn’t require any violence because ‘common sense’ will be at the heart of all the propositions we pass.

The paradigm of democratic legitimacy would suggest that a supporter of democracy should not vote to elect leaders who they don’t think can represent them. Brave and forward thinking celebrities like Russell Brand and Frankie Boyle are quite right to suggest people shouldn’t vote to legitimise a system that abuses them. A democratic revolution will require the legitimacy of superior numbers, so if you vote in political elections then you’re a part of the problem and you’re creating direct competition for the solution.

Imagining a new system

I don’t have all the answers and I obviously don’t believe that I’m capable of designing a democratic system on my own. However, true democracy is about sharing ideas and proposals to see them moderated by public opinion, so I will share my thoughts about some of the practical challenges and implications for a technologically empowered direct democracy.

i) Constitution 

In the past we’ve tried to create new systems by exchanging one set of leaders and laws for another. In 1789 a group of Americans thought they could create a free society with the careful choice of wording for a new constitution that protected people from the corrupting influence of centralised power. Let’s take another look at the declaration of independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” (The Declaration of Independence).

These are beautiful words written by men with magnanimous intent, but rather than praise them, I’d like us to look for the fault and failing that led to the United States becoming “one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world… a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.” (President Woodrow Wilson).

President Woodrow Wilson’s allowed the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1916

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. 

I think we should all admire the grand aspirations set out in constitutions that sought to improve the lives of citizens, but we need to face the fact that none of them have ever worked and more people are bonded by economic slavery today than ever wore chains in the past. The weakness of language and the bias, limitation and corruptibility of individuals means that we’ll never be able to write a perfect constitution to protect ourselves from the influence of powerful people, so instead we must write one to undermine the foundations of power itself.

Power is the projection of will, so our challenge is to decide how our democratic assembly should define its intent and role in society to prevent people being able to project their will when they’re causing harm. We need to write a simple constitutions to hold all people democratically accountable for everything they do, whilst also offering protection to the people for whom disobeying orders isn’t currently an option….

A fluid and natural online democracy should probably be much simpler than previous attempts to define the rights and freedoms of citizens. If we want to avoid harming people then we must avoid ideas that are cultivated by our own judgement. So, we need a fluid democracy to allow us to create our own social boundaries and to change them as we grow and learn.

The Hippocratic imperative to ‘do no harm’ should, in my opinion, form the core of any sensible, enforceable democratic morality. Great power must always mean great responsibility. This is the only way to get people to relinquish power… make them take off their rings and cast them into the fires of Mount Doom so they are visible and accountable and their power is gone. The constitution itself must direct the assembly to hold all individuals accountable for all of their own actions in all circumstances. Consequently it must also offer protection and enforce the right of all people to refuse orders and instructions on the basis that an individual must always feel they are able to justify their actions before the democratic assembly.

Once we have agreed on our moral direction we must consider our goals and outline our mandate to protect the right of all people to refuse orders and prosecute people as accountable individuals when they infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.

All citizens are free and equal in the assembly. Where freedoms conflict the democratic assembly will both protect and prosecute the moral conscience of its citizens.

Laws and lawmakers are quite unsatisfactory solutions to the problems of power and accountability because people are too imperfect to be trusted to write and enforce them properly. 

So if laws are always flawed and just another example of the projection of bias and ignorance by a lot of old white dudes then what’s the alternative? Well, the main reason law doesn’t work is because legislators and enforcers are imperfect and our understanding of right and wrong changes over time and in any given context. Judges and sentencing guidelines have turned out to be rather ineffective and unsatisfactory for deterrent or rehabilitation purposes for the same reasons. Juries, on the other hand, show a lot more promise. 

Any new democratic assembly will have to define the parameters of its behaviours and its intent. Democracy movements should aim to legitimise themselves, but a part of that legitimacy will come from the membership defining, understanding and accepting exactly what the role of their democracy is.

The constitution and law itself can be redesigned in a version control system as Clay Shirky explains in his previous talk.If our basic problem is the redirection and empowerment of human will, then our constitution must undermine the current power paradigm by providing and new moral imperative and ensuring the accountability of all people to a new moral bottom-line.

ii) Design


I should not be the one to define what a voting platform should look like. There are much brighter and more talented people than me who can do more than I can imagine, but the price of criticism is offering a sound alternative, so I will share with you my thoughts on design to illustrate what I imagine a working system to look like.

I imagine a publicly moderated process for the submission of concise propositions by groups of people to bring to the public forum and allow people to vote them ‘up or down’ in popularity and comment on them to create dialogue about them with the members doing all the talking and voting up and down the voices they like amongst themselves. This process could lead to propositions being re-written and re-submitted a few times in order to get through to a later voting stage.


I imagine the voting stage consists of the proposal at the top with a split screen for yes or no and walls of different sized video screens on either side. These screens would be little vodcasts from people expressing their views and documentary and news excerpts posted up by various members who support either side of the proposition up for debate. As before, arguments and information that people like should be voted up and the screens should get bigger, whilst those people dislike should slowly disappear. I imagine a clock set at the bottom of each side of the screen, requiring a voter to watch a given length of time (set in the proposal) of footage on each side of the argument before the voting button lights up.

Invent a new back and forth and copy what we know does work in democracy, but involve everyone in the decisions we make. Have arguments on either side and have responses linking them with likes making their vid screens bigger or smaller.


In the case of judgements against people there must obviously be processes for appeals and time given for people to defend their actions or behaviours, but these not be long periods and the model should allow for pretty quick and well-informed, debated and considered decisions and appeals.

iii) Systemic Implications & Externalities 

DDP – politics (direct democracy party) Profit motive and behaviour – drug dealers and tax dodgers – soldiers and police (orders, no more power or projection of will without feedback) – pursuit of fame and social standards for morality/behaviour have systemic impact – prisoners and rehabilitation.

Adam Smith – glory or money… social acceptance. Money is just another way of keeping score, that’s why people pursue it when they have more than they could ever spend. It arises out of insecurity. Target vanity and desire for social validation with the need to be ‘approved’ of by changing social value system. Bad heroes give glamour to flaws of character. Plato RE Mob rule of democracy: “the world will not be right until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings.” Taxes… chosen by individual. Learn social competence. Flexible and fluid, changing every day and learning from mistakes, like a grown-up ;). Think what would happen to the really rich? wouldn’t want attention or to make your money causing harm or you might have it taken back off you by democratic will. accountability where there was none, so shareholders can’t shrug at the misdeeds of companies they profit from and CEOs can’t hide behind their obligation to shareholder profit. Accountability is disappearing and we need it in droves. No need for laws or loopholes as moral judgement is always democratically attainable so you can’t bend rules or find ways around restrictions unless you find a way to avoid causing any harm.


No Individual can do this. JFK tried and many others… (list). The powerful are now so beyond reproach and accountability that the only way to defeat them is to be ‘legion’. Once the software is created and a few thousand members have joined we will find we have the power to overcome. We must remain hidden and out of sight until that point. If you look around the world you will see… bias projection unfettered. There is only one way to stop the fossil fuel industry from using 80% of the resources they’re sitting on when they’re spending 100m a day looking for more. There’s only way to stop bankers, there’s only one way to stop governments. Influence must not be bought and those buying it and those selling it must be accountable for what they do behind closed doors.Centralisation vs free markets. We do want free markets and freedom, we just need accountability to make it work! Let’s attack the legitimacy of power by making right and wrong, and the judgement of harm, let’s stop allowing people to hide behind law and legal insufficiency. Imagine if we had another banking crash and in the UK we got 20 million people signed up and voting against bailing out the banks again in favour of bailing out the public up to a million pounds per person – to close the poverty gap. Imagine the power of all of us being galvanised by the next obvious and huge mistake our governments make. Or imagine the next innocent black man killed by police officers in the USA and millions voting to ensure he faced a proper trial. Imagine us democratically voting to free Ross Ulbricht or Edward Snowden. The mistakes and outrage are all inevitable, but we need a framework already in place to cope with the expression of public will and to set the new precedent of democratic accountability for harm caused and wrongs committed. Our choice is simple… evolve or die!

One thought on “Occupy Power

    jabbawa responded:
    May 7, 2015 at 10:54 am

    Please leave some comments and start a discussion, even/especially if you strongly disagree with me 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s