Let’s consider whether third parties can help with difficult issues in society, from policy debates to cases like Epstein. Historically, third parties haven’t done very well, but there’s growing interest in voting based on conscience. Major parties can get stuck in 50/50 gridlock, and a third party might help break the deadlock.
In the Epstein case, each party pushes its own narrative, shaping what people believe based on selective information. A neutral third party could provide a fresh perspective, perhaps weighing facts objectively. They could separate those directly involved from those indirectly connected or uninvolved.
Protecting victims is essential—they deserve rights and there appears to be a trend in undermining victims for more connected members. At the same time, people with no involvement in the misconduct shouldn’t be unfairly damaged. An independent perspective could increase trust because they owe no loyalty to anyone except the general will of the people, societal contracts, future generations, etc (In Theory).
That’s why one might imagine a hypothetical “Feather Party”—not tied to special interests, powerful networks, or big donations. Members would make decisions using clear principles that consider social, economic, and long-term effects. People outside the main networks (cognitive loops) often have a better perspective that could align more with the average person. Maybe not....
Connections among powerful people aren’t inherently bad, but they can concentrate wealth, power, and influence while not always putting the public’s needs first. One could even raise a concern on how much involvement and/or influence foreign actors have on these networks. The risks that are inherent in global networks and decision making.
Some argue that only educated or wealthy people should make decisions, but today most people are informed and capable of thoughtful judgment. In some cases the wealthy and most connected are not the best people to serve the average. The time of peasantry is done and most people seem much more insightful than the sometimes skewed narratives we hear. So things should change to ensure everyone is pointed as true north as possible. They have greater not less responsibility.
This is just a discussion. We could keep things as they are, reject third parties, or explore ways to improve decision-making and public trust.
This is an interesting article,
No comments:
Post a Comment