truthout | A government website (or other website) would be modified to allow
the public to search using the ID of any bill (e.g. HB 492) and find
(side by side for easy comparison and scrutiny) a pro and a con argument
for that bill. Supporters would collaborate to write the pro argument
and detractors would collaborate to write the con argument.
However, there might be a blank space for one or both arguments since
providing them would be strictly voluntary. Our representatives (on
either side of an issue) would be free to provide a single sentence as
an argument, multiple pages, or nothing at all. But what makes these
arguments special and gives them the power to reward informed truth
seekers and severely punish liars (and the ill-informed) is this: They'd
be dynamic; they'd be evolving works in progress - like Wikipedia
articles.
Game theory predicts the arguments would quickly stabilize with fewer
and fewer changes (like Wikipedia articles) - they wouldn't go on and
on in a tit-for-tat fashion.
Adding to their power to reward informed truth seekers and severely
punish liars (and the ill-informed), pro and con arguments would be
developed/modified out in the open (on the Internet for all to
scrutinize). Both sides would watch the other side's argument evolve and
use this information to strategically develop/modify their (opposing)
argument. At any given time, the public would see the current best pro
argument and the current best con argument.
0 comments:
Post a Comment