Free deliberation and POGG

In Canada, we refer to POGG Powers, those of Peace, Order and Good Government. The reference is buried in the Constitution Act, 1982 (Hipster: Constitution Act, 1867), way down there in Section 91: “the federal Parliament the power to make laws for the “peace, order, and good government of Canada”.

These words are the bed rock that a plural, geographical disaster of a country was passively and sometimes aggressively cobbled together. We all choose to observe some truly stupid laws restricting our short term happiness to preserve the long term, stable, results that only Peace and Order can bring. It brings about some truly bizarre and paradoxical policies.

Of course, you’re free to argue against Peace and Order. Good luck with that though. One of the things you miss the most about Canada, when you’re away from it for more than three days, is the Peace and the Order. It truly is quiet up here. Aside from a few rude streets in the GTHA and in and around Montreal, honking of the car horn is viewed dimly as breaking the peace and borderline disorderly conduct. Toronto is has a reputation for being loud and rude. It’s true in comparison to the rest of Canada. And yet even Toronto is quiet compared to most global cities. So let’s assume that Peace, Order, and Good Government are social goods. That it’s an attractive quality for the people who choose it.

Because, after all, once you get your Canadian passport, you are free to leave. It’s not as though it’s hard to leave. There is a choice.

Free Deliberation

So why should it be the case that misinformation is inherently destabilizing, eroding, of POGG?

It’s because it jams up free deliberation. And free deliberation is a key quality attribute in causing POGG.

One can use facts to build arguments, and it’s through arguments that we make decisions to change our minds. And it’s by changing our minds that we learn to adapt and respond to a changing world.

Note the assumption that the world is changing. Whereas we can entertain the idea that the world shouldn’t change for awhile, the conversation rapidly becomes boring because what would be the point. The world doesn’t care. The unborn become born become conscious become aware, and wonder what the hell those who came before them have been doing all the time. Then they seek to change it. The ecosystem reacts to our actions. People, families, tribes, companies, associations, institutions, communities, societies, nations and countries pursue their objectives, goals, dreams, purposes, destinies and desires. The world changes. There is no way to disinfect the entire planet.

Because we have to take change as a part of the model, then we need a system of information flows, feedbacks, that ensure there’s just enough stability to cause POGG to even emerge in the first place. Information is vital for feedback. You absorb quite a bit of information.

A lot of the time it’s a one way absorption of information: you’re listening to the radio, a podcast, watching the news, a video on your newsfeed, or, sometimes, you may even read a headline and the article that backs it up. Some of you even read transcripts, briefs, and reports. And the rarest of you read words on some guys’ blog. And that’s how an informed public comes about. In part, it is informed, and in no small part, it has to inform itself.

Note the assumption that an informed public engaged in free deliberation is part of a system that causes POGG. When I try to entertain the argument that it is not in the publics’ own self-interest to have free deliberation, I run into a few logical difficulties. Which in turn causes some doubt as to the incentives some actors are responding to, and what a few actors are shaping. I’ve listened to the argument that some in society do not want the public to be free to think. It is extremely likely that a few people with a lot of power possess the false belief that it is in their long term interests to suppress free deliberation.

I can’t hold the law of large numbers to be true and to argue that no such people exist. I don’t see how I could logically reconcile those two beliefs. So, granted, in every society that is large enough and lasts long enough, where power accumulates by some mechanism, there may emerge an individual or set of individuals who may coordinate in their own extremely short-term self-interests at the expense of the aggregate social welfare function.

Suppose that you are such a person. You have accumulated a lot of political power and have become premier of a large Canadian province. You know how large the bureaucracy is, and you know full well that to have earned power, you have assembled those in your tent who may have beliefs that are at variance with legal statutes or perceptions of impropriety. Ethics? Smethics! Bunch a crybaby lefty pinkos I tell you hhhhwat. But okay, when I hear Ontarians around their kitchen table say it isn’t Good Government, I say we need to get a few things done, and we make mistakes. And, you know that journalism is under pressure. That’s great for you because you don’t want journalists to inform the public about the fiduciary misunderstandings that may inevitably emerge as a price of doing business, and besides, you dislike journalists. You know they need access. You know they need the big scoop. So, why don’t you charge them for it? If they want a juicy scoop, they’ll have to bury embarrassing stories. It isn’t quite Catch and Kill, but more like, strategic access journalism?

So in the short run this works out just fine. The worst of what you’re up to isn’t coming to light and newsrooms really can’t amplify it. You’ve grown more powerful. In the short run.

What happens in the medium run is that some journalists may acquire a reputation for engaging in access journalism, regardless if they are or not. As a result, the information is used-less, and eventually, it’s useless. Audiences don’t consume useless media. Many audiences do not search for substitutes. They experience the benefits of bliss that only twice daily ignorance can be bring.

Over the long run, the trust erosion shows up in something like the Edelman Trust Barometer.

Which in turn gums up the process of free deliberation in a society.

It isn’t just restricted to politicians either. It could be anywhere that power pools and congeals. Let’s say that you’re an industrialist with considerable interest in one province? It might make sense to own all the English daily newspapers and all the French daily newspapers except for one?

A collection of individuals acting in their immediate, selfish, self-interests can, from time to time, generate externalities that rob the public of a good. And in this instance, contrary to perhaps a purer form of economic reasoning, I assert that the externality exists and is detrimental to the public. Just because an economic actor derives a capital or political gain, the debit to the public, the damage to commons, the erosion of the carrying capacity of society to support complex economic activity, can be measured and it is negative.

Good Government

It may be a good idea for a good government to do something to protect the public good? To pursue, as was written way down there in the constitution, peace, order, and good government?