The Two Hidden Truths

There are two hidden, yet self-evident, truths that underlie all I try to accomplish as a storyteller, playwright, and social activist. These two simple realities, once understood, transform your attitudes toward the prevention of crime and toward democratic government in general.

The first truth is that we should accept, as our best scientific working hypothesis at any given time, that theory of the entire universe which is the simplest possible theory, considered from its most basic assumptions upwards, that explains all currently available evidence. For example, science teaches us to assume there is only one law of gravitation, even if that obliges us to hypothesize the existence of a great many additional planets. The nature of gravitation is a far more fundamental and basic assumption than the idea that there are only so many planets. While one would not hypothesize the existence of additional planets without cause, one would not hesitate to hypothesize the existence of those planets if it removed the need to have a different law of gravity for each planetary system. In short, we strive for simplicity, but it is simplicity at the most fundamental level that matters most. This principle of simplicity is often referred to as Occam’s razor.

Why is the Razor so important? Because, on the basis of all the evidence currently available to us, all events in space-time are either caused (think of a line of falling dominoes) or totally quantum and random in nature (think rolling dice). (The idea that there is both causation and randomness, but there is nothing else, is, of course, an example of the sort of highly fundamental assumption Occam’s razor tries to preserve. It is even more basic than our concept of gravity – gravity being merely one example of cause and effect in action.) This assumption that everything is caused or random includes those events taking place in the human brain (and the rest of the human body). We are constructed of caused and (perhaps) random events. For this reason, Occam’s razor excludes the hypothesis that we have free will, unless a machine composed of dominoes and dice could be said to have free will.

The traditional notion of free will is ordinarily the basis for our belief that it is a basic function of our criminal law, not just to prevent crime, but to revenge it. Nearly all of us have been taught that (1) there are people who use their free will to do evil things, (2) those people deserve to suffer for what they’ve done, and (3) part of the function of criminal punishment is to make those people suffer as they deserve. Certainly, advocates for the death penalty often present their argument in this manner. But Occam’s razor, by excluding free will, calls all of these assumptions into question.

Instead of putting people to death because the metaphysical dogma of free will demands their destruction, or stuffing people into prisons that nearly always make them more dangerous to society, a sensible country that had abandoned the free will myth would concentrate on preventing crime through programs of social justice and opportunity. Those few people who were still dangerous to society would be prevented from harming others while they were educated and rehabilitated. If they could not be helped, they would remain isolated from society, just as we would isolate someone who had an inoperable brain tumor that rendered him or her homicidally violent. We would be willing to invest in making that isolation as enjoyable as possible. Our system of isolation would certainly have nothing in common with our contemporary prison system. And there would never be any executions.

So we see one example of a simple intellectual formulation that has the power to transform our approach to our basic social institutions. The second hidden truth is another example of this.

The history of humanity is the never-ending struggle to replace the rule of bullies with the only alternative: democratic self-government under law. But, even when the bullies have been held at bay, and regular effective elections have become habitual, there is no guarantee that elections will lead to economic justice. Indeed, in the United States, over the last 40 years, the rich have been getting vastly richer and the poor vastly poorer. Under such circumstances, bullies often seek to supplant democracy by offering the dictatorship of the proletariat, or other pseudo-populist forms of propaganda. In other words, in country after country, the poor are told that a vanguard of allegedly pro-poor politicians should be allowed to seize power. These politicians promise faithfully never to think of themselves, but only of reversing the drift toward economic autocracy. They promise consistently to appoint successors who are equally idealistic, so that the interests of the poor will forever be guarded without any need for messy elections. And then – inevitably – about three hours into the so-called revolution, those in power (almost without exception) begin looting the nation for themselves.

What is needed, clearly, is a straightforward system of purely democratic self-government that nevertheless guarantees substantial and effective political power for those with the least amount of money. It is absurdly easy to set forth such a constitution – so easy that it is difficult for account for the fact that it never seems to have occurred to anyone.

Imagine, if you will, a bicameral legislature (like the two houses of the U.S. Congress in the United States). One of the two houses is elected as the lower house of the German national legislature is elected today. Each voter casts two ballots: one for the party he or she supports, and one for the individual he or she wishes to represent his or her geographical district. Those who have won the individual geographical contests are seated. The parties are then allowed to seat additional at-large legislators in numbers sufficient so that the proportional party vote in the lower house matches the proportional party vote in the national election. Thus, in a single house, we have all the benefits of local representation and all the benefits of proportional representation. Gerrymandering is unknown in such a government, because it would accomplish nothing – the legislative majority reflects the proportional party vote, not the result of elections in gerrymandered localities.

That leaves an entire house of the legislature unaccounted for. This is where something genuinely innovative may be accomplished. Divide the electorate into percentiles by personal wealth. Arrange for each percentile to elect one representative to the second house. Require all legislation to pass both houses. Then no legislation can be passed unless the poorest 51% of the nation approves of it, as well as the majority political party (or party coalition).

In order to assure that the poor are not cut out of the process of picking the Executive Branch, have two houses meet to settle upon a Chief Executive. If someone has the support of both houses, that person becomes the Chief Executive. If the two houses cannot agree, have each house nominate a candidate, and let the electorate in general pick between the two candidates.

We can therefore see that a purely democratic system of government may be easily arranged that nevertheless guarantees effective political representation for those with the least money. There is never any excuse for abandoning democracy in name of populism.

Happy, indeed, would be the planet governed with vengeance toward none, and employing the bicameral government system outlined above. These are the fundamental ideas I seek to communicate to all those who are open to them.