
Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy - yungchin
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3273111
======
rrggrr
The only counter-measure that works against polluting the polity with
influence operations is earnestly educating people to be critical consumers of
information. Why? Because one cannot empower government to counter-message
influence operations without risking an abuse of power.

My son's middle school appears to be tackling this problem to some degree by
teaching students to: (a) not accept 'facts' without multiple sources of
information; (b) consider the perspective/bias of the story-teller in the
sources you consume; and (c) understand that most messages are persuasion.

~~~
zackmorris
For the reasons you gave: as a litmus test for whether a politician is a
statesman or a shill, I look at whether he/she supports public education or
not.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Which do you think is more likely to develop students into citizens capable of
independent thought:

a) Sitting at a desk. Not allowed to talk unless called upon. Exactly
following a schedule determined by authority figures.

b) Being free to move about the room. Able to choose your activity with your
peers.A constructivist or "discovery" model, where students learn concepts
from working with materials, rather than by direct instruction.

The first describes the typical public school. The second describes a
Montessori school
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education)

Given the inertia of the system, it is unlikely that the public education
system can be reformed from what it is. Why not support parents choosing a
school based on what they consider best for their children as long as the
schooling meets minimum standards? However, when politicians support this
options, there are people that paint them as villains for "not supporting
public education". Someone can support "public education" the concept of
educating the public, and not support "public education" the system which is
often driven by various special interest groups.

~~~
bsder
Allocate the same teacher/student ratio and randomize the students in a public
school and at a private Montessori and get back to me with the data.

Most private schools do better only because they weed out the expensive
problems and force them back to the public system. The moment you randomize
the students, the private schools drop back to the mean (or, generally,
worse).

I find this unfortunate, because education is in _dire_ need of some real,
evidence-based, advances. We have a lot of new data about achievement and
learning.

However, putting it to practice requires money, time and a _LOT_ of effort.
And you will have to fight the parents, too.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Most private schools do better only because they weed out the expensive
> problems and force them back to the public system.

The single biggest factor is that private schools, as non-default choices,
automatically filter for parental engagement in education, even before
considering the filters they put in place in terms of admissions criteria.

Students with parents engaged in their education do better.

~~~
frabbit
> Students with parents engaged in their education do better

IMHO this is the crucial thing. And it is one of the aspects of Montessori
that some parents who are simply aspirational-consumers are a bit thrown by
initially.

------
tareqak
I'm glad that someone of Schneier's reputation and ability is taking this
issue seriously enough to at least co-author a paper on it. I know that the
focus of this forum is technology news and whatever hackers find interesting,
and I know (and have seen here) that the more political a particular post is,
the more inevitable it becomes for the discourse to devolve into something
non-constructive and toxic. At the same time, I strongly feel that as part of
the community people who have designed and implemented the technologies that
have had such an major impact on civil discourse and politics today, I find
the reluctance to discuss and own up to the fact disappointing. Even the
scientists behind the Manhattan Project felt and expressed some responsibility
and remorse for the nuclear weapons that came about from their work.

~~~
matt4077
I fear you will be disappointed...

Large parts of the tech community seem to not just be blind to the
consequences of their work, but to openly embrace and nurture the destruction
of the fabric of society.

This used to find voice in utopian visions of a sort of libertarian,
meritocratic revival of democracy: bloggers replacing journalists, "makers",
liquid democracy, etc.

There are two successful examples of this spirit I can think of: Wikipedia,
and OSS.

Unfortunately, this movement also had/has a destructive streak. Partly because
these new ideas had existing competitors that needed to be cut down to make
room, and partly because they experienced opposition from existing players
(sometimes only tangentially related) that quickly became branded as enemies.

Two sides of the same philosophy. Guess which one had more staying power? Just
look at the fate of The Pirate Bay vs The Pirate Party to get an idea. Or take
this quiz: (a) Name a website distributing scientific papers with no concern
for copyright. (b) Name an Open Access journal.

With regard to the specific topic of the paper, namely _information_ (and
political news specifically) those ideas of the citizen-blogger have actually
disappeared so thoroughly, you are likely to have no idea what I'm referencing
if you are under 30 years of age. And while those ideas were initially coupled
with a disdain for established institutions and the press because it was a
storyline in need of a villain, the ideas died yet the rot feasting on our
sources of shared truth survived.

The target of all this destructive energy is, as a first approximation, the
very concept of _trust_. Trust cannot be trusted is a sort-of mantra, that not
only gives sense to what would otherwise just be existential dread aimlessly
seeking escape in vandalism (4chan). It also makes you appear cool & in the
know: "I wonder who paid for this article", "everybody knows a study with
n=20000 is underpowered", "<X> wouldn't do <Y> unless <convoluted way to
reduce all human activity to a profit motive>".

On rare occasions, this destructive mindset still has the spark of creativity:
Bitcoin, for all its flaws, is (was?) somewhat impressive. Yet it was always
rooted in this sort of cynicism that distrusts institutions and the power of
humans to have any positive impact with anything but the tools of physics and
math: to wit, the endless conspiracy theories around the FED, the infatuation
with Gold and land, etc.

In the realm of politics, the destruction is just about total. Nothing of
value was created. Meanwhile, the community gleefully watches the destruction
of the free press, fine-tuning their adblockers because "information wants to
be free", or because that newspaper whose articles they desperately want to
read nonetheless made the fateful error of using the wrong JS framework, or
something, but in any case, it's their fault if they can't survive. Plus they
are just part of Soros' campaign anyway. Everybody knows that.

~~~
clarkmoody
As a Bitcoin guy, I'm going to chime in there.

> Yet it was always rooted in this sort of cynicism that distrusts
> institutions and the power of humans to have any positive impact with
> anything but the tools of physics and math: to wit, the endless conspiracy
> theories around the FED, the infatuation with Gold and land, etc.

Realism, not cynicism. The historical record shows that anyone with a printing
press will abuse it to his own benefit. All central banks do this. Plenty of
private banks prior to the Fed did it, albeit with government help via legal
tender laws, sanctioned suspension of specie payments (breach of contract),
and par laws.

Thus Bitcoin separates money and state and seeks to be a sound digital
commodity.

~~~
realsunnyg
Saying that trust can be abused and thus it should be eradicated entirely from
social systems _is_ cynicism, not realism.

There's a spectrum of social system development with regards to trust that has
yet to be fully explored - centralized/federated "trusted" authorities in the
middle, Bitcoin and most blockchains/tokens to the left (i.e. no trust at all)
and some other form of p2p money or credit to the right (i.e. p2p, completely
decentralized trust).

That the Bitcoin community doesn't even recognize that an entire half of space
for innovation exists is what makes this mindset "destructive."

edit: grammar

------
tareqak
There was one idea that came to mind when I read _The Second Half of Watergate
Was Bigger, Worse, and Forgotten by the Public_ posted here 8 days ago [0][1].
The first part of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) requires
corporations to keep accurate financial records in order to not be able to
hide bribes [2]. If a corporation can be compelled to be truthful in their
financial records, then why can't a news organization be compelled to be
truthful when proclaiming to disseminate news? If the news organization still
wanted to publish something inaccurate, then they could label it as satire,
but at least they would have surrender the appearance of being truthful. I
understand that there would be freedom-of-speech / first amendment
implications, but isn't a public financial record a kind of speech and
corporations are effectively being told how to say (be truthful) what they
want to say (their finances)?

My idea definitely sounds a little far-fetched even to me, but I'd appreciate
any input, additions, or criticism that anyone might have.

[0] [https://longreads.com/2018/11/20/the-second-half-of-
watergat...](https://longreads.com/2018/11/20/the-second-half-of-watergate-
was-bigger-worse-and-forgotten-by-the-public/)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18498796](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18498796)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act)

~~~
matt4077
Among other things, this would open the door to the government demand access
to the identity of whistleblowers.

It also doesn't actually address the problem. The news media, when properly
defined, doesn't actually lie.

Now that statement needs some qualifications: by "news media" I'm referring to
Fox News and everything better. Fox, being the worst case here, actually takes
great care to label their primetime 360-minutes-hate as opinion. It's just
very easy to rephrase a lie: "Is Obama a muslim, or even a vegetarian? These
are questions many people are asking!".

It's infowars and the like where actual lying happens. But those programs
could just as easily add such caveats. And the sort of campaign this paper
mentions simply happens on anonymously registered domains with no business (or
any) presence in the US, or entirely on social media.

Ultimately, the problem is people that want to indulge their fantasies, and
want to be lied to. No sane person would watch a red-faced lunatic
alternatively sell herbal remedies for athlete's foot and accuse Hillary
Clinton of running a ring of pedophiles from a pizza place and consider it a
quality news source.

~~~
r00fus
Isn't the issue that sometimes Fox (and even the current Press secretary) will
actually take Infowars content and rebadge it as news?

Just saying they can spout it as "opinion" is like allowing usurious click-
wrap agreements - everyone will just click through because it's "all opinion
all the time".

------
darawk
Ya, i've been saying something like this for a while. China, for instance, is
uniquely _in_ vulnerable to this sort of attack. Because the state is already
in charge of censoring information, it is much more difficult to flood them
with misinformation. It's one of the many reasons i'm concerned that models
like Chinas will actually flourish more than they otherwise would in the
coming years.

~~~
forapurpose
They may be less vulnerable to attacks from outsiders, but they are much more
vulnerable to attacks from their own government. It's similar to totalitarian
governments; they might keep organized crime low, but they expose people to
far more crime from the government itself.

I would expect people in China and in the Chinese government to also be more
vulnerable to misleading and suboptimal information, because there is a lack
of competing ideas.

~~~
hammock
>They may be less vulnerable to attacks from outsiders, but they are much more
vulnerable to attacks from their own government. It's similar to totalitarian
governments

Interesting that you say that about China, because that was exactly Bruce
Schneier's conclusion about the United States:

>Our research implies that insider attacks from within American politics can
be more pernicious than attacks from other countries.

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/propaganda_an...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/propaganda_and_.html)

~~~
commandlinefan
> Without any evidence whatsoever, he said that Democrats were trying to steal
> the election through "FRAUD."

Well, wait a minute - both of those races had already been called in favor of
the Republican candidate on the night of the election until boxes and boxes of
mysteriously Democrat-leaning ballots were suddenly found the following day...
I think that constitutes evidence, even if it's not conclusive.

~~~
forapurpose
For any set of boxes, there is a 50-50 chance that they will favor one or the
other party. Given the geographic polarization of the parties, the boxes seem
likely to heavily favor one or the other party. We can't distinguish the event
from random chance, afaik, and therefore it's not evidence.

> mysteriously

Is there a basis for this word?

~~~
hammock
Seems the basis would be, that the new votes were highly un-representative of
all the other votes previously tallied (majority Republican)

The parent comment probably disagrees with your assessment of 50/50.

------
nbp234
Link to discussion on Bruce Schneier's blog:
[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/propaganda_an...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/propaganda_and_.html)

~~~
dfabulich
The comments on that blog post are examples of the problem. They're diving
straight into disagreements about matters of fact (like whether a party
cheated in a particular election, and whether both sides cheat).

The point is that we're not (no longer) disagreeing about values, but about
the _facts,_ and that authoritarians are deliberately attempting to muddy the
waters here. They're clearly succeeding, and the commenters seem to be
distracted from that.

~~~
commandlinefan
> examples of the problem

on the other hand, they both seem to come to the same conclusion: that we need
our election machinery to be verifiably tamper-proof.

------
blackholesRhot
I respect Schneier but this is basically 10x-ing the word count on Terry Tao’s
2016 blog post:

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/it-
ought-to-be-common-knowledge-that-donald-trump-is-not-fit-for-the-presidency-
of-the-united-states-of-america/amp/)

Unacceptable to me that it wasn’t referenced as it certainly made the rounds
in security circles.

~~~
r00fus
When I click through I get commentary about the 2016 election. Please update
your link.

------
baby
It'd be interesting to see a formal threat model of a Democracy like we write
such documents for our applications and protocols.

~~~
Balgair
If you have a lot of know-how about these threat models, I'd highly encourage
you to write one for democracy as an idea. I'd love to read it!

~~~
baby
[https://github.com/mimoo/democracy_threat_model](https://github.com/mimoo/democracy_threat_model)

------
pessimizer
It's a huge flaw that this paper keeps referring to the "US" and its
intentions, even explicitly distinguished from the FCC or its president in the
blog entry linking the paper[1]. Baked into the examples used to illustrate
its premise is a United States that is never specifically located or
identified; it just makes appearances as "some Arizona Republicans" and
"national security officials" and only intends to spread its "liberal and
democratic values" with its "pro-freedom" bias.

The idea that Americans are now soaked in more or more vulnerable to
intentional misdirection due to ideas flooding the internet from twitter and
facebook is completely ahistorical. If anything, American "consensus" beliefs
have always been dictated and enforced from above, and have never been a
consensus.

I hope that he reads some Walter Lippmann before he continues to treat
politics like a computer program. We are and have always been constantly under
attacks from people who want to define the facts that we base our decisions
on, including all parts of government. Additionally, those attackers do not
always have bad intentions, and may be using deceptive simplifications in
order to trick us into doing what they think is best _for us._

The evaluation of a flood of information coming from actors with a full range
of motivations to manipulate that information is the basic dilemma of
democracy. This paper itself is soaked in and re-enforces a bunch of
questionable common knowledge, especially as it seems to be addressed to an
American flag when only people are available to read it.

[1]
[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/propaganda_an...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/propaganda_and_.html)

------
forapurpose
We are strongly concerned with accuracy (correctness, completeness,
consistency) on the network layers but I've been thinking that we need to
apply the same emphasis to accuracy on the data layer. We'd never accept the
data layer's error rate on the network layer.

Another way of looking at it: We do emphasize accuracy in data in business
databases - again, we'd never accept the error rate common in 'general'
information. Why don't we put the same emphasis on data elsewhere?

~~~
robinsloan
I think it depends on which "we" you're talking about! In many cases, "we" do
value accurate information. I'm thinking not just of high-quality news
organizations, but fact-checking sites like Snopes or Politifact -- both real
treasures, in my opinion. However, if you cite either On The Internet, you'll
often receive the response: "Pshh please. [Fact-checking site] is totally
biased." This response is, in my opinion, (a) wrong, and (b) very often
offered in bad faith -- an example of the very tactic discussed in the paper
linked above -- but those features don't prevent it from short-circuiting the
"error correction" you're seeking.

So, if enterprises like Snopes and Politifact don't work... how DO you
establish some kind of shared understanding of the world for a very broad
"we"? It's really frustrating!

~~~
PavlovsCat
> how DO you establish some kind of shared understanding of the world for a
> very broad "we"?

I think one can't undo decades of living in a completely separate social
millieu, even in the same city in the same generation, by pointing at a
website. How much less so when people come from different parts of the
country, or even neighbouring countries, or even are from different
continents. It takes time, and patience, and a lot of getting it wrong and
still not giving up.

It also helps to not drift apart in the first place. How many people are
ignored or even mocked for being not so intelligent or other issues -- until
they "become a problem", or rant at people on the bus, and then the other
people can't figure out why they have no way to reach them, a person who they
didn't even see until they became a problem. At that point it may or may not
be possible anymore, but it didn't _begin_ at the point where it became too
problematic for us to ignore.

Heck, how often do "stupid" people get gleefully blamed for being gullible and
getting exploited? A lot of things that are shrugged off with "makes business
sense" do hurt real people, pile on real bitterness onto a life that may
already be hard enough. The bitterness doesn't disappear just because it's
ignored or even censored, to the contrary.

I would say that we didn't lose goodwill and solidarity towards each other
because of language, differing sets of agreed on facts, but we somehow shed
our goodwill and solidarity, and then used language to try and cover it up.
Now language is losing its power, facts cease to matter, wise or knowledgeable
people command no respect -- but that may be more a symptom than a cause.

To put a sharper point on it: when clever slogans were still useful to get
people in line and to exploit them systematically, the intelligentsia didn't
exactly scream bloody murder and went on strike, it for the most part went
along. So now factuality doesn't matter anymore, tribes and slogans do.
Predictably, understandably so. This cannot be repaired without acknowledging
intellectual dishonesty, and misdeeds against "the common man", something
neither government or corporate or intellectual elites seem to be prepared to
do in earnest.

> They who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness.

\-- John Milton

Yet I can talk with a person and not be able to follow their argument at all,
or flat out disagree with that they consider to be fact, but still know from
their body language and past interactions that they have goodwill towards me.
If I also feel goodwill towards them and they know that, we may not "learn"
something from each other that day, but even then that conversations can be a
pleasant experience that increases our familiarity and sympathy. If I just act
standoff-ish until I'm convinced the other person is thinking all the right
things, I'll never get anywhere.

Think how even animals of different species sometimes can form friendships and
arrangements without exchanging a single abstract concept. Or how small kids
that don't speak the same language might still play and build together just
fine (the awkwardness and getting hung up on pointless stuff seems to come
later in life), and how we learn language in the first place just based on
some basic trust and being allowed to experiment. If you have the mutual
goodwill, it's not complex, it happens "by itself". Without it, it gets
complicated or even impossible. And I think it stands to reason that the
stronger, wealthtier, more knowledgeable etc. party should always be expected
to be more generous and more patient, and offer goodwill by default, even when
its not reciprocated yet.

My 2 cents, etc.

------
jedharris
Great model! Simple enough to understand, fits a lot of recent phenomena.
Scary implications, but we should be able to respond effectively.

Unexpected but good to see Schneier doing this kind of work.

------
zyxzevn
I disagree, but I see the problems totally different. That is because I don't
see the US as a democracy but as an oligarchy.

The whole problem with US implementation of democracy is that the actors are
centralized around a system that encourages corruption. The corruption is due
to the power and money that is governing politics.

And this again causes secrecy to hide the differences between the advertised
politics and real practices. And to hide problems and responsibility within
the political decisions.

The corruption and secrecy again causes the media to publish on actors in a
very biased way. It is even seen as bad to be positive or unbiased on the
policies or events. If something goes wrong it is always the other's fault.

The media earns now money by presenting the stories to support certain
opinions and ideas. Not by presenting the complex and multifaceted reality.
This is emphasized by the two party system. And sometimes also by the CIA
propaganda system that is still active.

This goes so far that there is a lot of staging of the presentation of events.
Which makes the news far more dramatic. But it also makes it fake, whether the
story really happened or not. The media also tends to emphasize minor
problems, just to trigger emotional reactions.

And then there is the problem of the over-militarization of the US government
and its foreign policies. This is visible in the excessive amount of money
going into this. And the huge amount of money lost in it. This gives the
problem that the military and their corrupt sponsors rule the politics,
instead of the people that are part of the democracy. It is also the reason
why the military (&CIA) controls the media narrative on foreign politics so
strongly.

The first step would be to get the money out of the politics.
[http://represent.us](http://represent.us) has a good way of doing that.

The media circus can be stopped by allowing more factions/parties and
different viewpoints simultaneously. But that means stepping away from the
two-party idea. That way different opinions become less hostile against each
other. Separate military propaganda from the news. Now it is completely mixed
up, because the military don't want to be unmasked.

That is opposite of what the paper seems to be stating.

"Stable autocracies will have common knowledge over who is in charge and their
associated ideological or policy goals". In Europe the democratic parties have
clear ideologies and goals. In the US this is not so much.

In the US it is clear that democrats or republicans are in charge, but neither
represent the people. Both represent the companies and organizations that pay
them.

If you want people to get more informed and involved with democracy, you need
to decentralize the democracy. Make local people's votes count. And give
people more autocracy/ self responsibility. That works in countries like
Switzerland. In the US there is also a lot corruption on local levels. Give
the people power and knowledge to stop that! That is democracy.

A major problem in the US is that many want to control how others live. They
want to control what drugs they use, or how they reproduce (or not). Who pays
for who. Often mixed with people paying money to certain companies and
monopolies. This is politics directly against self-responsibility. Instead the
politics should be directed towards cooperation and build-up in a way that
encourages self-responsibility.

This is also represented in the information. Spread information that is self-
responsible and cooperative, instead of information that is controlling,
biased and/or emotional. For example: Wikipedia (even with its errors) helps
the people around the world understand most of the world. But certain biased
information sources also give information of how other people may be thinking.
That way we understand each other, by learning more.

This is also complex and multifaceted. But it is something that people are
very much interested in dealing with themselves.

I do not have a good idea, how the excessive military expenses and its
influences can be reduced.

~~~
zzzcpan
Manufactured consent and money in politics are more like symptoms of a deeper
problem of centralized wealth. As long as megacorps are allowed to exist and
dominate markets and getting super rich in general is allowed, could there be
enough competition and interest to pursue fairer distribution of power and
wealth through democratic means? Probably not, everyone with some wealth and
power would be against it. But this does happen. In some countries certain
industries are very competitive and cause people to organize and lobby to
protect competition and defend the industry from power grabs, not letting
centralization of wealth to take its course.

So it's more like unrestricted predatory capitalism is what destroys all those
democratic ideas.

------
gumby
Are words like "epistemology" (or "philosophy") scary for American students
(or teachers?). French and German kids have _philosophie_ or _Ethik_ from an
early age.

------
johnchristopher
The confidence attack has a patch: drop electronic voting.

------
tareqak
I don't know why nbp234's comment with the link to Bruce Schneier's blog is
dead, but I think it is pretty valuable, so I'll post it again:
[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/propaganda_an...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/propaganda_and_.html)

~~~
dexen
Meta: if a post is dead due to flagging / banning, but you find it valuable,
you can "vouch" for it. With several (perhaps one?) users vouching, the post
is back from dead.

Click on the "30 minutes ago" link next to a dead post's author name to view
this individual post, and now a "vouch" link should be available. Click it to
perform _vouching_ , done.

This function not available for some users, depending on karma threshold and
perhaps other factors.

~~~
pc86
I've never vouched for a post and had it not come back so I think when the
account is shadow-banned at least it only takes one vote. I also very rarely
vouch for it's possible there are additional factors at play.

------
liftbigweights
Ironic considering SSRN is owned by Elsevier, which is renown for trying to
limit/control information for profit.

It even published fake journals to spread "fake news" ( aka ads ) for the
pharmaceutical industry.

"The company has fought legislation designed to open up academic research,
offered scholars money to file positive reviews, sued libraries for
oversharing, and allegedly published fake journals on behalf of the
pharmaceuticals industry."

[https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/when-
the...](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/when-the-rebel-
alliance-sells-out)

------
peterwwillis
Democracy is doomed, but not because of advanced attacks.
Autocracy/nationalism/monarchy/etc are just the natural order of human
societies. We've had a good run, but so did the Greeks and Romans.

~~~
deogeo
Isn't nationalism orthogonal to democracy? How are they opposed?

~~~
wahern
It's sort of like gimbal lock: when a particular social movement becomes so
pervasive and powerful the mechanisms of government become dangerously aligned
and you lose the ability of the political system to perform an important
function, namely defend itself and minorities from the tyranny of the
majority. Remember, part of the design of separation of powers is that
institutions must retain the ability _and_ motivation to compete for power. If
the motivation is gone the ability becomes at risk--either by atrophy or by
one institution making power grabs that go unchallenged by others institutions
or by the people. Discord is, to an extent, a feature, not a bug.

Hugo Chavez was a nationalist that was popularly and fairly elected multiple
times until, eventually, the elections weren't actually fair anymore and the
institutions of government were irreparably corrupt.

Nationalist movements aren't the only the way this can naturally occur, but
it's perhaps the most common in the past two centuries.

~~~
njrc9
Your comment reminds me of Machiavelli’s work “Discourses on Livy” in which he
writes, among other things, that discord (between the nobility and the common
people) produced the liberty enjoyed by the Roman Republic. Machiavelli’s
views on republicanism are very insightful, in my opinion, and offer an
understanding of democratic government that may be more prospective of being
actualized than what appears to be proposed in much of today’s discourse on
democracy.

By the way, I came across one of your HN comments in the past
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18127353](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18127353))
and immediately was impressed by your thinking. Ever since, I look forward to
seeing your comments on HN. If you are interested, I would be greatly
interested in hearing more of your thoughts expressed in the aforementioned
comment of yours. My email is njrc900[at]gmail[dot]com

