Reply to comment

The few would not get away with sanctioning the many unless they had sufficient consent. An important part of the way in which democracy is used to control people is the belief that we have to obey the law and are powerless to do anything about it. Panocracy recognises that we obey the law if we choose to. Either way there may be subsequences. I can choose to disobey the law and risk some sort of sanction. Or I can choose to obey the law and, for example, risk all that might follow from allowing my identity to be taken from me and put on a government database. In other words panocracy supports people taking direct action when they disagree with something and if sufficient people do a law, for example, will fail. This has two effects. One is that those appointed to make decisions will need to seek sufficient consent for those decisions. This means that people will need to feel that, even if they do not agree with a decision, their standpoint has been taken into account and the decision was made in a reasonable way. The other effect was pointed out by Lao-Tzu over 2000 years ago, which is the effect of wu-wei or doing by not doing. By not trying to force people to obey the law they are more likely to feel that it makes sense to do so. This contrasts with the current regime in the UK which results in people only obeying the law because they might get punished if they do not and doing so reluctantly or not at all if they think they can get away with it. (I use the word "subsequences" rather than "consequences" because there is usually not a direct causal relationship between something happening and what follows. I do not cause a policeman to report me if I use a mobile 'phone while driving, nor do I necessarily cause an accident.)