Direct Democracy
In this section we try to inspect briefly, how would the discoveries of the scientific dualism affect the political aspects of a rationally (re)constructed society. First, the (potential) confirmation of the reincarnation would of course have an immense impact on the way, how we think about the equality of the humans, because it would become clear that this equality is actually only existent at the very first and at the very last stage of the individual development processes. We all started our development procedure at the levels of the animals, and we all will evolve into gods at the end of this process; but in the meantime there are enormous divergences observable between the various individuals, since almost infinite numbers of possible development paths can be constructed and followed, and each person has its own personal route (determined mainly by the circumstances and experiences of its incarnations), and even in relation to its own route is each individual differently located at a certain time. To illustrate this situation, let's suppose, that we have a group of travelers, who all start their journeys from the same point, and who all will end it at the very same finishing place, but who take different paths with varied speeds to reach this destination: a small group advances quickly in the most direct way, others are slower and wander hither and thither, and there are also those, who even do not really want to begin the journey and sit down already at the starting place. Can we say that these travelers are at the same level, that they are equal concerning there positions in relation to the final destination? Obviously not; they are equal in the meaning, that they all start from the same origin and will reach the very same goal, but they have different paces and follow different routes, which makes their progress almost individually distinct and their current phase at a certain time nearly completely unequal.
Our everyday experiences show clearly, that there are persons with definitely more and others with less developed capabilities, that some of them are closer to the level of the gods (or to that of the animals), than the others, that there are superior and inferior life styles and behaviors. Unfortunately, the liberal way of thinking that became dominant after the World War II, has almost completely forbidden (not very liberally) to phrase and to express this common perception, as it sees some kind of fascism in categorizing different individuals and their various ways of lives as having a higher or lower level of perfection. Of course, classifying people by their family names or physical origins into superior and inferior groups, and then eliminating the (supposed) substandard persons in concentration camps is not exactly an intelligent translation of the initial concept (although from the aspect of the reincarnation much less tragical, than the materialistic liberals tend (almost hysterically) to assert, because these individuals (most probably) have already been reborn since then, moreover possibly as citizens of Western Europe, Israel or the USA, and hence they potentially live much better lives now, than they would have had in the Eastern Europe of the post-WW2 era (not to mention, that being dead, i.e. existing entirely spiritually, could be even better for a person than living in the Western world)); but this was only a fatal misinterpretation of the original idea (by the way mainly induced by the Jewish-Protestant materialism and the Anglo-Saxon social Darwinism), and a dualistic interpretation of this concept (where the individuals are categorized by their earlier existences and experiences, and the inferior persons receive from the society extra amount of care and protection together with personalized development plans to make them able to compensate quickly for their shortcomings (originating in the imperfect structure and operation of the societies of their earlier lives)) is much more humanistic and philanthropical, than any "liberal" system with its centrally dictated artifical egalitarianism (doing much more harm than good) could ever be.
Actually, this perception of the classification and the continuous development of the various persons is so normal and common, that we all (even the liberals) follow it instinctively in our everyday lives (e.g. when we start in a company as a novice and then we reach higher and higher levels during the years, or when we begin a hobby and ask repeatedly for the advice of the more experienced colleagues, trying to acquire their knowledge and to become a similarly trained professional), and the politics seems to be the only realm of the modern Western societies, where we do force the (almost completely misunderstood) conception of the equalitarianism, and (being literally frightened of any discrimination) attempt to exclude any type of differences by compelling general categories (or rather one single category) on the diversity and variegation of the entire society. Instead, the exact opposite strategy would be desirable: each person should represent a distinct category on its own with its individual experiences and personality structure, and the discrimination in the society should rather be increased to the extent, where everybody is favored by the community and can enjoy an individual treatment, which takes completely into account this person's current capabilities and shortcomings. For this purpose, a direct democratic system, based on the Internet and the modern telecommunication technologies, and operated with the help of sophisticated psychological and sociological algorithms, could be the most favorable solution, providing the community with the possibility to document its members' life thoroughly, and to follow and supervise mutually the individual and social activities horizontally (instead of the present bureaucratic vertical control), very similar in its operation to the social techniques and mechanisms of the traditional communities, only on a much higher communicational (and consequently also psychosociological) level. As a matter of fact, with the advent of the Internet, the societies now get back the opportunity to reinstall (in an improved manner) those traditional, natural and horizontal community regulation and normalization mechanisms, which were nearly entirely discarded at the beginning of the industrialization in the 18th and 19th century (when the masses moved into the towns and the rural and traditional communities dissolved), and which had to be in the past 200-300 years temporarily substituted by the unnatural vertical state institutions and bureaucratic regulatory techniques (laws, courts, statically hierarchical organizations, etc.) on the one side, and by the (likewise unnaturally) disorganized and emotionally overloaded families on the other side.
A common misconception about the direct democracy seems to be, that it would mean the end of the individuality by forcing each person to accept a community decision suggested by some demagogue on a tumultuous popular assembly, and made by the public anonymously through a general cry. On the contrary, this way of governing is much more characteristic for the mass democracies of today, which are only working (at least to some extent) because of the existence of the international law, the journalism and the academic world; while in an (Internet-based) direct democracy exactly the individuals would be favored against the masses, and the persons would have to take individual responsibilities, for several reasons: 1. there would be no mass events, everybody would make his/her own decision in a quiet room, physically separated from others; 2. each decision could be traced back to its originator and to its supporters, even decades after the actual decision; 3. before each decision, the professional level of any potential supporter could be determined by surveys and tests, and then his/her vote weighted with the result; 4. the algorithms would follow the voting behavior and the feedbacks of the persons, and balance out their influences against each other; 5. and, most importantly, in a direct democracy not general rules and laws would be made, but concrete decisions for concrete problems, and each case would be handled individually. E.g., in a direct democracy, there would be no general law about the taxation level, but instead, when the community needs money for a particular project, collections would be started, and the amounts of the taxation (or aid) would be determined individually (for natural and legal persons) in a multi-phased iteration process, where each person would offer a quantity and the community would accept it or change it, until a final compromise is reached. Similarly, there would be no centrally defined family allowance, but each family should indicate its requirement for an amount and its purpose (or directly for the object needed) one by one through the Internet-based system, and the community could decide, whether it would accept this demand and approve its satisfaction. There would be no (or only minimal) general laws and rules needed, as each personal request would be handled on its own, very similarly to the regulation mechanisms in the traditional societies and in the families. The whole society would be at the same time legislature, executive and judiciary in its entirety, where every day millions and billions of small decisions are made in concrete situations, managing actual problems and difficulties, without the necessity to define general rules and then to apply them at any cost and by subsuming the various actual cases forcefully under these primitive and tyrannical laws in a procrustean manner.
Another misunderstanding about the (direct) democracy seems to be the tendency among their (self-proclaimed) advocates to avoid hierarchical organizations in any case, and to make the public, the community responsible for each decision in its whole. Instead, in a real direct democracy, the hierarchical project organization should be the most common one, as it assures the most effective way of working without the need of endless negotiations, and it provides the possibility of defining individual responsibilities and accountabilities. However, these hierarchical organizations should be dynamically constructed, mostly for only a single project, and even within this time the roles can (and should) be re-sorted and rearranged continuously (even daily, e.g. according to the current dispositions and energy levels), and the satisfaction of each member in the hierarchy with its role and with the present leaders of the project should be constantly monitored, and based on these feedbacks new arrangements suggested. The system should be capable of following any organizational changes immediately, and reflect them in the way, how it manages the communication between the members, and how it allocates the various tasks and jobs.
To illustrate the problem concerning the different interpretations of a decision's democratic quality, let's suppose, that there is a demand to paint a room in a building and the color of it should be determined in a democratic way. Many people seem to think that the most democratic procedure would be to hold a public vote about this, and then the minority should accept the decision of the majority. Of course, we can call this procedure a democratic (or even the most democratic) one (as this interpretation has a long (particularly negative) tradition in the political philosophy), and there is no real sense of arguing over words; but it seems certain that the main cause of not having even today, with the Internet and the modern communicational technologies in our hands, a truly democratic society, is exactly this interpretation, which renders every single "democratic" decision a nightmare as well technically as psychologically (just see as a recent example for this the rise and fall of the German Pirate Party). Instead, in a rationally democratic system, each decision should be made (as quickly as possible) by one certain member of the community, and (s)he personally must take the full responsibility for that, even years or decades after the actual decision. Of course, if (s)he feels that (s)he needs a vote or survey about the public opinion to have an orientation for his/her decision, or to justify it later, then (s)he can hold this vote (through the Internet-based system), but the responsibility is inevitably his/her personally. E.g., in the example above, one single individual (designated by the algorithms of the system) should decide, which color will have the room, and a public vote could only play the role to support this person in its decision, while personally (s)he will be responsible for the choice (registered and documented by the managing system), and can be called to account for it even years later. In this solution not the endless referenda and public votes, but the high number of the necessary decisions, the advanced feedback opportunities and the continuous rotation in the hierarchical organizations would assure that everybody can assert his/her own rights and benefits (very similarly to the operation of the traditional societies and the families).
An important question concerning the direct democracy is about the possibility and the actual way of its inauguration. Of course, it cannot and also should not be installed from one day to another, and also it would be the improper order to destruct the current, vertical state institutions at first, and then to start mulling over the idea of a new, Internet-based society (as e.g. many young people during the Arab Spring seemed to think). Instead, first the institutions and the solutions of the direct democracy should be created and installed, and then the two organizations (the bureaucratic and the civil one) would live and operate side by side for a longer time (for decades or even for centuries), mutually changing and fructifying each other, until the differences between the two completely vanish, and the bureaucratic organization becomes dynamical, direct and Internet-based, while the civil society evolves into a professional and serious community managing system. E.g., regarding the judiciary functions in the society, a parallel (Internet-based) system could be established, which would be used by the community to follow the various cases, to review the court decisions and to produce own resolutions as well; at some point (when the civil system is already sufficiently sophisticated for this), the persons could obtain the right to choose between the "official" court and the community decisions in certain types of cases, and then the number of these case types could continuously increase, until all (or the most) disputes can be resolved by the civil society, and only a minimal bureaucratic judiciary system would be needed. Or, concerning the taxation rules, a parallel civil monitoring system should be installed and operated, which would provide the community members with the opportunity to follow the various taxes imposed by the state on a personal basis, and to determine individually the taxation levels, which they would see as fair ones; after some time, the government would most probably be compelled to integrate these informations into the official taxation solution, and eventually the two systems would be completely amalgamated. Or, to give a final example, regarding the legislative functions each law (or even each separate paragraph of it) should become evaluable by the community, and on the other side the civil society should work out own parallel systems to regulate community processes (e.g. with the help of psychological and sociological algorithms); at some point, the legislature would be forced to accept many of these civil normalization procedures (at first temporarily or for certain activities), and finally the two systems could be integrated into one Internet-based, democratic and professional solution.