Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#1 Old 5th Mar 2014 at 6:58 PM Last edited by Zarathustra : 8th Mar 2014 at 5:53 AM.
Default Democracy- The Worst Form of Government (Except for All the Others?)
For many political leaders in today’s world, democracy (or the appearance of democracy) is what they choose to strive for in their political decisions, so it would seem like democracy must be the best form of government, right? Yet Winston Churchill, esteemed historical leader of a democratic nation, is famously quoted as saying that “Democracy is the worst form of government… except for all the others.”

When you get back to ancient philosophy, democracy is almost a laughable concept (yes, even in ancient Greece). Empires and monarchies were the norm, and even those that were democratic, like early Rome or Athens, usually functioned as republics and empires, where the aristocracy were the only ones considered to be citizens, and they held all the power and ruled over huge populations of slaves, artisans, laborers, and other non-citizens.

Even figures like Plato, so often touted as a great political visionary, were not remotely in favor of the kind of democracy we like to imagine them practicing. Plato’s most famous work, The Republic, proposes a government structured according to class, with the famous Philosopher Kings having absolute authority over the affairs of the state (and even suggests lying to the lower orders, to keep them docile and complacent).

Modern political philosophy tends more towards supporting democracy or democratic systems (yes, there is a difference) than ancient and classical philosophy did, but even within the realm of modern thought there are still plenty of undemocratic ideas proposed (and in some cases, enacted.)

Friedrich Nietzsche proposed a society predicated on the use and abuse of the many to hasten the growth of what he called the ubermensch, a “superior” form of humanity, and Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are (in)famous for proposing communism as a new way of structuring society, where citizens would strive for the betterment of their entire society instead of for personal gain (it looks a LOT better on paper than it ever has in practice).

If you care to look at other philosophers throughout history, you’ll find a myriad of proposed systems of government, from people we hold up today as visionaries, who would laugh in your face if you suggested giving power to ALL the people. Democracy may be “the flavor of the month,” but it’s certainly not the only idea out there.

For a debate, there obviously needs to be a question of some sort posed, so here it is- if you could re-launch society using whatever system of government you chose, what kind of society would you create? And why? (and yes, you can absolutely make a democracy if you want, but you need to be able to justify it too!) Also, please keep things in the abstract as much as you can- I don't want anyone getting into trouble by plotting a revolution here!
Advertisement
Top Secret Researcher
#2 Old 5th Mar 2014 at 7:58 PM
I would make a meritocracy, where people are judged by merit.

The problem with a democracy is that electing leaders is either a popularity contest or people don't care enough to do anything besides vote with their party. With a meritocracy, anyone who wants to be elected to a government position would be tested to see how well they hold up under stress, how likely they are to become corrupt, their problem-solving, anything else. Only the best get elected and the results should be open for all to see (except the candidates).
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#3 Old 5th Mar 2014 at 8:47 PM
I really wouldn't take anything Churchill said too literally.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#4 Old 5th Mar 2014 at 11:17 PM
Haha, fair enough! Still, whether he was being serious or not, he made an interesting point... democracy still leads to some pretty strange (and according to many people, bad) situations. Another quote that you can take seriously or not, as you choose, is "The best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter." Serious or not though, you can't deny that there are plenty of examples of people in a democracy who have no idea what they're doing, and no clue whether their votes are doing more harm than good. Keeping these people from influencing the system is decidedly undemocratic, but it's also entirely conceivable that it would lead to a better society, even for the people who no longer participate. A somewhat cliche political adage is that the best and most effective system of government is a benevolent dictatorship. From time to time, there are examples of situations like this in history (the "good" roman emperors being the most obvious example), so it CAN work- it just often doesn't. What I'd hope to see in an idealized society is some system put in place so that dictatorship doesn't become a hereditary or favoristic dynasty, but instead passes power between leaders who see their position as a way to enrich the state, rather than themselves. The closest theory that's been put forward like this is the Kallipolis that Plato suggested, but IMHO, that carries with it too much two-thousand-year-old political baggage. A Kallipolis for the 21st Century, I suppose, would really be what I'd hope to see.

And Hugbug993, I agree with your assessment of elections as often devolving into popularity contests, but how do you avoid that in your idea of a meritocracy? If in the first stage, as you said, the people test their candidates to decide who has merit, how does that keep that first ballot from being a popularity contest too, and how does it then not just render the actual election moot? I like the idea of making sure that power stays in the hands of those most qualified to use it, but I'd argue that letting the people choose who that person is is really no different than the system we have now, and it would quickly end up with the same disappointing results.
Top Secret Researcher
#5 Old 5th Mar 2014 at 11:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Zarathustra
And Hugbug993, I agree with your assessment of elections as often devolving into popularity contests, but how do you avoid that in your idea of a meritocracy? If in the first stage, as you said, the people test their candidates to decide who has merit, how does that keep that first ballot from being a popularity contest too, and how does it then not just render the actual election moot? I like the idea of making sure that power stays in the hands of those most qualified to use it, but I'd argue that letting the people choose who that person is is really no different than the system we have now, and it would quickly end up with the same disappointing results.


I agree; I'd suggest that the testing be blind or even double-blind. You know the results, but you don't know who they belong to.

I wouldn't necessarily have elections. The results are available just to assure the people and minimize corruption in the testers. Preferably, the candidate who scores the highest automatically gets the position, though no candidate will be all-around better than another. I'd suggest allowing the people to vote on which qualities have the most weight, then score the candidates through that information. (This, of course, would happen before testing starts and that information would not be available to the candidates until after testing completes) So if, say, the nation comes under attack, a decisive leader might be most important. Or if an energy crisis happens, problem-solving could be needed most.
Scholar
#6 Old 5th Mar 2014 at 11:56 PM
I think I might have to disagree with you on this one, if anything, our government should be getting more transparent. What's the purpose of even voting if you don't know who you're voting for? No matter where you start there's going to be popularity at some point because we can't have every single American (over the age of 35) citizen's name on the ballot when voting. If there's two to select from and we don't know which one is which, how are they chosen? Who gets chosen to choose these people? What do you consider a "merit"? Some consider legalizing abortion and SSM equal rights, while opponents consider opposing it "Traditional Values." If our "values" always stayed the same we'd still have slavery, so how/why would the merits change? Also, if someone is bad under pressure what says that they can't be a genius that could fix every American's problem. How do you test these things? How do we know the test scores aren't false?

While, I agree that we should have more qualified leaders, I just have so many questions about a "meritocracy" it's making my head spin.

EDIT: To clarify, I think the Republic we have in the U.S. could be much improved, but it's still the best government modern history has seen yet.

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#7 Old 6th Mar 2014 at 1:00 AM
Hugbug, what I see your suggestion as would be kind of a cross between the Kallipolis (the society Plato proposed in the Republic) and certain aspects of the Roman Republic- is that about right? Where you’d basically find some way to select those members of a society who were best suited to rule, and put them in that position? I’m curious how you structure that leadership once you’ve selected people too. Do they have a choice whether to rule or not? Are there terms in office, or are they just appointed permanently? I’m not sure how I feel about the emergency leader position you suggest though… it seems like that just opens the door for abuse. I’d argue that a limited group of people would still be able to act quickly and decisively, while still providing a check against any one member being able to game the system to their absolute advantage.

And Blake, I agree with your assessments about how this kind of system wouldn’t work if it was to be enacted in the world today- I don’t see any path from what we have now to a system like this either. That doesn’t mean that it’s not worthy of a theoretical exploration though… It’s obviously not a democratic solution, but that’s kind of the point- a democracy isn’t the only option out there, or even necessarily the best! I’d mostly agree that it’s the best we’ve seen in the real world, but that’s no reason to assume that it is the be-all and end-all of human society. Even a true republic is hard to imagine coming out of the types of government we see around the world today. So many people are so dedicated to the idea that they participate in their democracy, without really understanding what that responsibility should entail- an actual republic puts the power in the hands of people who theoretically can actually appreciate that. Taking things a step further, as Hugbug seems to suggest, creating a cadre of leaders specifically chosen because they are fit to lead, possibly with no issue of the public’s interest in them, could move the power even further away from the quagmire that so often sucks at the legs of any modern political process.

I know there’s no viable path to get there from here, and trying to would inevitably be a very messy, very bloody business, that’s why the hypothetical I put forward gives you the ability to re-launch society without any concern for the actual current state of affairs. I like dealing with politics in the abstract... trying to change the actual world is too impossibly convoluted and tangled.
Scholar
#8 Old 6th Mar 2014 at 1:49 AM
Okay, well there's nothing wrong with hypothesizing, so I'll think aloud to entertain this idea. Are we allowed to have unlimited funds in this hypothetical endeavor? I'll just assume yes for now, finances can be sorted later I suppose.

So, if I were to relaunch society, I would do my best to take all of the governments we have today and achieve the best of each, because I'm nowhere nearly intelligent or politically/historically educated enough to build my own government from scratch. I think I would start with the U.S. government since I know the most about that (living here my entire life and all.) My first order of business would be to fully legalize same-sex marriage and abortion in every single spot of American soil, no arguing, because hey, I'm dictator. Next, I would enact full anti-discrimination laws to fight against racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and ableism. These seem to be the main areas of focus surrounding SSM as well as abortion and other things.

Next, people need education, and I mean real education and more of it. I'm thinking four, four years schools required minimum. School 1 = 3-8 years of age, School 2 = 8-12 years of age, School 3 = 13-16 years of age, School 4 = 17-20 years of age. University = 20+. University wouldn't be free, but it will be in the $4-5 thousand a year range, not $40-50 thousand a year. School 1, 2 and part of 3 should be solid, primary education. School 4 is preparing the young for jobs and careers they want to have and School 3 can be dedicated to helping children finding what they want to do in School 4. My primary focuses in School 1 would be culture and diversity, every child must be bilingual. School 2 can be expanded into art, healthy living, and more culture. Kids shouldn't be shoved into classrooms to learn things they'll never use outside of televised game shows. We need to teach them things such as how to eat healthy, exercise, balance your checkbook, do dishes, and leadership/socializing skills etc.

Next, ban all use of tobacco. Prohibition will simply not work in current socirty because people already know how to create it, use it, but most importantly, become addicted to it. I would raise the alcohol drinking age to 26, as that is a year past when the brain is done forming in humans, not 21 as alcohol companies may make you believe. Any purchasing of alcohol requires a permit, acquiring a permit means taking and passing a 10-20 week alcohol education class. A permit must be renewed once every 8 years, otherwise it expires. You could apply for an alcohol permit on your 26th birthday. Alcohol permits will not be given to anyone above the age of 80, pregnant, or has a small child. Pregnant women will not have their permit revoked while they're pregnant, because enforcing this rule would be far too tedious, but drinking while pregnant will be covered in the alcohol education course.

Next, ban of all tanning beds and spas. Simple as that.

Change the adult age to 20. Voting age can stay at 18, however.

Marriage will be between any two consenting adult (20+) but, anyone who wants a marriage license is heavily encouraged to take a marriage education course, and a following one once every 5-10 years.

Raise the minimum wage to something about $11 per hour, nobody working full time should live in poverty. Anyone who is unemployed (and wants a job) can go to an unemployment center, which will be much more heavily funded.

Contraceptives are free and available to anyone above the age of 18 at any hospital.

Okay, so I'm running out of ideas, but I'm sure I'll think of some more later.

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#9 Old 6th Mar 2014 at 6:20 AM
OK, valid goals for once your new government is in power, but what government are you going to install to achieve those goals? Specific goals like that, you can work towards in the political systems present in the world today, but what I'm most interested in is the new (or old) framework you think would be best to achieve those ends. Basically, what system of government would you enact- dictatorship, oligarchy, republic, democracy, plutocracy, anarchy, that kind of thing? You're not necessarily setting yourself up as dictator (though you can if you want, just explain why!), you're really putting yourself into the role of a political philosopher or a founding father-type figure. So really, I'm more interested in your answers to questions like how would you structure society, and why do you think it's better than what exists today? Do you trust the people to make decisions for themselves, or do you think that human nature means most people need protection from self-destructive tendencies? Things like that. From the society you suggested, I'm gonna hazard a guess that you'd self-identify on the political left, so if you think the best idea is a framework that tends towards a more social, egalitarian society, or the other leftist idea, an authoritarian society of enforced equality, how would you create it, and why would it work?

I'd also add that I'm mostly interested in this as an intellectual exercise- I studied politics at university, and my fellow students and I would spend quite a while designing different systems of government to achieve different societal ends, just to study what worked and what didn't from different political ideas, and to help us come up with new ideas of our own (and, let's be honest, because it was more fun than working on an essay would have been anyways! , so while I'd tend towards an authoritarian, oligarchic framework if I were to set things up (like the Kallipolis), it fascinates me to see what other constructs people can come up with.
Top Secret Researcher
#10 Old 6th Mar 2014 at 3:58 PM
Quote: Originally posted by BlakeS5678
I think I might have to disagree with you on this one, if anything, our government should be getting more transparent. What's the purpose of even voting if you don't know who you're voting for? No matter where you start there's going to be popularity at some point because we can't have every single American (over the age of 35) citizen's name on the ballot when voting.


There's no voting. Well, you vote about which qualities are most important to you in a candidate, but not for the people themselves. The purpose of hiding the candidates' identities is to prevent any unfairness.

Quote:
If there's two to select from and we don't know which one is which, how are they chosen? Who gets chosen to choose these people?


Way I see it, anyone who wants to be in charge can put their name forward. People with criminal records (violent crimes and white-collar crimes, not parking tickets and such) get filtered out. There should be testing centers in all major cities. The first few stages of testing should filter out the majority of people. Once only a few people are left, they get moved to a special facility.

Quote:
What do you consider a "merit"?


Anything that would help the candidate succeed in their position. If they have a good track record in another governmental position, that would be a merit. If they have grace under pressure, that would be a merit.

Quote:
Some consider legalizing abortion and SSM equal rights, while opponents consider opposing it "Traditional Values." If our "values" always stayed the same we'd still have slavery, so how/why would the merits change?


Like I said, people would vote for the merits that they want their candidates to have.
Also, I would build the right to have abortion and SSM into the government's constitution. And frankly, I like all your ideas, but I'm more focused on the structure of government than the things it'll do.

Quote:
Also, if someone is bad under pressure what says that they can't be a genius that could fix every American's problem. How do you test these things? How do we know the test scores aren't false?


If they're bad under pressure but great at problem-solving, then their test scores will reflect the latter. It depends on whether the people want the latter more than the former.
Testing will put them under a battery of simulations - some obvious, some hidden, some that not even the testers will know is a test - and they will be adjusted for accuracy.
Everything will be transparent except the identity of the candidate. After testing is over, all records will be released to the public. There should be video records of each test, so people can watch what happens.

Quote: Originally posted by Zarathustra
Hugbug, what I see your suggestion as would be kind of a cross between the Kallipolis (the society Plato proposed in the Republic) and certain aspects of the Roman Republic- is that about right? Where you’d basically find some way to select those members of a society who were best suited to rule, and put them in that position? I’m curious how you structure that leadership once you’ve selected people too. Do they have a choice whether to rule or not? Are there terms in office, or are they just appointed permanently? I’m not sure how I feel about the emergency leader position you suggest though… it seems like that just opens the door for abuse. I’d argue that a limited group of people would still be able to act quickly and decisively, while still providing a check against any one member being able to game the system to their absolute advantage.


What emergency leader position? I was talking about how the people might vote for different merits if their situation changes. If they get attacked and there's an election, they might want a leader who scores high in decisiveness.
Already answered the question of choice.
The US's system of checks and balances is a good idea. There should be several different leaders representing different parts of the government or public concerns.

Quote:
I know there’s no viable path to get there from here, and trying to would inevitably be a very messy, very bloody business, that’s why the hypothetical I put forward gives you the ability to re-launch society without any concern for the actual current state of affairs. I like dealing with politics in the abstract... trying to change the actual world is too impossibly convoluted and tangled.


Not necessarily bloody. I've often thought about how to take over the world without bloodshed and using our current level of technology. It should be manageable.
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#11 Old 7th Mar 2014 at 2:37 AM Last edited by Zarathustra : 8th Mar 2014 at 6:06 AM.
OK, I can see what you're getting at a lot better now. I like where you're going with this- and I can actually see something like it being enacted in the real world without it being too much of a revolution! I'd kind of question building some things into the constitution or charter for this society though... I agree with you 100% that same-sex marriage and the like should be protected, but I think putting a provision that specific into the foundation of a society opens up more problems than it really addresses. I think broad strokes, like the 14th Amendment to the US constitution, are the way to deal with those kinds of questions (assuming you have some way to ensure that the intention of that provision is actually carried out, and not subjected to the ridiculous nit-picking about what groups are protected and which aren't that we sometimes see today.) I'd also agree that the structure of a government is a much more interesting question than the laws that a government passes- the government itself is much more enduring (theoretically) than most of its laws, and much more open to abstract interpretation.

I'd still ask how you divide up power between the leader(s) in your nation (I'm guessing you're looking at a division of power between many leaders, instead of a system like so many nations have with a president or king, open to so much corruption.) My initial understanding was that you were thinking of something like the dictatorship in the Roman Republic, though now I guess that's the wrong impression... That's probably where most of my designs run into trouble too- you need some sort of emergency provision to deal with dramatic and unexpected situations, but at the same time, you need to make sure that it's not open to exploitation by unscrupulous members of your government...

Most of my designs actually sound like they'd be taken right from a Tea-Party conservative's worst nightmare- I like a strong central authority, much less answerable to the whims of the populace than most "democracies" of today are. At the most extreme, I like the idea of finding people best suited for leadership (I haven't worked out the best way to do that, exactly) and put them into a position of leadership, regardless of the public's opinion of them (or maybe even the person's interest in government themselves. If I can be forgiven the use of a Klingon proverb [yes, I'm a Trekkie] from Kahless the Unforgettable, "Great men do not seek power- they have power thrust upon them.") I've also noticed that, barring the possibility of a world government of any kind, most of my systems wouldn't really be practical in a large country like the USA... without regional autonomy, I think a nation will have to be limited to the size of larger European countries. Any bigger, and it would be difficult to create policies that would be effective across the entire state.

I've often tried to come up with viable ways to create a worldwide state too (it's a fun supervillain pastime) and while some of them can be less violent than many revolutions and civil wars that the real world has seen, I've yet to come up with any way to get around the fact that there are ALWAYS people who are vehemently opposed to any change in the status quo. I'm genuinely really curious- how would you see that working?
Top Secret Researcher
#12 Old 7th Mar 2014 at 8:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Zarathustra
OK, I can see what you're getting at a lot better now. I like where you're going with this- and I can actually see something like it being enacted in the real world without it being too much of a revolution! I'd kind of question building some things into the constitution or charter for this society though... I agree with you 100% that same-sex marriage and the like should be protected, but I think putting a provision that specific into the foundation of a society opens up more problems than it really addresses. I think broad strokes, like the 14th Amendment to the US constitution, are the way to deal with those kinds of questions (assuming you have some way to ensure that the intention of that provision is actually carried out, and not subjected to the ridiculous nit-picking about what groups are protected and which aren't that we sometimes see today.) I'd also agree that the structure of a government is a much more interesting question than the laws that a government passes- the government itself is much more enduring (theoretically) than most of its laws, and much more open to abstract interpretation.


My thought on the exact wording would be "If two people are above the age of consent and all parties agree to the marriage without false pretenses or coercion, they are able to wed." It covers both SSM and polygamy (the "all parties" thing, which also prevents polygamy without the consent of all spouses).

Quote:
I'd still ask how you divide up power between the leader(s) in your nation... you need some sort of emergency provision to deal with dramatic and unexpected situations, but at the same time, you need to make sure that it's not open to exploitation by unscrupulous members of your government...


I'd probably do a checks and balances system, but include provisions for emergencies. My current idea of power division goes something like this:
Figurehead: the representative of the nation to other nations, assuming we don't conquer the world. In charge of ambassadors and foreign relations. Might also be in charge of domestic relations and serve as a rallying point for the citizens. Like the president, except without the military power.
Ubergeneral: in charge of the military. Specifically, hir duties include maintaining an effective military force. Deployment of military forces will not happen without a majority vote by all the leaders.
Fiscal: this person is in charge of the country's finances. Hir main duty is to ensure that everything is paid for and to promote economic growth. However, each government expenditure will be available to the people. If they're paying for something stupid (like a million dollars for free soda for criminals), then the people can ask for a majority vote by the other leaders. If there's a discrepancy, the Fiscal leader will have all hir assets seized until it's figured out. Also, each expenditure will fall under the domain of another leader. Any time one of the leaders wants to spend money, they and the Fiscal leader must work together. If the Fiscal leader wants to do something, they need to work with whoever's in charge of that domain.
Municipalities: This person keeps the water and electricity flowing. Since it's too problematic to have anything but a monopoly of certain industries, like municipal water, this leader makes sure everything's running smoothly. They're also responsible for large public services, like renovating roads, building new freeways, keeping up the parks, etc. Basically, the Leader of the small but important things.
I thought about making a general Safety position, but I think that would cover too much ground. So the divided Safety Leaders are:
Environmental: all about keeping things green. This person will be in charge of researching and implementing earth-friendly policies, as well as blocking or mitigating unhealthy decisions. For instance, finding ways to generate power without burning carbon or oil.
Medical: National health policies. This person will encourage healthy decisions by the public and raise any health concerns with other leaders' decisions.
Justice: First, I'd like to say that I want to overhaul the legal system. I think that a more effective system would be for an impartial judge to look over all the facts, then make a judgement. The judge doesn't know who the people involved are, just the facts of the case. No ridiculous "if two sides fight, good will prevail!" mentality. We might as well go back to fights to the death where the victor is determined by whatever deity cares. Anyway, the Justice leader will enact policies that cover the legal system and represent it to the other leaders.
Public Safety: This specifically refers to the police system. All police will be tested similar to how leaders are tested to weed out the abusers. I'd also love a system where police work isn't a full-time job - except by the higher-ups - but something that people regularly serve for a few weeks before returning to their regular life. Not sure how realistic or effective it is, though a hybrid system might be optimal. Anyway, Public Safety enforces the laws among the people.

Quote:
I've also noticed that, barring the possibility of a world government of any kind, most of my systems wouldn't really be practical in a large country like the USA... without regional autonomy, I think a nation will have to be limited to the size of larger European countries. Any bigger, and it would be difficult to create policies that would be effective across the entire state.


Not to mention that any dictatorship has the potential for corruption at any stage. The larger your country is, the more people you need to hire to take care of separate parts. Then you either need to trust them or hire people to watch them. If you do the latter, you need to make the same choice with whoever watches them. Depending on how paranoid you are, you could quickly create a huge drain on resources by hiring people to watch each other.

Quote:
I've often tried to come up with viable ways to create a worldwide state too (it's a fun supervillain pastime) and while some of them can be less violent than many revolutions and civil wars that the real world has seen, I've yet to come up with any way to get around the fact that there are ALWAYS people who are vehemently opposed to any change in the status quo. I'm genuinely really curious- how would you see that working?


I figure the best way is to conquer the world through the power of meme. (Yes, I'm serious.)
Memetic mutation is how an idea grows and changes throughout a population. Ironically, the word meme is an example, since it's changed from the way information spreads to cats who can indeed haz cheezeburger. So what you need to do to make information spread is to plant it, then prune it in the direction you want to go. For that, you need to keep some measure of control over it, but it could be manageable if you set yourself up as the authority. Which, incidentally, happens to work with a dictatorial system.
You need a group of people you have influence over. Then, you need to get them agreeing with you on a subject. For instance, our government sucks. So, you tell people that you have a solution to their problem: create your own nation with a new and improved government. In fact, you can actually create a nation with nothing more than an anthem, a flag, a constitution, and a piece of land. Once the first few people agree, more will join in. You have your first citizens.
Then you need to spread out. Find people who have problems and solve them. Unemployment is high in one city? Swoop in and create a bunch of jobs. People in other nations are getting persecuted? Help them escape to other nations. Animal shelter got hit by a pretty bad storm? Help rebuild it and give the critters somewhere to stay. The more good you do, the more exposure your nation gets and the better people think of you. So if you tell them that you're accepting applications for citizenship, they might give the idea some serious weight.
The earlier stages will be difficult. Your nation will need to rely on their parent nation for a lot of things, including electricity, water, groceries, health, police services, etc. However, the bigger your nation gets, the more independence you can gain. If you can afford it, you can send supplies to your citizens that'll help them generate their own power, for example. Eventually, you'll be able to buy businesses and services like hospitals. The better-equipped your nation is, the more citizens you'll be able to attract.
That's what it's all about: attracting people rather than conquering them. Plant the idea and let them come to you. The people who won't be attracted will eventually die out or become a significant minority. In the US, the conservative viewpoint is becoming endangered because the older conservatives are dying out and the younger generations are turning to the liberal viewpoint. And if your nation gives the growing crowd exactly what they want - a chance to start over without dealing with our ancestors' baggage - they will follow you.
The biggest problems I see are in the more religious/less developed nations. However, every nation has voices of change. Recruiting those people and throwing our weight behind them will give their cause a boost.

I could potentially use this to create a meritocracy: make myself a monarch first, then change the structure of government in my later years to ensure that it doesn't die with me. With my experience, I'd probably be able to improve the overall plan to adjust for things I didn't think of before. Plus, I'd be able to change the infrastructure with much less hassle than an oligarchy would have.
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#13 Old 8th Mar 2014 at 5:11 AM Last edited by Zarathustra : 8th Mar 2014 at 6:04 AM.
I dunno, it still seems to me like you're doing a lot of legislating through your constitution, the way you describe things now. Even though I'd write a somewhat different founding document than the US Constitution, I absolutely think one of the biggest and most enduring strengths of it as a document is that it's intentionally very vague. Virtually nowhere does it tell people how to live- instead, it establishes a framework that can hold later, subordinate laws and ideas, and still remain intact even as those later laws and the society that inspired them undergo dramatic changes. As I see it, the more farsighted a document tries to be, the broader the strokes it needs to be constructed in are- that's why the US constitution can still work well nearly 250 years after it was written.

I actually don't like the idea of specialization when it comes to different departments. Obviously it needs to exist to a certain extent, but let's take the military side of things, since that's something every government needs to address, regardless of the system of government it is. Putting any executive authority in a single person is clearly inviting corruption, so let's just toss out that idea right off the bat. I would create a council of 5-10 members to head each agency or department or whatever term you choose, so that no one person can make unilateral decisions on that department's policies. As to the composition of these councils, well, creating a military hierarchy composed only of military experts offers the possibility of a cabal of like-minded individuals to seize power, and it could be hidden from the rest of the government by arguing that "they understand the military better."
To avert the possibility of groups seizing power through taking over their segment of government, I would ensure that each council is composed of a mix of leaders- each one established to be a capable official (no Joe Schmoes in the War Room), but not all necessarily a specialist in that particular field. I think a holistic approach to council membership would help ensure that, whatever the decision of the council, it is made with the best interests of the entire society in mind, instead of just the interest of that particular department.
As far as oversight of these councils go, I turn to a supreme council, with the ability to coordinate the actions of each individual council to avoid their coming into conflict with one another. Ideally, this council would do very little- only intervening when there was a clear problem with one of the lower councils, but their power should be virtually absolute, so that it is well-known that their word is final, and an attempt to subvert it will meet with failure- similar to how the US Supreme Court is the final authority on judicial matters.

I've actually studied memes as a way of spreading information through a population, and I agree with you that it can be one of the most effective methods, so long as it's done properly. The issue that I see with using this strategy to create a consensus about a system of government is that it usually only works when there's something that can whip the population up into a frenzy of support- whether it's a general weariness in society that makes an isolationist stance popular (like the US saw after WWI and seems to be heading into now), or a national victory or tragedy, like the Miracle at Dunkirk or the Sepember 11th terrorist attacks, where the entire nation will rally behind the current government (for a time). Trying to create a rallying point where none existed would seem to me to be a very difficult, if not impossible proposition.
As far as the distribution of these memes go, I turn to a totalitarian regime (fictional, thankfully), as I think a Big Brother type figure would be most effective. Let me be clear, I'm in no way referring to the surveillance state-aspect of this idea, just the idea of creating a face for the government that isn't tied to any real person, and can instead speak for the government as a whole. That way the downfall of a member of the government won't result in a lapse of public trust in the system, since they'll still get their information about the inner workings of the system from the same source as before.
As far as attracting people from another, existing society goes- you don't have to! Remember, I gave you the power to relaunch society with no concern for the way the real world works! That way you don't have to deal with the actual details of the transformation of society from one thing to another, and if you're like me, you won't end up sounding like a supervillain (I think I'm already pushing that, even without proposing ways to actually make this change work). It makes it easier, at least in my experience, to come up with ideas like this if you don't force yourself to be tethered to human history- just limit yourself to human nature. If you look at most classic political philosophy, they start from an imaginary "state of nature," basically just people existing without any social framework, and then the author builds their ideas around pulling people up from that situation.

As far as ensuring stability and flexibility in perpetuity, I would have some method of determining suitable candidates for all key positions (councilships and the like) so that there would always be a substantial pool of reserves available should any seat become vacant for whatever reason. No need for regular elections so long as the same standards are held, just regular study of the population to find suitable candidates who would then be available should the need arise. The larger the pool is, the more representative of the population it would seem, engendering trust in the system.

Realistically though, I think a republic is the most workable system of government we can see today, and changing it this drastically would be a mistake (it never works out the way it's meant too), but that's no reason why pure conjecture can't be interesting!
Lab Assistant
#14 Old 13th Mar 2014 at 3:34 AM Last edited by AzemOcram : 14th Mar 2014 at 2:23 AM.
I think that a good system better than what we have now would include some of these features:
1. More independence on the local level. Let cities, counties, and states have slightly more power than now (almost as much power as they had before the New Deal, which was unconstitutional at first until some slight rewording and new Supreme Court justices were appointed).
2. More direct democracy. Allow every citizen with a social security number to make a special online account that allows them to vote and discuss in an electronic political forum (very much different from mostly anonymous internet forums like this one). Trolling would be virtually non-existent because no one who could participate could have any degree of anonymity. Subsections could be dedicated to different constituencies so that people from Nebraska could not interfere with the politics of Malibu or Miami (though they might be able to be aware of it). Allow every valid voter's initiative (paper or possibly electronic) that does not violate any local laws or the state or national constitution that passes with either a super-majority or true majority to go into effect.
3. Put a new tax on fossil fuels, proportionate to their environmental damage from extraction to burning.
4. Increase minimum wage to include "Nutrition Credits" in them. Every worker, everyone receiving government welfare, and every legal dependent who does not work is given what pretty much amounts to free food. Government food stamps would be done away with as they are now to be included in this new currency. I go into detail here: http://planetrandom.freeforums.org/...edits-t573.html
5. Allow the government to enter into markets where there is either a monopoly or a non-competitive duopoly/triopoly, (much like a crown company in Canada) but where all the employees have a partial stake in the company.
6. Make it illegal for green spaces, wilderness, parks, and agricultural areas to be rezoned into subdivisions, or for every hectare of such natural land turned into subdivisions, 10 hectares must be converted into either back into this type of land or medium (or high) density eco-friendly zoning (LEED bronze or better).
7. Increase education funding (including increasing the quality of K-12 schools and decreasing the cost of tuition of public universities and trade/vocational/community colleges). This will decrease the amount of students going into debt for student loans for tuition and credit cards for day-to-day activities.
8. Build subsidized housing in the form of efficient high density condominiums/apartment complexes with varying levels of comfort and size in every major city. More comfortable ones could be 10% of family's income while less comfortable ones could be $1. Dorm-like apartments could be free of charge.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#15 Old 22nd Mar 2014 at 12:58 AM
I guess my question doesn't make sense, since most of the answers you guys have provided, while certainly interesting, have really been things that you would want to enact under any system of government, or decisions you would likewise hope to make under any system. A discussion of that would certainly be interesting, but I think that would be better suited for the sticky thread on politics, and regardless of whether I like your ideas or not (and I usually do- they're interesting) it's not really what I hoped to hear from people on this thread, so let me try again:

If you could structure society however you wanted, how would your society make decisions for itself, and why would that work? It doesn't matter what those decisions are, I'm just curious how you think a government or a society should arrive at its conclusions.
Instructor
#16 Old 26th May 2014 at 5:40 AM
I can honestly say they are all the same, people claim each other is different but the only difference is the Tories don't hide what they do, they don't butter things up but the others hide it, deny it and butter the people up to stay quiet, it's the same for all other politcal parties around the world, some are obvious some try not to be as obvious but they all work together, one in the same, anyone who cannot tell this needs a reality check asap, voting is a fix just like reality shows and they act out their own plays during debates but really they already know whos going to be in office since they have a higher boss, those who actually run the world. Obviously some people think i'm nuts for saying that too but honestly don't care ether lol but yeh... non of them are different, politicians are just complete idiots who only do things for their own gains, they do not care about us because if they did from the day we were born we would not be forced to live in a society without being given the choice to choose how we REALLY want to live and how we want the world to really be, but instead it's like "This is how it is, live in it, deal with it".

All these political parties just like other clubs and stuff cause nothing but fighting and chaos, there are so many different opinions and so much information going around the world now that it's become hard for people to agree on the same opinions, i see it all the time now, people fighting and arguing this is this and what you say is crap but their views is right, the mere existence of governments and politcs causes so many issues.
dodgy builder
#17 Old 27th May 2014 at 9:27 PM Last edited by Volvenom : 27th May 2014 at 9:43 PM.
The advantage of democrazy is the people in power have to answer to many people, but everyone can be manipulated. That's the core in this "what political system is the best" arguement. In many ways a democrazy is dependent on the education of it's voters. If they are highly educated, they are less likely to fall into traps.

I'm actually quite happy with the system we have in Norway. Like in Greece they complain about the corruption of their politicians, but they elected them themselves. Where I live we elect people to the parlament, and then they elect the government. In my opinion it's quite translucient. According to our constitution they are elected as individuals, even though they form parties. That makes it possible for me to put them in groups, like the a labor representative, but I can still kick him out when I elect people if I like. If many people then elect labor, even if they do untick some people, labor will then have a majority government next 4 years and the parlament won't have much influence. Then again if they screw up we elect conservative wing next time, and they will then have the majority in the parlament. We also have lots of different smaller parties, so they may choose to change sides in some matters, which is what the voters wanted.

Like last election for the parlament we had this lawer who wanted to go polticians. I didn't want him to so I unticked him for the conservative list. It turned out lots of people did, so he didn't get in. I find that rather rewarding as a voter that I'm being listened to. I do have something to say. I don't just select a party and stick to it. For quite some time now Norwegians has got into the habbit of changing government after a couple of periods, so they switch side. Last election I voted labor, turns out I wasn't the only one. Power corrupts, better get some change in there from time to time.

After the war we had labor government for 60 years or something, the labor was a new thing in those days, and a worker didn't elect conservative in those days. Gerhardsen was a primeminister for years. They had this saying "Some of us have been talking together, and reached an agreement". They didn't need no parlament, the conservatives had no saying. It's not good. Making good deals and eat some camels, it's what makes our world tick.

On the question about systems of government. An hereditary system is dependent on the ruler being the right one, a meritocrazy is always dependent on those who make the decitions hasn't been bought, if China can be a meritocrazy which it kind of is ... merit inside the communist party, what about everyone who don't agree?

Those who select the rulers, needs to be able to make sure they stick to what they promised, so I'm happy with our constitution as well, now it's just turned 200 years.
Instructor
#18 Old 28th May 2014 at 2:57 AM
They probably knew you were going to untick him before hand lol it's like here in the UK where they make people constantly go for the other political party, they apparently "mess up" to influence people to "vote" for the otehr running party for whatever other reasons... (nothing ever good), and then people the fools they are suddenly change their minds and start rioting because they are too stupid to understand they are all pretty much the same lol. Even your "voting" opinions is influenced by them just like everything else, you might think your choosing for yourself but your not, i don't vote every for all these reasons because people screw up the world for me i don't have to do anything lol.
dodgy builder
#19 Old 28th May 2014 at 8:09 PM
Norwegians are generally highly educated, and don't like if the politicians try to manipulate them. Sometimes you can choose to think politicians are all scoundrels with no moral, but in the end you're the voter, select people you believe in.

If you're talking about politicians changing sides, that's not something we like either, it makes them look like they have no backbone and can't negotiate deals. We generally like politicians with strong personality, but who can still show a softer side from time to time. John Christian Elden has carved a role for himself as a strong character, and won lots of cases as a lawyer. He's no walkover
Theorist
#20 Old 28th May 2014 at 9:57 PM Last edited by Mistermook : 29th May 2014 at 1:08 AM. Reason: typo
Pardon me, but most people think they're very intelligent, adequately educated, and resistant to manipulation. It's simply not true, I've known morons who were too stupid to manipulate and geniuses who could be swayed by any manner of argument. If it were true that all you needed to change this basic element of human nature was some books and proper training then there'd be no point to all sorts of things - not the least of which is fiction and marketing. With the right tools and talent, anyone can be manipulated.

Now, that doesn't mean you are being manipulated, it just means that presuming that you're somehow immune or less consumed by the natural inclinations of humanity than the rest of the world thanks to some sort of cultural or educational shift is almost certainly bullshit - and honestly, it's the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from someone who's been policed by good propaganda, actually.
dodgy builder
#21 Old 29th May 2014 at 8:59 AM
My answer was intended for Pygsmyemm It's your life, blaming the politicians isn't going to help much.

Most people here take university degree or similar, that's not the case in many other countries. Like in England lots of people are very poor, and the education of the people is important for a good working democrazy. England also has a more indirect election process. If politicians laugh at their voters, but don't want to educate them and the voters laugh of the politicians, but don't look for people they like even though they can ... Blaming and hating never gets you anywhere basically.
Lab Assistant
#22 Old 29th May 2014 at 10:08 PM
My viewpoint still has not changed. I am in strong favor of direct democracies, letting everyone's voices be heard, and making the government bow down to the voice of the people (majority). I also think that areas with different demographics should not have the ability to meddle in the local affairs of others, regardless of how righteous they think they are.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
 
Back to top