If you could create your own government system?

[JeffersonFawkes]

Panarchy is a political theory that says communists, capitalists, and whatever else someone wants to follow should all be allowed to follow their political ideologies while living side by side in the same state. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. has much more information, but that is the gist of it. For a fun project I'm trying to put together a panarchic constitution that would let people create their own governments while still maintaining a standard quality.

My question is if you could create any kind of government, any system, what would you create? (if I try to poke holes in your theory it is only to test the idea or to point out issues that I ran in to when looking at the same possibility)

[eternaltriangle]

I think you would need some geographic concentration of people for that to work. In that case what you are essentially talking about is federalism, which already exists (and works pretty well).

[Valiyn]

Right now, Minimalism. Although with the added change that a citizen militia would be upheld. Some definitions include this, some don't. A citizen militia being defined as EVERYONE in the country would serve in the militia and would train as an army in the sense of modern "reserved" forces and militia. The downside is the logistics value of this, but it doesn't do more then amplify the already required "quick war" that such a form of government must wage. As such, the real modification I would make is the incorporation of business into the military (a military that would not exist in times of peace, unless you count the police force as some form of this).

[Night Runner]

If I could create my own government system, I simply wouldn't. Greater minds than mine have been working on this problem for millennia. I highly doubt I would succeed where so many others have failed. More than likely, I would overlook at least one flaw that would eventually take the system down.

There are enough government systems out there as it is. Besides, being a ruler means a) having a huge target sign on you at all times (fanatics, political enemies, etc.) and b) having more responsibility and socializing *shudder* than most other people in the world. I would not want such power and instead I'd simply walk away...

[JeffersonFawkes]

You don't have to start from nothing. If you know greater minds have tried than make like Newton and stand on the shoulders of giants.

[Freedom Geek]

A fairly libertarian definitely pro-science/technology government

[JeffersonFawkes]

I think you would need some geographic concentration of people for that to work. In that case what you are essentially talking about is federalism, which already exists (and works pretty well).

Almost but not quite. While there is an overall central power to coordinate the creation of new governments panarchy is a completely experimental approach. The central government in panarchy must be minimalist or it doesn't work. While federalism may have been a lot closer at one point the word underwent an Orwellian style change so that the constitution would be granted powers that people did not want, while the articles of confederation would be completely scrapped rather than just tweaked like they were supposed to be.

Think of this as a business where you pay a company, to provide the services that you need to create a government. Rather than fight with the governments in the same area, you take a neutral stance towards them and every body defends the area so that they can keep the right to maintain the freedom of choice in systems. Also unlike federalism you aren't born in to a system that you don't agree with. As soon as you are able to prove understanding of the laws of the different system you may set up a one year contract with a government community, and you pay "taxes" for the services you want, rather than being charged for "services" you neither asked for nor want. As for communities, look at the various clubs and meetup groups, if there was a group of people that wanted to follow Marx in a club, they could setup the necessary provisions.

I like the system because beyond the basics of no force or fraud (in order to prevent a criminal rising) each legal system is completely voluntary. I want an almost anarchic system, but there are a lot of people that genuinely believe in communism, why should I force my ideals on them? and why should they have to force their ideals on me? a federalist system results in the pushing of ideas on to your fellow man, a panarchic system requires that your fellow man take responsibility for what system he wants to live in and rather than being stuck in it indefinitely he/she signs a contract set to expire after a limited time, this way if the new system was a disaster nobody is stuck that doesn't want to be.





JeffersonFawkes added to this post, 1 minutes and 10 seconds later...

A fairly libertarian definitely pro-science/technology government

Can a government be libertarian if it is taxing people who don't want the experiments that the government is funding?

[eternaltriangle]

I like the system because beyond the basics of no force or fraud (in order to prevent a criminal rising) each legal system is completely voluntary. I want an almost anarchic system, but there are a lot of people that genuinely believe in communism, why should I force my ideals on them? and why should they have to force their ideals on me? a federalist system results in the pushing of ideas on to your fellow man, a panarchic system requires that your fellow man take responsibility for what system he wants to live in and rather than being stuck in it indefinitely he/she signs a contract set to expire after a limited time, this way if the new system was a disaster nobody is stuck that doesn't want to be.


So, could I join the Communist legal system, break the rules, and then decide I didn't like the communist system, without being punished for breaking the law?

(for the record I don't think this is a terrible system, but I do think you would have under-provision of public goods due to free-riding - people could benefit from say charity produced by the socialist system while living in a low-tax libertarian one; but I can see where some people would prefer that outcome to one where people are forced to do things. That for me is the key tradeoff among libertarianish folks: is the provision of some public goods more important than the "no force principle").

[Freedom Geek]

Can a government be libertarian if it is taxing people who don't want the experiments that the government is funding?

While I believe the answer to that could be yes I would still try not to use coercive force to fund the projects where ever possible. For instance one channel to look into would be making the stuff profitable rather than taxing.
Also are we talking about the OP's panarchy governments or normal governments, if the former then I do tax people to fund science; they after all joined voluntarily.

It doesn't look to me that any land based system of the type you are describing would work. Hope the sea steading project succeeds.

[JeffersonFawkes]

While I believe the answer to that could be yes I would still try not to use coercive force to fund the projects where ever possible. For instance one channel to look into would be making the stuff profitable rather than taxing.
Also are we talking about the OP's panarchy governments or normal governments, if the former then I do tax people to fund science; they after all joined voluntarily.

It doesn't look to me that any land based system of the type you are describing would work. Hope the sea steading project succeeds.

I like that approach, and thats why I like panarchy. You would be able to do that without violating my beliefs on the role of government. Charge us for the services we asked for. I would like to sea the sea steading project work out, though so far every previous attempt has not prepared an adequate defense. That still isn't a requirement for panarchy though.

Panarchy is neither land based nor sea based. Its community based. People willing to come together and pool their resources. For an investment or the common good depending on how they prefer to fund it. A panarchic community can be something as simple as a club of people that provide to each other what they view the necessary performance of government to be. In regular times this is just a club of people that are interested in political theory and want to experiment. In more turbulent times it could become a means of salvation.

Just to clarify, this is the type of stuff I think about for fun.





JeffersonFawkes added to this post, 8 minutes and 5 seconds later...

So, could I join the Communist legal system, break the rules, and then decide I didn't like the communist system, without being punished for breaking the law?

(for the record I don't think this is a terrible system, but I do think you would have under-provision of public goods due to free-riding - people could benefit from say charity produced by the socialist system while living in a low-tax libertarian one; but I can see where some people would prefer that outcome to one where people are forced to do things. That for me is the key tradeoff among libertarianish folks: is the provision of some public goods more important than the "no force principle").

You would have to honor all contracts you make. If you break a law that has a contracted punishment than you have already agreed in advance. Whether you change system or not, you will still be responsible for paying what you agreed to pay. If you don't the system could mark you as being someone who does not uphold contracts and thus banish you, and if all your money is held in a system of value that is only accepted by the community make all of that money completely invalid. Even libertarians believe that honoring contracts is vital for the stability of any society.

You are definitely right about it being a trade off. I see self-reliance as freedom. Thats too harsh for many people, many people would much rather have a nanny-state, which is fine, as long as they don't charge me for it. I'll give to charities, but I prefer to do so directly, I don't want Washington getting its cut.

[Synchronicity]

Whatever system I made would be imperfect, and probably not any better than what already exists. The reason for this is obvious: humans are inherently flawed. In a "perfect" world, all political/economic systems would work just fine, but none do, because there's always some way in which they can be corrupted by the pettiness, greed, laziness, or ignorance of individuals. That's just life, folks.

[JeffersonFawkes]

Whatever system I made would be imperfect, and probably not any better than what already exists. The reason for this is obvious: humans are inherently flawed. In a "perfect" world, all political/economic systems would work just fine, but none do, because there's always some way in which they can be corrupted by the pettiness, greed, laziness, or ignorance of individuals. That's just life, folks.

I just can't except that I can't make something better until I have tried. Of course it will be flawed. The question isn't whether what I create is flawed or not, the question will be does it work better.

[Visum]

Have you considered a benevolent dictatorship?

[Night Runner]

Have you considered a benevolent dictatorship?

Like in Terry Pratchett's Discworld?

[JeffersonFawkes]

Have you considered a benevolent dictatorship?

I don't want any power over another person than I wouldn't let them have over myself. Besides C.S. Lewis said that the worse kind of tyranny is the kind that does its deeds for "your own good". It gives the dictator a justification so that they don't have to worry about their conscience getting in the way. Rights cannot be separated from responsibility without it eventually breaking down freedom, so if I take the responsibility of the people from them than I will also take the rights, of course that is only the rules I would want for my own system. If somebody else can get enough people to follow them in to a benevolent dictatorship than more power to them.

In response to the other one, I haven't read any Terry Pratchet yet though from what I hear he sounds like an author I'd like. (Unless of course that wasn't aimed at me) Oh well, lets try not to get too off topic.





JeffersonFawkes added to this post, 6 minutes and 1 seconds later...

Right now, Minimalism. Although with the added change that a citizen militia would be upheld. Some definitions include this, some don't. A citizen militia being defined as EVERYONE in the country would serve in the militia and would train as an army in the sense of modern "reserved" forces and militia. The downside is the logistics value of this, but it doesn't do more then amplify the already required "quick war" that such a form of government must wage. As such, the real modification I would make is the incorporation of business into the military (a military that would not exist in times of peace, unless you count the police force as some form of this).

I like this, just how would you keep it minimalist, and what does that look like. How does it operate, and what will prevent unnecessary expansion?

[Wolfe]

Of course all government will have flaws but this does not mean you can't minimise or eliminate some of the worst flaws. You also cannot look at government from a black and white point of view and say 'if it's not perfect then it's bad'. We have many bad forms of government in this world and some which are better, why then is it so hard for some people to imagine improving on the current government. It's not as if we have reached the pinnacle of governing society. Sorry about the rant but this topic always gets me fired up.


My government would be based on a libertarian principal. The Government would provide all necessary infrastructure, legal systems and schooling. Yet the only form of tax would be income tax. There would be virtually no welfare support from the government (it would exist but only under specific circumstances). In other words you work to support yourself or you die.

It may sound harsh but you do not want lazy, dishonest citizens who rely on the government for everything (this is what is happening more and more under our current government).

Because of this initially the crime rate would increase so you would also need a more severe legal system. Capital punishment would be brought in. Stronger penalties and initially more law enforcers would ‘weed out’ the lazy, dishonest citizens; people would soon learn that they cannot rely on the government for everything. Te beauty of this government is that people can live their lives however they please as long as they don’t harm or disadvantage anybody else.

Please offer me your ideas on this system and point out possible flaws which you can foresee.

[Rudy]

I'm tempted by the idea of a Meritocratic Democracy. Specifically, in order to be given the right to vote, you would have to demonstrate basic knowledge of the workings of the government, international relations, history, economics, etc. Anyone could qualify if they could pass the tests, and the relevant material would be freely available.

[eternaltriangle]

I'm tempted by the idea of a Meritocratic Democracy. Specifically, in order to be given the right to vote, you would have to demonstrate basic knowledge of the workings of the government, international relations, history, economics, etc. Anyone could qualify if they could pass the tests, and the relevant material would be freely available.

I generally dislike this idea, because I think it reflects a flawed understanding of why democracy works. Democracy does not work because the people are smarter and more knowledgeable than experts or say, your average dictator - they aren't. However, people ARE experts in what they want in life. Democracy works because it does a better job of approximating the utility function of the populace than a dictatorship. Excluding people will simply skew the representativeness of the system. But why do people vote for dumb policies? Often this has more to do with collective action problems than stupidity. People prefer policies that are in their best interest, even if the entire raft of policies produced by that kind of voting are bad in the aggregate. Voters free-ride, expecting other groups to make the necessary sacrifices (Eat the rich! Make polluters pay! Not in my backyard! Welfare Queens! Damn those foreigners! Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark! Ici pour Quebec!*)

Rationally ignorant (reading the news is costly, and your individual vote never makes a difference, so it is rational to ignore politics) voters also have a lot of heuristic devices that enable them to vote just as well as informed ones. They may forget why they dislike Bush or Obama, but remember that they dislike Bush/Obama. Nonetheless, they make the same decision as they would if they remembered why. Similarly voters may rely on other more informed people (or be mobilized by interest groups) in order to make their decisions. They can also ignore the issues and try to figure out which candidate is more of a "guy like me". That isn't entirely irrational - often politics involves unplanned events like 9/11. You couldn't know that 9/11 would happen in the 2000 election (unless you were Osama bin Laden) but you could evaluate which candidate would act "better" in such an event. Alternately, many people vote retrospectively, rewarding leaders who have brought good times, punishing those that have brought bad times. You don't need much knowledge to do that.

That is the general conclusion of political scientists. Voters are rationally ignorant (everybody is - I mean knowing the phone number of each congressman might be slightly useful, but not worth the effort required to learn it), but thanks to a range of heuristic devices, this does not undermine democracy.

*That was the slogan of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. It was joked that this was a very accurate slogan since the English translation is "present for Quebec" (the BQ's MO is all about getting presents from English Canada).





eternaltriangle added to this post, 33 minutes and 21 seconds later...

1. Polycentric governance
My own preferred system is some form of polycentric governance. The business of government involves providing a range of public goods, eg. "law and order". However, "law and order" actually involves a number of different tasks - local police, state police, national police, protecting America from spies, etc. The relevant stakeholders in each of these tasks exist at different levels of government. Additionally, there are different returns to scale involved in some tasks that make them ideal for a central government to run, while not in others. Appropriately dividing powers between levels of government improves the quality and responsiveness to local communities of service provision. This is often stifled by things like the arbitrary tendency for us to think only of local, regional or national governance).

2. The task of government
I see four basic kinds of goods that are produced by people (both privately and publicly), based on a typology of whether those goods are consumed by use (does my consumption take away from the total) and excludable (can they be turned into private property): private goods (consumable, excludable; eg. bread); club goods (non-consumable, excludable; eg. cable tv); common pool resources (not excludable, consumable; eg. fish stocks in the sea - but not fish farms) and pure public goods (not excludable, not consumable, eg. national defence).

The production of each type of good (and the things we think of as "healthcare" can involve multiple kinds of goods - disease control is a pure public good, plastic surgery is not) is best performed by different agents.

Private industry does a good job of producing optimal amounts of private goods, as they are responsive to consumer needs. However, private industry produces less than the socially optimal amount of pure public goods because private returns to industry are smaller than social returns in many cases. Here big government is needed. However, we need a mechanism to determine the appropriate tradeoff between public good production, and the necessary loss of some private goods (we need taxes) in order to pay for public goods. Democracy is imperfect, but is probably the best feedback mechanism we have for gauging that trade off. No, we can't actually estimate the utility function of society. I have some suggestions to make it better however, which I will get to.

Common pool resources require regulation, otherwise there will be over-harvesting. These decisions are best left to bureaucrats, largely insulated from the political process. The reason for this is that politicians have 4-year election cycles and are rather short-sighted. They can often gain votes by encouraging over-harvesting. Some limited accountability mechanisms are probably necessary. Club goods can be privately or publicly produced, or regulated for the benefit of consumers. They are essentially a wild card.

3. The least worst selection mechanism
Democracy in general is a fair tool for figuring out the utility curve of society. Politicians are driven by a desire for re-election, and do their best to sort out the public mood. However, in practice, politicians only try to win over as many voters as they need for re-election. In a first-past-the-post system, one can win without a majority of support, and typically politicians only care about swing districts/states. Proportional representation is problematic too - often it produces slow-moving (there are too many veto players) coalition governments, whose support hinges on radical parties. It also gives too much power to the central party executive (which determines party lists). Finally, the leadership selection mechanism itself can often produce polarization, even though a more pareto optimal (least worst) candidate would have done better in the general election. For instance, most US primary voters are ideologues who pick true believers over centrists. By contrast, in the old days, party bosses would pick somebody who could win (generally a centrist), so as to keep the gravy train flowing.

I propose three things (I will do this from the perspective of presidential elections). First, a jungle primary system like that in Louisiana. Instead of separate primary elections, all primary contenders should run in the general against each other and against the members of the other party. This will enable a much broader debate, and it will prevent the phenomena of people who could win the general, but would lose the primary (eg. McCain in 2000 or Ed Muskie in 1972).
Secondly, people should be able to check off all candidates they approve of. This prevents the problem of people being forced to vote strategically for a candidate they dislike because that candidate is more likely to win. Generally elections would produce the least worst candidate. Australia's ranked ballot system offers an even better option.

[Felix]

I'm thinking in terms of the electoral system. When we vote, in terms of the general public, we have a bunch of people who are hardly educated in politics. In general we make our votes based on advertisements of many kinds, with nice big smiles by the party members but thats about it. What facts we do get seem to be based on them attacking the opposing party, and then a lot of people base there votes on who the better personality is, which really doesnt seem to matter in the end when political decisions are made. It all just seems to me to be incredibly superficial and uninformed. Why not have a select group of people, who each represent a percentage of society, who are heavily educated in politics and know the politicians personally which the public goes to with their ideas and opinions on who to vote for? These people will ultimately have the choice on who gets the vote, but after speaking to their selected percentage of people and discussing their opinions and answering their questions. I'm not incredibly educated in politics or anything, but I was thinking about that for quite a while, and believe it would be a better way to elect the best candidate. Any thoughts?

[eternaltriangle]

Why not have a select group of people, who each represent a percentage of society, who are heavily educated in politics and know the politicians personally which the public goes to with their ideas and opinions on who to vote for? These people will ultimately have the choice on who gets the vote, but after speaking to their selected percentage of people and discussing their opinions and answering their questions. I'm not incredibly educated in politics or anything, but I was thinking about that for quite a while, and believe it would be a better way to elect the best candidate. Any thoughts?

Yeah but that assumes the following:

1. That the better educated have the same interests as the less educated.
-unlikely because the less educated are usually poorer, while minorities would be almost entirely unrepresented. You would maintain the power structure of the status quo.

2. That it is possible to develop standards of political "education" which are meaningful and mutually accepted. It is possible to evaluate these standards on a national scale, without the whole system costing too much.
-unlikely because you are dealing with a lot of current events (any test would have to change rapidly), because politics involves a lot of subjective terms (eg. define "conservative"). Moreover there are some obvious logistical hurdles.

3. That the better educated would generally agree on who to give the vote to.

4. That a nationally appointed group of educated elites could have a sufficiently good grasp on local issues which are also often important in elections (particularly congressional elections, if we are thinking US).
-unlikely, particularly since some parts of the country will have a dearth of intellectuals.

5. That informed voters are "better" voters.
-politics is about "who gets what" - it is about how resources should be divided (or not divided). In that sense politics is not really about ideas, but is first and foremost about interests. Voters may not understand monetary policy, but they understand what is good for themselves. In the 1890's uneducated farmers with debts realized that a silver standard would reduce the value of their debts, despite knowing nothing about monetary policy.

5. That there are good and bad reasons for voting for a candidate.
-I disagree with point 5 and 6 about as emphatically as possible. Liberal democracies are founded on relativist principles - a rejection of the notion that there is some truth so great that it must be enshrined into law. Our basic institutions are aimed at creating a place where people can arrive at their own truths. The implication that my truth is so much better than your truth that you must accept it is utterly corrosive to the spirit of democracy and liberalism. A free society is about letting people make choices you believe to be wrong.

Moreover, a lot of the reasons you seem to think are dumb or superficial may have some basis to them. Lets say I was a voter who always voted for the most attractive candidate. Pretty superficial, right? Well maybe, but attractive people will have a greater ability to maintain public support. In the US, where the president has little power without a compliant congress (think about Bush's legislative accomplishments from 2001-2003 versus 2004-2008). Congress is compliant when the president is popular.

According to this article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) the top 5 hottest presidents were:
1. JFK
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Franklin Pierce
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Bill Clinton (I think they consider his charisma)
6. Reagan
7. (I'd throw in FDR)

All of those except Franklin Pierce were at least above average presidents. As should be pretty clear, the election campaign never stops for a president, they just switch from running for president to running for congress to pass their budget. Being able to master that game is a non-trivial asset. This is just an example, but I am sure there is a sensible basis to a lot of what seems irrational to you. At the very least, there is insufficient evidence for us to grant a narrow cabal the ability to select the electorate.

[JeffersonFawkes]

I'm tempted by the idea of a Meritocratic Democracy. Specifically, in order to be given the right to vote, you would have to demonstrate basic knowledge of the workings of the government, international relations, history, economics, etc. Anyone could qualify if they could pass the tests, and the relevant material would be freely available.

Actually thats one of the concepts I put in my little hobby constitution. Not so much for voting, but as a requirement of citizenship, you must understand the laws that you are agreeing to. This is to avoid fraud.





JeffersonFawkes added to this post, 3 minutes and 32 seconds later...

Of course all government will have flaws but this does not mean you can't minimise or eliminate some of the worst flaws. You also cannot look at government from a black and white point of view and say 'if it's not perfect then it's bad'. We have many bad forms of government in this world and some which are better, why then is it so hard for some people to imagine improving on the current government. It's not as if we have reached the pinnacle of governing society. Sorry about the rant but this topic always gets me fired up.


My government would be based on a libertarian principal. The Government would provide all necessary infrastructure, legal systems and schooling. Yet the only form of tax would be income tax. There would be virtually no welfare support from the government (it would exist but only under specific circumstances). In other words you work to support yourself or you die.

It may sound harsh but you do not want lazy, dishonest citizens who rely on the government for everything (this is what is happening more and more under our current government).

Because of this initially the crime rate would increase so you would also need a more severe legal system. Capital punishment would be brought in. Stronger penalties and initially more law enforcers would ‘weed out’ the lazy, dishonest citizens; people would soon learn that they cannot rely on the government for everything. Te beauty of this government is that people can live their lives however they please as long as they don’t harm or disadvantage anybody else.

Please offer me your ideas on this system and point out possible flaws which you can foresee.

how will you determine who is lazy and who is dishonest? and why would a government funded school teach students to use critical thinking skills with authority? If you increase the police force, what will keep your protection force from rising to power on their own like the shoguns did?





JeffersonFawkes added to this post, 11 minutes and 13 seconds later...

I'm thinking in terms of the electoral system. When we vote, in terms of the general public, we have a bunch of people who are hardly educated in politics. In general we make our votes based on advertisements of many kinds, with nice big smiles by the party members but thats about it. What facts we do get seem to be based on them attacking the opposing party, and then a lot of people base there votes on who the better personality is, which really doesnt seem to matter in the end when political decisions are made. It all just seems to me to be incredibly superficial and uninformed. Why not have a select group of people, who each represent a percentage of society, who are heavily educated in politics and know the politicians personally which the public goes to with their ideas and opinions on who to vote for? These people will ultimately have the choice on who gets the vote, but after speaking to their selected percentage of people and discussing their opinions and answering their questions. I'm not incredibly educated in politics or anything, but I was thinking about that for quite a while, and believe it would be a better way to elect the best candidate. Any thoughts?

the electoral process and the process by which most people get their information is extremely corrupt, and why not? there is more incentive for corruption after all. The best thing you could do is teach people how propaganda works, and critical thinking skills. I also doubt that politics can be changed through politics: if it could would it have not been changed earlier? Individual action, self-reliance, and ghandi's non-cooperation, all strike me as more effective means of change than voting in this system. I will admit though, I have thrown coins in the governments fountain, when I vote, its more for good luck than it is for practicality.





JeffersonFawkes added to this post, 4 minutes and 39 seconds later...

I mean knowing the phone number of each congressman might be slightly useful, but not worth the effort required to learn it


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
that wasn't very hard, and I have lists for every major media outlet as well. Your right about it not making a difference. People vote according to party, over policy, and if both main parties follow a fallacy, than so will the majority of voters. Not only this, but who here knows their congressmen without looking it up? If a congress member makes a bad decision, but spins it to the public, the public won't even likely know that the decision was made by the person they are voting for.





JeffersonFawkes added to this post, 17 minutes and 15 seconds later...

In terms of politics, what can be done is people can learn about those who found a nation or write a constitution. Michael Badnarick does an 8hr class on the constitution that can be viewed at google video. You can read the "federalist, and anti-federalist papers", "common sense", see if you can find an old law dictionary, maybe in a college library, because legalese is a separate language that just happens to vaguely resemble english, read the constitution, read the articles of confederation. Beyond knowing these things, believe nothing without reason, and test each reason. Pay close attention to fluctuating definitions they play the same role in law that numbers play in programming. Also... know what type of government you are in... if this is a democracy, the latin breaks down to mob rule. The founders wanted a republic which literally means rule by law. I will trust written contract over the masses any day.

[music221]

I wouldn't bother as I think that government is a failed attempt to control what can not be controlled. Most governments are in place to keep the sheepish in line and guide them to the slaughter house.

[JeffersonFawkes]

I wouldn't bother as I think that government is a failed attempt to control what can not be controlled. Most governments are in place to keep the sheepish in line and guide them to the slaughter house.

I agree with most of that. What do you propose to keep a totalitarian government from rising up through clan warfare? If your only security is your own weapons and wits, people will band together. If no one has any way to determine property, than to keep what one has worked for, one will need violent force. A basic agreement to prevent this can be a constitution, even if its a very un-traditional one. If said agreements are enforced then that is a government. Be weary of the assumption that getting rid of all government will keep a dictator from rising.

[Felix]

Yeah but that assumes the following:

1. That the better educated have the same interests as the less educated.
-unlikely because the less educated are usually poorer, while minorities would be almost entirely unrepresented. You would maintain the power structure of the status quo.

2. That it is possible to develop standards of political "education" which are meaningful and mutually accepted. It is possible to evaluate these standards on a national scale, without the whole system costing too much.
-unlikely because you are dealing with a lot of current events (any test would have to change rapidly), because politics involves a lot of subjective terms (eg. define "conservative"). Moreover there are some obvious logistical hurdles.

3. That the better educated would generally agree on who to give the vote to.

4. That a nationally appointed group of educated elites could have a sufficiently good grasp on local issues which are also often important in elections (particularly congressional elections, if we are thinking US).
-unlikely, particularly since some parts of the country will have a dearth of intellectuals.

5. That informed voters are "better" voters.
-politics is about "who gets what" - it is about how resources should be divided (or not divided). In that sense politics is not really about ideas, but is first and foremost about interests. Voters may not understand monetary policy, but they understand what is good for themselves. In the 1890's uneducated farmers with debts realized that a silver standard would reduce the value of their debts, despite knowing nothing about monetary policy.

5. That there are good and bad reasons for voting for a candidate.
-I disagree with point 5 and 6 about as emphatically as possible. Liberal democracies are founded on relativist principles - a rejection of the notion that there is some truth so great that it must be enshrined into law. Our basic institutions are aimed at creating a place where people can arrive at their own truths. The implication that my truth is so much better than your truth that you must accept it is utterly corrosive to the spirit of democracy and liberalism. A free society is about letting people make choices you believe to be wrong.

Moreover, a lot of the reasons you seem to think are dumb or superficial may have some basis to them. Lets say I was a voter who always voted for the most attractive candidate. Pretty superficial, right? Well maybe, but attractive people will have a greater ability to maintain public support. In the US, where the president has little power without a compliant congress (think about Bush's legislative accomplishments from 2001-2003 versus 2004-2008). Congress is compliant when the president is popular.

According to this article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) the top 5 hottest presidents were:
1. JFK
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Franklin Pierce
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Bill Clinton (I think they consider his charisma)
6. Reagan
7. (I'd throw in FDR)

All of those except Franklin Pierce were at least above average presidents. As should be pretty clear, the election campaign never stops for a president, they just switch from running for president to running for congress to pass their budget. Being able to master that game is a non-trivial asset. This is just an example, but I am sure there is a sensible basis to a lot of what seems irrational to you. At the very least, there is insufficient evidence for us to grant a narrow cabal the ability to select the electorate.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But what if every person in society (or those who vote at least) were further educated in politics, even if it be in a small way. Are you saying that this may be a negative thing? If peoples choices are more informed, aren't they going to make better choices?

[JeffersonFawkes]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But what if every person in society (or those who vote at least) were further educated in politics, even if it be in a small way. Are you saying that this may be a negative thing? If peoples choices are more informed, aren't they going to make better choices?

On the post above music's comment you'll see a list of things that are neutral to the political parties. You can learn objective things, like history, and records of intention written by the founders, but I think Eternal is trying to avoid another very dangerous situation. Who will decide who votes or not, what will stop somebody from making people learn just one political ideology that benefits a very few people from being the only way to pass the test. Of course, we already have something similar in the way most people get their information about politics

[Felix]

On the post above music's comment you'll see a list of things that are neutral to the political parties. You can learn objective things, like history, and records of intention written by the founders, but I think Eternal is trying to avoid another very dangerous situation. Who will decide who votes or not, what will stop somebody from making people learn just one political ideology that benefits a very few people from being the only way to pass the test. Of course, we already have something similar in the way most people get their information about politics

I totally agree. The information would have to be objective

[Aristocrat Porn]

As an INTP, i must say i am positively surprised by the answers in this thread.

[JeffersonFawkes]

As an INTP, i must say i am positively surprised by the answers in this thread.

Whats so surprising?

[Bregen]

Like in Terry Pratchett's Discworld?

Good call, Night Runner.

I have only read a few of the Discworld novels but Lord Vetinari is arguably the most brilliantly constructed role model in literature for anyone aspiring to a successful and pragmatic benevolent dictatorship.

Vetinari is aware of everything around him (preternaturally so) but is pointedly not heavy handed in dealing with it (however, it always gets dealt with). He is not in love with power – he certainly seems to enjoy it – but his main aim is to protect his realm and assure its prosperity. He is not beneath employing unsavory characters in achieving his aims … and redeeming them in the process. While maybe not an obvious selection prima facie, Vetinari comes very close to my perfect model for enlightened management. In fact, I would not be surprised to someday see business school case studies based on Vetinari’s style of leadership.

[MikeC]

i would rather think improving the general education level is way more productive than looking for a subtitutive permutation of democracy :shrugs:

[JeffersonFawkes]

i would rather think improving the general education level is way more productive than looking for a subtitutive permutation of democracy :shrugs:

After watching "Century of the Self" I spent a year studying propaganda and how it works. The closest thing that I want to a government giving education is really big completely uncensored libraries. Let the people than choose what classes they want out of the resources, pull their money together, and hire a tutor.

In making a new government it should be possible to set it up so that citizens are required to learn the law before agreeing to it.

In our current country you have to get around a ton of propaganda and misconceptions before you start getting to education.





JeffersonFawkes added to this post, 1 minutes and 47 seconds later...

Good call, Night Runner.

I have only read a few of the Discworld novels but Lord Vetinari is arguably the most brilliantly constructed role model in literature for anyone aspiring to a successful and pragmatic benevolent dictatorship.

Vetinari is aware of everything around him (preternaturally so) but is pointedly not heavy handed in dealing with it (however, it always gets dealt with). He is not in love with power – he certainly seems to enjoy it – but his main aim is to protect his realm and assure its prosperity. He is not beneath employing unsavory characters in achieving his aims … and redeeming them in the process. While maybe not an obvious selection prima facie, Vetinari comes very close to my perfect model for enlightened management. In fact, I would not be surprised to someday see business school case studies based on Vetinari’s style of leadership.

Even if I became a benevolent dictator, what could I do to guarantee that my successor would not abuse the powers that I setup to protect my people? And if I do not protect their liberty, am I doing my job properly?

Maybe I'm missing something here, could you please clarify on what a benevolent dictatorship is?

[Rudy]

Even if I became a benevolent dictator, what could I do to guarantee that my successor would not abuse the powers that I setup to protect my people? And if I do not protect their liberty, am I doing my job properly?

Maybe I'm missing something here, could you please clarify on what a benevolent dictatorship is?

A benevolent dictatorship is one in which the dictator works in the best interests of the whole country and its people, that's all. You have, however, pinpointed its number one flaw: succession.

[JeffersonFawkes]

A benevolent dictatorship is one in which the dictator works in the best interests of the whole country and its people, that's all. You have, however, pinpointed its number one flaw: succession.

I'm not sure if their has ever been a dictator to come to power that did not have benevolent intentions in mind. Even Hitler wanted to bring prosperity to the world, and he acted on what he believed would bring that prosperity. I would also have a philosophical problem with people looking to me for all of their answers strictly because the armed forces support me. I would much rather have people that follow me do so because they agree with my reasoning, and before they look to someone else I would want them to test their own reasoning first.

[Nordenstorm]

I'd like to add a third chamber to the parliaments. With the assignment to in an utilitarian way motivate why to do things. If they could not motivate why the state should do something it would not be done.

By the way gratz Rudy, I see you've become a moderator

[JeffersonFawkes]

I'd like to add a third chamber to the parliaments. With the assignment to in an utilitarian way motivate why to do things. If they could not motivate why the state should do something it would not be done.

By the way gratz Rudy, I see you've become a moderator

Clever, I had not thought of that one yet.

[PunkinA]

I think our current government shows an under-representation by hot women. Am I sexist for suggesting such things?

Also I think an ideal government would have some arbitrary randomness thrown in. I think we may not be smart enough as humans to determine our optimal solutions. Let some amount of random variance bubble up new structures. Don't ask me how to accomplish this though. Maybe more hot women?

[eternaltriangle]

I think our current government shows an under-representation by hot women. Am I sexist for suggesting such things?

Also I think an ideal government would have some arbitrary randomness thrown in. I think we may not be smart enough as humans to determine our optimal solutions. Let some amount of random variance bubble up new structures. Don't ask me how to accomplish this though. Maybe more hot women?

What if the president was selected each month or so by lottery. It would give us a truly representative government, and thus get through the barriers that prevent hot women from succeeding in politics.

Alternately we could decide the president based on a combination of a swimsuit competition and a talent portion.

[JeffersonFawkes]

What if the president was selected each month or so by lottery. It would give us a truly representative government, and thus get through the barriers that prevent hot women from succeeding in politics.

Alternately we could decide the president based on a combination of a swimsuit competition and a talent portion.

As awesome as that sounds, please leave me out of it. Their are some people that would do great at that, who I really would not want to see as president... ok maybe see them, but I don't want them making important decisions for my life.