What is your ideal form of government?

[OneBadMother]

What is your ideal form of government, and do you think it would be functional with human nature taken into consideration? If you think it would be functional, state your plan for putting your ideal government into action with minimal risk of immediate degeneration or collapse.

[Homini Lupus]

The ideal form of government depends a lot on the kind of society you have to govern. If your society is very small (a family, a small group of survivors from an accident) direct democracy would probably be the best while in a mondial government you would probably need quite a loose form of association on many levels (cities - regions - states - superstates - mondial government (BY EXAMPLE)); thus, the idea of state is challenged and even if it is still quite a strong form, it has become much less absolute since the birth of the state (wich is conventionally considered the Westfalia Peace of 1648), with more and more NGOs, Multinational corporation and trade globalisation (financial globalisation was already true in 1914 but was cast down by the war). The weakening of the state means that for composite societies it is becoming more difficult to coexist, even if the loss of power of the state is often directed both downwards (to local realities) and upwards (to superstatual organisations).
Sorry for the indirect answer but I have clear ideas only for my own society and a few for EU.

[Rowan]

I have no ‘ideal’ government; they are, at best, a pragmatic necessity – my ideal, which may be simply unattainable, would be for no government at all. For now I would settle with a liberal republican democracy using a proportional representation electoral model. Unfortunately, in the UK, even this is fairly unattainable.

[Homini Lupus]

The problems of representative systems is that they tend to create low acccountability and make the government weak and the parliament fragmented; that's the reason most systems try to correct it. In Italy it worked for years but it was based on a peculiar system of "centrifuge fragmentation" in wich a strong central party was always elected and had to choose the allies on its right or left, in order to keep out of policy the anti-system parties (Communist party and Social movement). I generally prefer system wich are able to elect a working and accountable government, but this means lowering the representativeness of it.

[blueback]

Heinlein had an interesting idea in which only people who had served a minimum of 2 years of totally voluntary (and uncomfortable) federal service were able to vote. The idea being that people should make decisions for the group only if they are the sort of people who put the long-term needs of the group ahead of their own immediate needs. By allowing them to voluntarily suffer though years of service they are proving that they are just those sorts of people. Once you find those people it shouldn't matter how many of them there are or what they are voting on, they will always make the right decision.

[Homini Lupus]

He doesn't explain tough how non voting people issues are dealt with. It doesn't happen in the book (I guess it's Starship Troopers you're referring) but generally creating a similar difference between voters and non voters create some civil unrest on the long term. For the times of war he's speaking about it could be effective.

[blueback]

He addresses is tangentially. A character mentions that it doesn't matter what percentage of the population is a citizen (as opposed to civilian) they always make the same decisions because they are all motivated by the good of the body politic. He also says that sometimes civilians have problems with the system but they can never get enough people to agree with them to change anything.

It makes a certain amount of sense. If you want to vote all you have to do is serve. He equates voting with the ultimate political power so to get it you have to make the ultimate sacrifice, your life. The people who can't vote recognize that it is only through their own cowardice that they are denied the privilege.

[Homini Lupus]

Yes, but in that system the only guardians of the state are part of a gerarchical organisation. Nobody outside it can impeach it. If it stops working properly (like european armies did during WWI, when they totally excluded political leaders by pointing at their lack of competence in military matter) it makes very difficult for power to get back to the citizens (both civilians and low ranking citizens) for a change. I think it relies on a too idealistic view of those men who became citizens. Goering was a very fine WWI pilot and ended up as an edhonist, and some others in different fields, having achieved great results with effort and sacrifice, later ended their life having lost self discipline.

[blueback]

Yeah. . .

I still think the idea has a lot of potential. There must be some way to find the right people to make decisions and put power in their hands; otherwise we are doomed to cycle through governments which inevitably causes unnecessary pain and loss.

I like this idea because I think that most people aren't qualified to make decisions in their own best interest, let alone the best interests of the group. I think the savings rate in America is 2% now. . .are these really people we want voting?

Oh, I suppose I might not have clarified that correctly. In Heinlein's political structure in Starship Troopers (the book) anyone could be active in politics. You didn't have to be a citizen to be a politician or to propose laws, you just had to be a citizen to vote on them. I figure that has to be better than our current system. The people who vote laws into power are all beholden to minority political factions and businesses. Sure, technically they can be voted out but by the time that chance comes up they have confused things so much that people aren't sure who they want to vote for, so the incumbent usually remains in office. It might be better to have a group of people you know take voting seriously and are beholden to no one do all the voting.

I suppose you could simply add a provision that if enough civilians sign a petition they could call for a direct democracy style vote on something. I think that most civilians would be releived to not have to worry about every day policy matters.

[Ytterbium]

Blueback is somewhat touching how it works here, or did work. For men it was seen as they did compulsory military service they had suffrage in return. Why be allowed to use it but not fight for it? Although later when women got the right to vote, without any conscription. I'll guess the old roles of the sexes played a part in this. Those whom objected to serve were thrown into jail (still done to this day). The end of the cold war and cut back in spending have done that most people get away with medical reasons etc.
It worked once, now it's just a theory.

I think many people would start to whine if they had to earn the privilege to vote.

[kevintr]

I like communism, taking human nature into account it won't work yet. I think the growing disparity between rich and poor will give impetus to more socalistic laws. I like to think that will someday lead to communism but it's gonna be a terrable mess getting there.

[athenian200]

Ideally? No government would be necessary, because people would always wish to be fair/reasonable and never break the laws they had all agreed on.

Realistically, I'd say it depends on the people being governed. Some people can only be held by a powerful dictator with unfair laws, and other more advanced ones are more suited to republics. In general, the more educated and advanced they are, the more suited they are for republics and the less suited they are for dictatorship. Most forms of government fall between these two extremes.

[blueback]

...the laws they had all agreed on.

That is a government.

[Sean O]

Until mankind learns to develop a non-superficial sense of morality and altruism, there will never be an ideal form of government. In the meantime, I guess democracy is the best option, since corruption has to be kept relatively secret and therefore doesn't usually take the form of serious human rights abuses.

[blueback]

It's a process. The only reason democracy got the chance it did in America is that we are so geographically isolated and our population was scavanged from a dozen different cultures. We had no history.

Britain has a democracy, sort of, because they still have some aristocracy left over. They can't just drop it; aristocracy is part of their history and culture. South and Central America(s) sort of pretend to try out democracies but corruption is such a part of their history and culture that they are never real.

Now that America has a history we are going to be as slow to give it up as every other country is to give up theirs. What we have now is going to be with us, in one form or another, for a long time.

[Chrysalis]

Heinlein had an interesting idea in which only people who had served a minimum of 2 years of totally voluntary (and uncomfortable) federal service were able to vote.

How about the power elite itself?

The idea being that people should make decisions for the group only if they are the sort of people who put the long-term needs of the group ahead of their own immediate needs. By allowing them to voluntarily suffer though years of service they are proving that they are just those sorts of people.

Considering an INTJ's aversion of group behaviour and the hive mind it doesn't look like many INTJs will be allowed to vote then...

Once you find those people it shouldn't matter how many of them there are or what they are voting on, they will always make the right decision.

You are backing your argument with an logical fallacy? Apart from the fact that there is not always a clearly right decision and sometimes not even only one, it is virtually impossible to always make the right decision. All of this sounds pretty much like dangerous nonsense to me.

It makes a certain amount of sense. If you want to vote all you have to do is serve. He equates voting with the ultimate political power so to get it you have to make the ultimate sacrifice, your life.

Dead people voting?

The people who can't vote recognize that it is only through their own cowardice that they are denied the privilege.

I am sure this will make a great opening line for a possible constitution.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._of_fascism

Another accusation is that the Terran Federation is a fascist society, and that Starship Troopers is therefore an endorsement of fascism. These analogies have become so popular that Sircar's Corollary of Godwin's Law states that once Heinlein is brought up during online debates, "Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days." Most of the arguments for this view cite the idea that only veterans can vote and non-veterans lack full citizenship. Federal Service is not necessarily military, although it is suggested that a certain hardship and discipline is pervasive.

Let's see if it takes three days.

[Beery Swine]

I don't really know. Probably something that has yet to be conceptualized. Of the known ones, I guess a benevolent socialistic dictatorship, preferably with some deus ex machina at the helm, with nearly complete social anarchy. Seems like it would provide the best average happiness per person.

[SmileyMan]

My ideal form of government would be technocracy. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(bureaucratic)) The intellectual elite would rule, and not the people who play on the feelings of the voters.

Technocracy : A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control; "technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge". A governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.

[kevintr]

Ideally? No government would be necessary, because people would always wish to be fair/reasonable and never break the laws they had all agreed on.

A goverment will always be necessary, with so meany people someone has to orginize things. Sometimes it's hard to see the ramifications of a seemingly harmless act, someone needs to study these things and stop people from causing unintentional harm.

[Homini Lupus]

At times I tought about a particular form of vote, in wich you don't vote people but policies. You express your preferences about a given list of policies, some standard (health care, public services and things like that) and some about the current state of affairs. Then two open softwares make a sort of the preferences and find the politicians with the most similar line of preferences to the aggregated result of the vote.

[blueback]

How about the power elite itself?

I dunno, he didn't address that. I suppose he thought that solving the problem of who to allow to vote would render all the other problems moot. As long as the voters are roughly of one mind they are the most powerful group and since they are all doing what is right everything else takes care of itself.

Considering an INTJ's aversion of group behaviour and the hive mind it doesn't look like many INTJs will be allowed to vote then...

Have you read Starship Troopers?
Heinlein is all about individual accountability. I think that INTJs would be less likely to vote simply because they seem less likely to sacrifice anything for the common good. In Heinlein's government they would have to serve voluntarily before they could vote. I don't think that's much of a change from the way things are now. The INTJ aversion to sacrifice is a constant.

However, I do think that in Heinlein's system there would be less minority control of the voter's minds. Since the voters all had to suffer to get the right to vote they would take it seriously. Therefore, INTJs might have more influence because the voters would be more open to their rational analysis of the situation.

You are backing your argument with an logical fallacy? Apart from the fact that there is not always a clearly right decision and sometimes not even only one, it is virtually impossible to always make the right decision. All of this sounds pretty much like dangerous nonsense to me.

Ooooo. . .look at you with your fancy new shiny words.

Yeah, I recognize that the entire system rests on the assumption that it is possible to find a group of people who will always make the right decision for the group. That is difficult to support emperically, but not so difficult logically.

The entire course of history has been one long search for the "right" political system. Every political system ever has been based on the idea that someone has to make decisions, they have just disagreed on how to decide who that someone is. Democracy is the best idea so far becaues it releives the tension of slavery, which just about every other political system has in one form or another. However, democracy is not perfect. Heinlein's idea is simply to test people for the internal character necessary to make good decisions for the group.

While there is rarely A right decision there are often many different options, each of which has pros and cons for different parties. Whoever makes the decision has to weigh the pros and cons to every stakeholder. Theoretically there are people who will make the "best" judgment, so all we have to do is figure out how to test for those people. If they are willing to endure hardship, sacrifice, and the possibility of death to earn the right to make decisions for the entire group they will take it more seriously and will have proven that they consider the good of the group more important than their own good. It sounds logical to me.

Dead people voting?

Really? You decided to go with that?

I'm in the military. Everyone in the military sacrifices their lives; some of them get their lives back when they seperate and some of them don't get their lives back. I am not in control of my own life. I follow orders, whether or not I like them, because that is the definition of service. My life is not my own, therefore the word sacrifice applies. Besides, it's easier to say than to list those who survive and those who don't seperately.

I am sure this will make a great opening line for a possible constitution.

In Heinlein's Starship Troopers public flogging is a common punishment. They are a little less considerate of people's itty witty wittle feewings.

[Claptonian]

Heinlein had an interesting idea in which only people who had served a minimum of 2 years of totally voluntary (and uncomfortable) federal service were able to vote. The idea being that people should make decisions for the group only if they are the sort of people who put the long-term needs of the group ahead of their own immediate needs. By allowing them to voluntarily suffer though years of service they are proving that they are just those sorts of people. Once you find those people it shouldn't matter how many of them there are or what they are voting on, they will always make the right decision.

This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

We already have a system in which people who sacrifice their lives get special rights. You served in the military and got severely wounded? Here's a senatorship!

Under a system such as you've described, the majority of voters would be people who were so power hungry that they're willing to sacrifice their lives just to gain authority over the rest of the population.

My ideal form of government: none. Is it compatible with human nature? Once upon a time, maybe, but I think people have become so use to turning to authority every time they have a problem that anarchy wouldn't work very well today. But I still think it's the only legitimate form of government.

[Realpra]

You guys are terrible systemthinkers/builders, considering you're intj.

Pure technocracy is the best thing mentioned so far, considering all problems of mankind have in the end been solved not by Jesus, politics or feminism but by technology it should be pretty obvious though.

The rest is democracy with a slight modification changing little, democracy, anarchy and pure facism/communism. All crap. Seriously guys, you're masterminds, do a little better.

[blueback]

We already have a system in which people who sacrifice their lives get special rights. You served in the military and got severely wounded? Here's a senatorship!

Right. . .I'm having a hard time concluding that you are being serious.

Under a system such as you've described, the majority of voters would be people who were so power hungry that they're willing to sacrifice their lives just to gain authority over the rest of the population.

You're strawmaning. What you are doing is minimizing the cost of multiple years of difficult service and maximizing the reward of a single vote. Weak.

My ideal form of government: none. Is it compatible with human nature? Once upon a time, maybe, but I think people have become so use to turning to authority every time they have a problem that anarchy wouldn't work very well today. But I still think it's the only legitimate form of government.
Your idea of a legitimate government is no government? That is inconsistent.

Groups of people must have common rules. For example, killing each other must be forbidden or groups will never form. However, they can't trust each other, because if they did the first person to lie would have more power than anyone else. They have to establish an authority superior to all of them to weild the powers that they all voluntarily give up when they form the group. They then have to trust that soverign to use its power in the best interests of the group. Problems usually develop because a group outside of the government redirects its efforts to uniquely favor their objectives, putting everyone else at a disadvantage. Then the government is overthrown and the whole thing has to be built all over again.

Anarchy is inherently less efficient than government because in an anarchistic situation no one can benefit from cooperation. Therefore, the first group that forms will become more powerful than any of the individuals and the individuals will have to form a competing group, and you're back to the cycle I just described.

Pure technocracy is the best thing mentioned so far, considering all problems of mankind have in the end been solved not by Jesus, politics or feminism but by technology it should be pretty obvious though.

Yeah, it's so obvious that you can only come up with one small logical justification for it. Try harder or no one is going to listen to you.

The rest is democracy with a slight modification changing little, democracy, anarchy and pure facism/communism. All crap. Seriously guys, you're masterminds, do a little better.

Do you mean that all forms of government besides technocracy are basically democracy?

Democracy is the most successful form of government ever invented. No two democracies have ever fought a war. The number of democracies has increased globally since it was invented. No true democracy has ever been overthrown. Since the invention of democracy dictators and authoritarians have lied and said they were democratically elected; illustrating that they know it is the "right" way to do things by the effort they make to lie about it.

[Homini Lupus]

You guys are terrible systemthinkers/builders, considering you're intj.

Pure technocracy is the best thing mentioned so far, considering all problems of mankind have in the end been solved not by Jesus, politics or feminism but by technology it should be pretty obvious though.

The rest is democracy with a slight modification changing little, democracy, anarchy and pure facism/communism. All crap. Seriously guys, you're masterminds, do a little better.

Technocracy is trying to hide the political problems behind a wall of "objective" data. Every possible conflicting course has a political side, and the role of the governments is to deal with those problems. If the solution is obvious then you don't have a political battle. If it is not, different possible solutions will have different supporters. Technology develops better without political battles, but that's because it's a totally different field. An electronic tool doesn't work only if the best course for every citizen has been found.

[Shakyamuni]

My ideal form of government would be a democracy with responsible voters.... not likely.

My fantastical ideal form of government is a benevolent autocracy. Basically there is a ruling class that is bred for leadership. Children with potential are taken away from their families (no choice or maybe random?) and are raised to be effective and efficient leaders.

I'll add more later.

[phantasma]

If it weren't for human nature, I'd love to have a benign anarchy, thank you very much. The next best thing would be country the size of Switzerland (but at a better geographical advantage), with a direct democracy, nonintrusive, largely hands off policy on economics and social stuff, just enough government for defense, police, roads, museums, currency, etc.

[Realpra]

Yeah, it's so obvious that you can only come up with one small logical justification for it. Try harder or no one is going to listen to you..
One small logical justification? Not one of you can mention a problem in human history not in the end solved by technology.
Even the number of wars have decreased significantly, especially in the more developed countries, as our technology has cought up with our needs.
This is based on a recent study, but you can choose not to believe me if you so wish as I do not have the source.
Do you mean that all forms of government besides technocracy are basically democracy?
No of course not, facism is not democracy, but different forms of government were the power though voting lies with a more or less significant amount of the population must be a democracy per definition, even if only veterens can vote or people over 18 or what-ever.
I was talking about the whole Heinlein discussion, considering most war veterans go crazy, are action-junckies, stupid or unable to get another job its not a very good idea for them to have all power. Yes that was an extreme exageration, I am just saying its not exactly the perfect method.
Democracy is the most successful form of government ever invented.
Yes, its a very stable form of government, and while displaying a lack of necessary leadership again and again it has a way of not getting in the way of progress and not going crazy.
I guess that means we cant do better, lets all go home to watch some more movies about the greatness of democracy to try and forget its shortcomings.
No two democracies have ever fought a war.
See ehh, being INTJ I can understand your need to exagerate to explain your vision of the world, but arent Israel AND palistina both democracies - and in war?
The number of democracies has increased globally since it was invented.
Again, it beats randomly chosen dictators mostly chosen by fate from the generals of some army.
No true democracy has ever been overthrown.
Now I dont now what a TRUE democracy is, its likely a system that never gets overthrown which would help your statement, but Russia was democratic, now its in the hands of dictator Putin. That would count as being overthrown in my optics.
Since the invention of democracy dictators and authoritarians have lied and said they were democratically elected; illustrating that they know it is the "right" way to do things by the effort they make to lie about it
Thats a claim hard to back up, my theory is that whenever a system isnt democratic USA/EU comes to take its oil or business through market blockades. Thus its a good idea to seem democratic to get them off your back, also China mostly just claims to be commie China.





Realpra added to this post, 40 minutes and 26 seconds later...

My ideal form of government would be a democracy with responsible voters.... not likely.
Well the voters are responsible, for their own demise if it comes to that.
My fantastical ideal form of government is a benevolent autocracy. Basically there is a ruling class that is bred for leadership. Children with potential are taken away from their families (no choice or maybe random?) and are raised to be effective and efficient leaders.
Of course direct breeding of mankind is possible like with any creature (though most would imediately scream nazism), but I dont think we have the wisdom it takes to correctly control our own evolution.

Besides have you seen some of the animals mankind bred through singular focus on a few features? Scary stuff unable to survive.

Also Im against mutating/modifying/breeding our race into several, as only one path is optimal it isnt needed and because it could lead to war between the branches.

Besides too quickly mutating populations dont get the time necessary for evolution to function.

From Enders game, anyway right?
If it weren't for human nature, I'd love to have a benign anarchy, thank you very much.
Anarchy would only work if every single individual had the devine wisdom to do the most optimal in all ways at all times. So maybe when/if mankind become true gods in both power and wisdom we can have anarchy.
The reasons have been stated already.
The next best thing would be country the size of Switzerland (but at a better geographical advantage), with a direct democracy, nonintrusive, largely hands off policy on economics and social stuff, just enough government for defense, police, roads, museums, currency, etc.
That sounds like just enough government for just about everything, and since switzerland is already democratic, whats the twist?





Realpra added to this post, 14 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Technocracy is trying to hide the political problems behind a wall of "objective" data. Every possible conflicting course has a political side, and the role of the governments is to deal with those problems.
Its actually the other way around, someone has it tough because of the various shortcomings of mankind, to improve the quality of their lives, they get in conflict with another group.
This conflict will continue until the shortcomming is solved or the one group removes the other from existance.
The political solution is to give somone the shaft or share the pain, the technologic solution is to improve the ability of man to keep everyone fed and f*cking equaling happy.

Why not just focus on the last part from the get-go?

If the solution is obvious then you don't have a political battle.
Problems with obvious solutions are not really problems, but work to be done and does not count.
If it is not, different possible solutions will have different supporters.
And the "everyone is happy due to technological advances"-solution has all the supporters, which is why you try to find the limitations in your society/race/technology and solve them through proved objective scientific method.
Technology develops better without political battles, but that's because it's a totally different field.
I thought it was because of bad leadership. Isnt both our claims a little subjective here?
An electronic tool doesn't work only if the best course for every citizen has been found.
What? Did you just agree that technology works even when politics have no real solution?

[Homini Lupus]

Developing technologies so far didn't erase the political problems (the problem of living together, sharing/distributing resources, dealing with public property). At times technological developement created political problems. Factories created luddism, contraceptive methods influenced feminism, the internet created new possibilities and problems for politics. Jobs are created and destroyed by technology (say you're an expert at drawing technical blueprints with a pencil and I just invented CAD). The society faces the changes created by technology and calls for political solutions. Obviously you can leave this all to the laissez-faire and let the society find the solution. But there's no guarantee that this is the best policy.

The (I quote you) "everyone is happy due to technological advances" is not granted. Not everybody accepted easily Nuclear Power facilities, OMGs and other stuff. Sometimes it is just out of fear of the new technologies but sometimes a new technology damages parts of the society. These parts will take some course of action in order to be heard. The role of politics is to deal with these issues. The case of everybody happy about it is what I meant when I said obvious solution = no political battle.
Maybe the idea that technology develops better when politics keeps its nose out of it is subjective. But I can't figure out how it could help. Some policies could help (government financing research by example). And yes, I agree that technology works without politics. My car is propelled by oil, not propaganda.

[Realpra]

Developing technologies so far didn't erase the political problems (the problem of living together, sharing/distributing resources, dealing with public property).
Our technological development is not complete, but all the problems you mention have been greatly alliviated by technolgy.
Remember that whole issue about us having hunger here in the west? gone. Houses instead of caves. ships transporting goods. Dealing with public property? we couldnt even afford public property in our ancient societies, except with lovely slave labour, go romans.
At times technological developement created political problems. Factories created luddism, contraceptive methods influenced feminism, the internet created new possibilities and problems for politics.
Isnt luddism the result of crazy hordes and politics, not the technology? Dont see your point about contraceptive methods and internet excactly, how are those bad things?
Jobs are created and destroyed by technology (say you're an expert at drawing technical blueprints with a pencil and I just invented CAD).
Until we invent AI we will not be useless. Until then we cant be dependant on stone axes just so that the stone axe makers can be lazy and keep their jobs.
The society faces the changes created by technology and calls for political solutions. Obviously you can leave this all to the laissez-faire and let the society find the solution. But there's no guarantee that this is the best policy.
What technological problems call for is more development.
The (I quote you) "everyone is happy due to technological advances" is not granted. Not everybody accepted easily Nuclear Power facilities, OMGs and other stuff.
Thats because they are bad technologies, they poison more than they do good. Fusion power and robot farms all the way.
Sometimes it is just out of fear of the new technologies but sometimes a new technology damages parts of the society.
Who in their sane mind would build a machine doing more harm than good?
These parts will take some course of action in order to be heard. The role of politics is to deal with these issues. The case of everybody happy about it is what I meant when I said obvious solution = no political battle.
What WOULD be obvious in a mostly technocratic world seems frustratingly complicated in this world.
Maybe the idea that technology develops better when politics keeps its nose out of it is subjective. But I can't figure out how it could help. Some policies could help (government financing research by example). And yes, I agree that technology works without politics. My car is propelled by oil, not propaganda.
So if you can hardly imagine what good politics can do for technology, and your car (society/technology) works without politics you're saying you want a world that just does away with the unecessary politics? Something one might call a technocratic world?





Realpra added to this post, 13 minutes and 38 seconds later...

EDIT:
By the way you sound as if you think technocracy is some sort of technological anarchy, its not, in fact it has a very centralized form of government, one controlled by people who know how to solve problems with research and development in various fields.
At least according to its wiki article last time I read it.

Of course its a crude outline and it could use a little more work as an ideology but its really a good baseline for any nation you wish to build.

In this crude form theres little incentitive for the questionably chosen "expert elite" to move forward and beuarocracy is bound to spring up.

[blueback]

One small logical justification? Not one of you can mention a problem in human history not in the end solved by technology.


Religious people reject science.
Humans get cancer but sharks don't.
Virus' and bacteria keep evolving to kill us.
The "young people" are all misguided.
Women are crazy.

There. Five problems which haven't been solved by technology. Booya!

Even the number of wars have decreased significantly, especially in the more developed countries, as our technology has cought up with our needs.


I would argue that the decrease in wars is a direct result of cheap, plentiful oil making global commerce/communication possible.

No of course not, facism is not democracy, but different forms of government were the power though voting lies with a more or less significant amount of the population must be a democracy per definition, even if only veterens can vote or people over 18 or what-ever.


I think you're oversimplifying.
What is a "significant amount?"

I was talking about the whole Heinlein discussion, considering most war veterans go crazy, are action-junckies, stupid or unable to get another job its not a very good idea for them to have all power. Yes that was an extreme exageration, I am just saying its not exactly the perfect method.


I realize you admitted you were strawmaning, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

You didn't even address Heinlein's rational. Rather than giving everyone the chance to vote you preselect them for an innate adherance to the idea that the group is more important than the individual.

Yes, its a very stable form of government, and while displaying a lack of necessary leadership again and again it has a way of not getting in the way of progress and not going crazy.


Democracies have a harder time settling on a plan and sticking with it because control is decentralized. Governments with centralized control have a hard time not enslaving their population and being overthrown. There are always tradeoffs.

See ehh, being INTJ I can understand your need to exagerate to explain your vision of the world, but arent Israel AND palistina both democracies - and in war?


Oh, you must be talking about how Hamas was democractically elected in Palestine. Hamas is a terrorist organization, so the idea that they didn't rig the election is farfetched. Besides, it hasn't been long; if Hamas really was democratically elected it's possible they will finally end the war. I suppose what I meant was that no two democracies have ever STARTED a war between each other. If a non-Democratic country changes to a democratic country in the middle of a war, and then ends the war, that would actually support my argument.

Also, I'm not entirely convinced that the term "war" applies to what is going on between Israel and Palestine. It seems like more of a civil war/terrorism campaign than a regular war.

Now I dont now what a TRUE democracy is, its likely a system that never gets overthrown which would help your statement, but Russia was democratic, now its in the hands of dictator Putin. That would count as being overthrown in my optics.


Not really. Putin took power, kind of like Hitler, after being accepted by the majority. All that means is that their political system didn't have enough checks and balances to keep one man from becoming a dictator. Just because a country claims it is democratic doesn't mean that political decisions aren't actually made by force. I covered that when I mentioned that dictators (etc) lie about being democratic.

Thats a claim hard to back up, my theory is that whenever a system isnt democratic USA/EU comes to take its oil or business through market blockades. Thus its a good idea to seem democratic to get them off your back, also China mostly just claims to be commie China.

I don't think your theory holds water. Dictators never do a very good job of hiding the fact that they took power by force, they just do a good job of talking like they didn't. It's usually pretty obvious that a person is in power because they murdered anyone who voted for their opponent. Therefore, the US/EU isn't going to be fooled and your theory breaks down.

I didn't say communists lied about being democratic. Communists are proud of communism because it is another "of the people" system. However, I can't think of a case in which a dictator has lied and claimed to be communist, while many have lied and claimed to be democratic.

[Realpra]

Religious people reject science.
Humans get cancer but sharks don't.
Technological development isnt exactly completed and we arent immortal beings.
Cancer will be solved by science, not by politics.

Now I asked for problems SOLVED not by technology, but by politics, not for problems YET to be solved.
You shouldnt have missed that.
Virus' and bacteria keep evolving to kill us.
Hygeine prevents fullscale plagues and again see above.
The "young people" are all misguided.
The young people are the next generation and by the force of evolution always better, more right and more suitable for the world than the previous.

Also again you missed the question.

Women are crazy.
The scientific method has succesfully been able to describe the basics of the female mind and developed methods for capturing it. Search "The game", "Mystery method" and on youtube "Niel Strauss"
There. Five problems which haven't been solved by technology. Booya!
Some of them havent been solved at all, try again.
I would argue that the decrease in wars is a direct result of cheap, plentiful oil making global commerce/communication possible.
What use is oil to the stone age man? The use of oil IS technology.
I think you're oversimplifying.
What is a "significant amount?"
I dont know or care thats an irrelevant academicle question. What definition would you put on democracy?
I realize you admitted you were strawmaning, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

You didn't even address Heinlein's rational. Rather than giving everyone the chance to vote you preselect them for an innate adherance to the idea that the group is more important than the individual.
Im sorry I missed that part.
Suppose you were able to select morally speaking perfect people, would it not by same method be easier just to select a perfect but an also well above average smart guy as the leader of mankind?
And doesnt this become inserious considering we havent got a clue how to select perfect people? Who gets to decide whos perfect?
Democracies have a harder time settling on a plan and sticking with it because control is decentralized. Governments with centralized control have a hard time not enslaving their population and being overthrown. There are always tradeoffs.
I beg to differ, I believe a system could be developed that was as close to perfect as logically possible.
Oh, you must be talking about how Hamas was democractically elected in Palestine. Hamas is a terrorist organization, so the idea that they didn't rig the election is farfetched.
They were in war before that too...
Besides, it hasn't been long; if Hamas really was democratically elected it's possible they will finally end the war.
Why? Because propaganda tell you so? Why should democratic people like being bombed and starving more than non-democratic people?
I suppose what I meant was that no two democracies have ever STARTED a war between each other.
No you didnt mean that, you said exactly that. Clearly the Israeli conflict, a conflict between two democratic countries, disprove your statement as its a war that has been stopped and restarted over and over again.
If a non-Democratic country changes to a democratic country in the middle of a war, and then ends the war, that would actually support my argument.
At no point have you made the arguement "democracy ends war spontanously never to start it again". But go ahead. Only it wouldnt be an arguement but a subjective statement.
Also, I'm not entirely convinced that the term "war" applies to what is going on between Israel and Palestine. It seems like more of a civil war/terrorism campaign than a regular war.
I define war as the act of two peoples attacking and killing each other I dont really care exactly how they go about it.
Maybe you feel the manor in which they die make it acceptable?
Not really. Putin took power, kind of like Hitler, after being accepted by the majority. All that means is that their political system didn't have enough checks and balances to keep one man from becoming a dictator. Just because a country claims it is democratic doesn't mean that political decisions aren't actually made by force. I covered that when I mentioned that dictators (etc) lie about being democratic.
You misunderstand, before Putin, but after the fall of the soviet union Russia was a realized democracy. With Putin it turned into a dictatorial state. That counts as democracy being overthrown.
I don't think your theory holds water. Dictators never do a very good job of hiding the fact that they took power by force, they just do a good job of talking like they didn't. It's usually pretty obvious that a person is in power because they murdered anyone who voted for their opponent. Therefore, the US/EU isn't going to be fooled and your theory breaks down.
I dont see how them acting being obvious has anything to do with my theory of WHY they do it.
I didn't say communists lied about being democratic. Communists are proud of communism because it is another "of the people" system. However, I can't think of a case in which a dictator has lied and claimed to be communist, while many have lied and claimed to be democratic.
But by your statement ALL dictators were supposed to lie about them being democratic, that should go for communist dictators aswell but it doesnt so your statement was false.

I would think there has been plenty lying hypocratic communist dictators claiming to be communist while truly just being egoistic dictators, FARC comes to mind as support for my statement, but they arent really "leaders" so it doesnt count.

[blueback]

If you want to debate this stuff it would go more smoothly if you were consistent. On the one hand you are using a strickly literal interpretation of my phrases, which requires careful reading, to strawman my arguments. On the other hand you are selectively misinterpreting my phrases, which requires poor reading skills, to avoid my arguments. If you were using only one of those tactics it would be all right, but you are using both back-to-back. That makes them each appear even weaker than they would alone.

You have a lot to learn.

For example, if you actually have a point to make, you should make it. I will show you what I mean so that in the future you will be able to clarify your own thinking and argue more effectively.

This is what you said: "Not one of you can mention a problem in human history not in the end solved by technology" You didn't mention politics at all, so you can't brush aside my examples by saying that you were actually asking for problems solved exclusively by politics rather than technology. That is not what you asked for. What you asked for was a problem(s) NOT SOLVED BY TECHNOLOGY. I provided you examples of problems that technology has not solved. Your responses were weak.

Hygiene doesn't pervent plagues, it postpones them. All we are doing by killing 99.9% of bacteria/viruses is helping them to evolve faster. That means that the strains that are evolving will eventually kill us. If we managed to wipe out all the strains that were about to kill us then new strains would take their place. Therefore, technology has not solved the problem of bacteria/viruses.

There is a problem; old people consistently think that young people are screwing up. This is a problem because the same old people were once young people who didn't listen to their old people who thought that they were screwing up. Personal development only happens after actual experiences. That means that people HAVE TO screw up because it is the only way to learn. Old people need to realize that and stop trying to protect young people from the things they need to do to learn. Technology has not solved this problem.

I didn't say that men couldn't figure out how to get women to sleep with thatm, I said that women are crazy. Despite the fact that men have been living with women for thousands of years (conservatively), they still have a really hard time understanding them. This causes all sorts of problems in relationships, politics, etc. Technology has not solved this problem.

Sharks don't get cancer. It's hard to even give cancer to sharks. That means that it is possible for a living thing to resist cancer far more effectively than humans do. Cancer causes problems for us, theoretically we shouldn't have to deal with cancer, therefore this is a problem. Technology has not solved this problem.

Additionally, it makes no sense to claim that any problems have been solved exculsively by any one area of human activity. Anything you claim has been solved by technology can also be shown to have a political component in its solution. The reverse can be said for anything you claim was solved by only politics.

Technology is just a bunch of tools. They are useless without the will to act and that is politics. Therefore, any solution which involves one involves the other. This is a logical proof which supports the conclusion that you can't claim that technology is better for solving problems than politics. If you are going to debate this point you should do so by addressing each of the ideas I have presented and show how either they are wrong or how my interpretation of them is wrong. Logically.

As for democracy, I like this definition: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group This definition is in comparison to a group in which the numerical MINORITY can make decisions binding on the whole group. For example, America is democratic because we elect representatives through majority rule and then those representatives vote on laws by majority rule. This is as compared to, say, an aristocracy in which a small number of unelected people make laws that the whole group has to follow. This definition is a theoretical construct; I recognize that America does not use a direct-election system but it still fits the definition.

Suppose you were able to select morally speaking perfect people, would it not by same method be easier just to select a perfect but an also well above average smart guy as the leader of mankind?

So. . .are you saying that we should figure out a way to find A PERSON who is both morally perfect AND really smart and put him in charge of everyone?

And doesnt this become inserious considering we havent got a clue how to select perfect people? Who gets to decide whos perfect?

See? It is things like this that make it hard for me to believe you are actually reading my words when you try to pretend you are using them against me. You already admitted that you missed an entire argument, but you refuse to actually read more carefully.

That was Heinlein's point. His idea was the method for figuring out who was worthy of making decisions for the group.

He proposed that, since voting is the most powerful thing a person can do, that it should be earned. A vote is when one person tells another person what to do and expects them to do it of their own free will. When people who didn't vote for a decision obey it they are obeying the will of the voter. That is pure power and it should be earned. Heinlein simply proposed a test. If a person could make it through multiple years of service that was as uncomfortable and dangerous as possible, but that they could walk away from at any time with no consequences, then they had earned the right to vote. They would have proven that they considered the good of the group more important than their own personal interests and so they would think the same way when they made decisions for the whole group.

I beg to differ, I believe a system could be developed that was as close to perfect as logically possible.

And that system would be?

They were in war before that too...

Why? Because propaganda tell you so? Why should democratic people like being bombed and starving more than non-democratic people?

This part didn't make any sense. If you're still interested in making a point you might want to clarify it.

No you didnt mean that, you said exactly that. Clearly the Israeli conflict, a conflict between two democratic countries, disprove your statement as its a war that has been stopped and restarted over and over again.

Again, I'm not convinced what is happening between Israel and Palestine is a war. The word war CAN be used loosely, but I prefer not to. Because of the unique way Israel was established I think of what is happening more as a civil war. Because Palestine is barely a soverign country I think of what they are doing as terrorism. Therefore, civil war/terror campaign, like I said before.

What you are trying to do is pretend that the Israel/Palestine (I/P) conflict is something new. You are trying to say that they started fighting after they were democratic and therefore invalidate my point. I don't think that is the case. The I/P conflict is just a continuation of a much longer conflict that began before democracy was even invented. Because the conflict started a long, long time ago, the fact that the political structure of the different sides has changed is not important. Israel seems to be a pretty decent place. Palestine, on the other hand, seems to be run by a gang of thugs no different than any other gang of thugs who have taken power during times of crisis in many different countries. That they claim to hold power democratically is suspicious because it is a new development and has yet to be proven over time. After all, the mob could have claimed the same thing when half of the population they controlled was indebted to them and the other half was scared of them.

At no point have you made the arguement "democracy ends war spontanously never to start it again". But go ahead. Only it wouldnt be an arguement but a subjective statement.

You're right. I never said that. So why would you bring it up?

I define war as the act of two peoples attacking and killing each other I dont really care exactly how they go about it.

Right. Well I disagree. Your definition of war is already covered by other words so you are effectively rendering the word "war" useless.

You misunderstand, before Putin, but after the fall of the soviet union Russia was a realized democracy. With Putin it turned into a dictatorial state. That counts as democracy being overthrown.

No it doesn't. Russia was barely democratic at best; you can't overthrow something that never existed. The old Soviet Union power structures remained in place after the fall and simply reestablished SU style rule as soon as possible. Besides, I never said that no democracy had never been overthrown. I'm not sure why you are attacking that argument since it is one I never made.

But by your statement ALL dictators were supposed to lie about them being democratic, that should go for communist dictators aswell but it doesnt so your statement was false.

A leader of a communist party isn't necessarily a dictator. For example, in China the communist party leaders rule by the will of the people. The Chinese people still think that communism is a good idea, or at least that it isn't worth doing away with just yet. That is why the most expensive war ever waged (the cold war) was between democracy and communism. They are both "of the people" style governments. The difference is that democracy actually IS "of the people" while communism tries to be but fails by necessity. That is why communists don't lie about being democratic, they don't have to. Dictators, on the other hand, only hold on to power by actively suppressing the will of the people to remove them from power which is why they lie about being democratic (if they bother) and why it is so easy to see through their lies.

[Homini Lupus]

Technology alliviated most problems on the long term (and created others, by example some forms of pollution). And public property is still something a government appears to be the best administrator. Some infrastructures (like roads) are of common interest but it's difficult to leave them to the private sector.

About the stone axe makers, obviously we can't keep making stone axes just to let them work. But since they are part of the society, their problem is political, so a political solution may be needed, by example a form of requalification of work. This may be done by the private sector, but it's not granted.

Technological problems call for more developement of course, but here we are talking about the political problems of government. If it's outside the field of politics or policies, it's out of discussion. Maybe one day we'll have perfect technical solutions wich will take many of our problems out of history, but are you waiting for the invention of nuclear fusion to use electric power? Now we have some technologies and their problems so we have to deal with them. When we'll have new technologies, we'll deal with their specific problems. New technologies can create new problems wich hit a given part of the society, wether by accident or because it's an ineludible payoff (at least if we don't want to keep grinding stone).

If technocracy is the government of the experts, how are they selected? How they can go on being experts in technical problems if they have to become political leaders (their day is unlikely to become a 36 hour day)? Or are they experts of politics? This would be consistent with the rest of the society where everybody works on a narrow field (wether repairing cars or reporting news), but basically would transform technocracy in a democracy.

[kevintr]

The democracy in Turky was overthrown a few times in the 60's. Moderate partys coulden't form a goverment without making deals with radicals and the army felt this gave the radicals too mutch power. The army did allow new elections pritty rapidly though.

I think Hamas won the elections legitamatly, the palistinans have alot more to be angry about than the Germans did when they elected the Natzies.

[Realpra]

If you want to debate this stuff it would go more smoothly if you were consistent. On the one hand you are using a strickly literal interpretation of my phrases, which requires careful reading, to strawman my arguments.
Since you keep refuting peoples argumentation with this word "strawmanning" I looked it up.
I dont think you understood the word. Strawmanning is when you turn your opponents arguements into something else that is easily refuted. I have not done that a single time.
When you have made statements supposed to cover everything I have tried to show that they did not by finding counter-examples or taking your ideas to the extreme, if it doesnt hold true the statement must be false. That is not strawmanning its the most pure logical and legitimate form of argumentation.
On the other hand you are selectively misinterpreting my phrases, which requires poor reading skills, to avoid my arguments.
Could you provide an example of this?

If your ideas are inconsistant or not clearly explained I cant be blamed for misunderstanding them.
If you were using only one of those tactics it would be all right, but you are using both back-to-back. That makes them each appear even weaker than they would alone.

You have a lot to learn.
When people start attacking my person I fear they do not seek truth but victory in the debate.
I assure you I have used no sleezy strategies to "win" this argumentation, if I have misunderstood your ideas or somehow failed to reply to what you were really asking about please do clarify your needs.
For example, if you actually have a point to make, you should make it. I will show you what I mean so that in the future you will be able to clarify your own thinking and argue more effectively.

This is what you said: "Not one of you can mention a problem in human history not in the end solved by technology" You didn't mention politics at all, so you can't brush aside my examples by saying that you were actually asking for problems solved exclusively by politics rather than technology. That is not what you asked for. What you asked for was a problem(s) NOT SOLVED BY TECHNOLOGY. I provided you examples of problems that technology has not solved. Your responses were weak.
Perhaps I should have said "Not one of you can mention a problem [solved] in human history not in the end solved by technology.", and the sentence can clearly be misunderstood.
But what sense would it make to ask for problems solved not by technology that havent been solved at all?

Of course my replys were weak, they are problems yet to be solved, I just tried to point out that science is working on it and that technology have in fact already alleviated a lot of them.
Hygiene doesn't pervent plagues, it postpones them. All we are doing by killing 99.9% of bacteria/viruses is helping them to evolve faster. That means that the strains that are evolving will eventually kill us. If we managed to wipe out all the strains that were about to kill us then new strains would take their place. Therefore, technology has not solved the problem of bacteria/viruses.
Our immune system evolves aswell, adapting to most forms of virus, but it can only battle smaller infections, thats why hygeine doesnt just postpone the plagues, it does actually stop them from happening.
Eventually though I do think science will solve the riddle of combating evolving bacteria/virus. Nanites would probably be pretty good or an genetically updated human immune system for that matter.
There is a problem; old people consistently think that young people are screwing up. This is a problem because the same old people were once young people who didn't listen to their old people who thought that they were screwing up. Personal development only happens after actual experiences. That means that people HAVE TO screw up because it is the only way to learn. Old people need to realize that and stop trying to protect young people from the things they need to do to learn. Technology has not solved this problem.
How is what people think a practical problem?
Besides most teenage screwups can be solved with technology, hospitals, contraceptive methods and safety helmets come to mind.
Of course most teenagers dont actually screw up all that much.
And how does people ruining their own lives count as a problem for society? I someone decided to kill themself its not exactly our problem.
I didn't say that men couldn't figure out how to get women to sleep with thatm, I said that women are crazy.
Who says women are crazy?
Despite the fact that men have been living with women for thousands of years (conservatively), they still have a really hard time understanding them.
Reading the mystery method should alleviate some of that lack of understanding.
This causes all sorts of problems in relationships, politics, etc. Technology has not solved this problem.
People arguing a little over dinner hasnt exactly spawned wars and it doesnt really have anything to do with the problems of society. Still reading up on female psycology would probably help us all.
Cancer causes problems for us, theoretically we shouldn't have to deal with cancer, therefore this is a problem. Technology has not solved this problem.
Theoretically no we shouldnt have to deal with cancer no and as soon as we have a cure we wont have to practically either.
Additionally, it makes no sense to claim that any problems have been solved exculsively by any one area of human activity. Anything you claim has been solved by technology can also be shown to have a political component in its solution. The reverse can be said for anything you claim was solved by only politics.

Technology is just a bunch of tools. They are useless without the will to act and that is politics.

You also seem to have a misunderstanding of technocracy, science develops the tools and the technocratic form of government uses them.
You could call that decision making progress political of course, but the problem would still be solved by the tool, not the decision to use the tool or the decision to develop it.
Therefore, any solution which involves one involves the other.
This is a logical proof which supports the conclusion that you can't claim that technology is better for solving problems than politics.
Of course my claim was that the problems were solved by technology and that therefore it would make sense for the government to be of a form focusing on that. I dont remember claiming its better than politics, just that its the final solution despite of all the political going back and forward crap.
If you are going to debate this point you should do so by addressing each of the ideas I have presented and show how either they are wrong or how my interpretation of them is wrong. Logically.
Satisfied? My guess is no.
As for democracy, I like this definition: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
mine: "... government were the power through voting lies with a more or less significant amount of the population must be a democracy per definition"
I dont see the difference really, which is good of course having us agree on the words we use and all.
This definition is in comparison to a group in which the numerical MINORITY can make decisions binding on the whole group.
I chose the word "significant amount" (meaning more than one dictator for sure) to avoid the whole majority/minority thing, what if the voting age is 18 and a majority of the poulation was under 18, would America/EU then not be a democracy?
For example, America is democratic because we elect representatives through majority rule and then those representatives vote on laws by majority rule. This is as compared to, say, an aristocracy in which a small number of unelected people make laws that the whole group has to follow. This definition is a theoretical construct; I recognize that America does not use a direct-election system but it still fits the definition.
Yes same in my country.
So. . .are you saying that we should figure out a way to find A PERSON who is both morally perfect AND really smart and put him in charge of everyone?
Not really its not practically possible, but it would be easier than finding thousands of perfect people and allowing them to vote.
See? It is things like this that make it hard for me to believe you are actually reading my words when you try to pretend you are using them against me. You already admitted that you missed an entire argument, but you refuse to actually read more carefully.
I admitted I exagerated a point to illustrate it more clearly, thats not exactly admitting I missed the whole thing.

What is your problem? I logically refuted both the practical part of the idea of having only veterans being able to vote by naming just a few examples of veterans not being morally or decision-making-wise better people AND later the theoretical idea of finding and allowing only perfect people vote by pointing out that its not practically or politically possible.
That was Heinlein's point. His idea was the method for figuring out who was worthy of making decisions for the group.
His idea was to chose people who cared for the group and would be likely to make good decisions for the group, the problem is that neither you or he had a practical method of doing so.
He proposed that, since voting is the most powerful thing a person can do, that it should be earned. A vote is when one person tells another person what to do and expects them to do it of their own free will. When people who didn't vote for a decision obey it they are obeying the will of the voter. That is pure power and it should be earned.
Why should it be earned? What is your argumentation? Does the earning thing make them better decision makers, and if so how?
Heinlein simply proposed a test. If a person could make it through multiple years of service that was as uncomfortable and dangerous as possible, but that they could walk away from at any time with no consequences, then they had earned the right to vote. They would have proven that they considered the good of the group more important than their own personal interests and so they would think the same way when they made decisions for the whole group.
Maybe they would just go crazy and constantly vote for starting new wars. Whats to say it would make them better decision makers? Whats to say they were even selfless and not just doing it for a girl, career, influence, money or action?
And that system would be?
I am afraid that I cant answer that question for a simple reason that brings us to the second question of the topic starter.
What if you had the idea for perfect society, or heck, just one a little better than what is now, what would be the best way to get realized?

1. Revolution/force?
2. Only media/debate/propaganda/flyers/political career?

When an idea gets old it quickly looses its punch, its considered dead, what if you brought up your idea too soon, it became hip for while only then to die possibly with bad consequenses for mankind.

What if the survival of mankind depended on its unification? You might be able to spread the idea but unless you got every country on the bandwagon it wouldnt change anything?

I have found revolution to be the path most likely to be effective, but considering how unlikely a revolution is to happen and be succesful even that could use some work.
This part didn't make any sense. If you're still interested in making a point you might want to clarify it.
You insinuated that if they became democratic the war might stop, why is that I tried to ask?
Again, I'm not convinced what is happening between Israel and Palestine is a war. The word war CAN be used loosely, but I prefer not to. Because of the unique way Israel was established I think of what is happening more as a civil war. Because Palestine is barely a soverign country I think of what they are doing as terrorism. Therefore, civil war/terror campaign, like I said before.
Well if its up to you to decide what "war" means and you define that its dependant on such things as the country, thats fighting and whether or not it could be seen as civil war or terrorism it does get terrible hard to dispute your statement doesnt it?
What you are trying to do is pretend that the Israel/Palestine (I/P) conflict is something new.
No I am stating fact when I say its a conflict that has had its peaceful times, borderlining peace only then to be reinitiated.
War is certainly not defined as political tension, so it could be said that new war has been started by these two democratic states although the conflict is old.
You are trying to say that they started fighting after they were democratic and therefore invalidate my point. I don't think that is the case. The I/P conflict is just a continuation of a much longer conflict that began before democracy was even invented. Because the conflict started a long, long time ago, the fact that the political structure of the different sides has changed is not important.
Your statement regarded war, not political tensions/conflict, dont change your statement just because it turns out not to hold water, accept truth.
Israel seems to be a pretty decent place. Palestine, on the other hand, seems to be run by a gang of thugs no different than any other gang of thugs who have taken power during times of crisis in many different countries. That they claim to hold power democratically is suspicious because it is a new development and has yet to be proven over time. After all, the mob could have claimed the same thing when half of the population they controlled was indebted to them and the other half was scared of them.
So now palestine was democratic but the government was overthrown by a mob... wait you said that didnt happen to democracy.
Of but wait of course it wasnt a TRUE democracy.
You're right. I never said that. So why would you bring it up?
You said that if there was a war and then democracy came along and the war ended it would support your statement? Yes you did.
I dont recall any statement regarding democracy ENDING wars from your side so I had to make it up for myself I guess.
Pretty easy too, I have been stuffed with democratic propaganda since childhood.
Right. Well I disagree. Your definition of war is already covered by other words so you are effectively rendering the word "war" useless.
Not really, it gets irritating to hear the same word all the time, thats why mankind invented: conflict/battle/war instead of just one of them... lets you variate your choice of words a little.
No it doesn't. Russia was barely democratic at best; you can't overthrow something that never existed.
Now we are back to your definition of TRUE democracy aren't we? Funny how I saw it comming.
The old Soviet Union power structures remained in place after the fall and simply reestablished SU style rule as soon as possible.
So what these old structures kinda overthrew the new democratic government?
Besides, I never said that no democracy had never been overthrown. I'm not sure why you are attacking that argument since it is one I never made.
See now you made me catch you in a LIE. In fact I cought you in two, your original statements were:
1. "No true democracy has ever been overthrown."
Dont lie.
2. "No two democracies have ever fought a war."
It wasnt started, it was fought. The I/P conflict now counts for sure.

You consistently try to alter your statements when you figure out they are wrong, I didnt even notice it one time.
A leader of a communist party isn't necessarily a dictator. For example, in China the communist party leaders rule by the will of the people.
Its not the will of the people when theres only one party to vote for...
The Chinese people still think that communism is a good idea, or at least that it isn't worth doing away with just yet.
Source? Last time they tried to protest it was a massacre I wouldnt blame them for not speaking up again.
That is why the most expensive war ever waged (the cold war) was between democracy and communism. They are both "of the people" style governments.
Whats your point? "People-wars" are more expensive than diplomatic wars? Sure whatever, but whats the relevance here?
The difference is that democracy actually IS "of the people" while communism tries to be but fails by necessity. That is why communists don't lie about being democratic, they don't have to.
That commie dictators dont have to doesnt exactly make your statement correct which was:
3. "Since the invention of democracy dictators and authoritarians have lied and said they were democratically elected"
Some have yes, but not really a majority so the statement is useless at best.
Dictators, on the other hand, only hold on to power by actively suppressing the will of the people to remove them from power which is why they lie about being democratic (if they bother) and why it is so easy to see through their lies.
Maybe thats the case with some dictators, but fake rulers in monarchies have claimed to be rightful heirs for the throne aswell, what does your statement try to show?
Is it that because once in a while someone claim to be democratic even though they arent everyone must actually support democracy, even the bad guys?
And if thats what you mean and even if everybody in the world did agree democracy is the best, does that mean we cant do better?

No one have actually tried any part of technocracy, oh except most cooperations that just so happen to kick the sh*t out of governments when it comes to efficiency... go figure huh.

[Realpra]

Technology alliviated most problems on the long term (and created others, by example some forms of pollution).
Pollution is caused by bad technology.
And public property is still something a government appears to be the best administrator. Some infrastructures (like roads) are of common interest but it's difficult to leave them to the private sector.
What is it about the private sector that makes you wish they COULD be trusted with public matters?
About the stone axe makers, obviously we can't keep making stone axes just to let them work. But since they are part of the society, their problem is political, so a political solution may be needed, by example a form of requalification of work. This may be done by the private sector, but it's not granted.
Education is a scientific/technology/knowledgeseeking-oriented solution, much like technocracy in general.
Technological problems call for more developement of course, but here we are talking about the political problems of government. If it's outside the field of politics or policies, it's out of discussion. Maybe one day we'll have perfect technical solutions wich will take many of our problems out of history, but are you waiting for the invention of nuclear fusion to use electric power?
It HAS been invented it just has to be a little more efficient, if we had a technocratic world soon noone would be needing oil because we would have invested heavily in fusion power and since hydrogen is the most common material in the entire universe it would have solved our energy problems for the next billion years.
Now we have some technologies and their problems so we have to deal with them. When we'll have new technologies, we'll deal with their specific problems. New technologies can create new problems wich hit a given part of the society, wether by accident or because it's an ineludible payoff (at least if we don't want to keep grinding stone).
Yes theres problems but as you say the new tools still do more good than evil, which is why focusing on developing better technology cant really be considered a bad idea.
If technocracy is the government of the experts, how are they selected?
I already asked that question or at least pointed to it indirectly:
Me: "In this crude form theres little incentitive for the questionably chosen "expert elite" to move forward and beuarocracy is bound to spring up."
Notice "... questionably chosen "expert elite...".
See since I raised the issue first, you're supposed to come with an answer :)
Theres no check for corruption of the leaders either as in democracy, also a potential problem.
And finally there might be reasons for not using certain technologies, will they restraint themselves? Probably more than a democracy would I think as they would understand the technologies in question being experts and all.
How they can go on being experts in technical problems if they have to become political leaders (their day is unlikely to become a 36 hour day)? Or are they experts of politics?
Thats the beauty, they wont have to waste time and money on campaigns, they are dictatorial in their power based on their expertise.

It raises a relevant question though:
"What would an expert indeed a scientist in politics be? What would he develop?"
This would be consistent with the rest of the society where everybody works on a narrow field (wether repairing cars or reporting news), but basically would transform technocracy in a democracy
Why? Would it turn out that that was the perfect society? Or would that be how the political experts were chosen best?

[Homini Lupus]

It seems obvious that we have differen points of view about the problems of technological developement and we're not going to find common ground, so it's pointless going on discussing that. So I'll pass to the new question risen. How elites are chosen? Or at least, how the first elite group is chosen, since subsequent elites are likely to be chosen by the first group. That depends on their role. Their role is govern hence, in a technocracy, that elite must be composed of people able to understand and discuss problems, unless they are able to create a science of government able to turn all possible scenarios in a single equation with only a possible solution. Since they are going to create quite a lot of rules, discussing those problems will become their full day job, even if we cancel by dictatorship the need to advertise their election. This would make them politicians by definition, or part time technician and part time politician, but they would likely be poor technician since that role needs much more dedication. They would probably have to ask a real technician a report about the technical problems, understand it, discuss it (much likely in a commission) and then vote it. And this is already how a working democracy should do. The main difference I could think of would then be how to select that political elite, wich in a technocracy could be done by a public test in wich the x (x is the number of politicians needed) best concurrants get their chair. The advantage of this would be a better prepared political elite, the downside is the lack of possibility for the governed to punish the governors in case of poor performance.

I would consider a more interesting solution a test wich eliminates the ignorants and then a democratic election among the winners.

By the way, political science already exists. I always criticised the idea (it uses statistics but it's not a real science) but it isn't useless. Its role is to examine and compare different political sistems and their outcomes in order to understand their dynamics and eventually debug systems. There are also many other theorisations useful for a politician (international right, sociology, constitutional right, history, economics (micro, macro and international), political theories)

[zibber]

I leave for work in about two minutes, but I feel compelled to post a blurb here. (On which I'd definitely like to elaborate later, though my personal ethical system is a neverending work in progress.)

Small non-industrial, liberal, cooperative communities where the main focuses are mutual respect, some workable level of harmony and reasonable quality of life (forgoing quite a lot of luxurious (read: non-essential) aspects of modern industrial life) rather than economic growth and increasing global synchronisation. Will this ever happen? Absolutely not. It would mean giving up a lot of securities and comforts industrialism allows us, which is a barely comprehensible notion to most. Actually, most people seem to be quite pleased with today's world, excepting minor, passing rumblings.

ps. I do hope people don't make the vital error of confusing ideological socialism or Marxism with examples of massively institutionalised socialism like the Russian and Chinese regimes. That is a typical, unfair trap embraced by industrialists and capitalists worldwide.

pps. I'm late.

[ArchonAlarion]

Ummm.... for me, voluntary "government", no state.

It's not contradictory, unless you only bath, have friends, watch movies, go to bars, eat, etc., because there's some state official with a gun to your head demanding you do these things. ;P. There is such a thing as self-government. The state is a type of government, but government does not necessarily mean a state.

And for everyone who keeps saying, "I would choose anarchy if human nature allowed it, blah blah blah," maybe you should think about this for a sec.

If humanity was inherently good, why would we need a state? If humanity is mostly bad, than what a great reason not to have a state, which will be made up by humans! Further, the coercive nature of the state draws individuals who seek power. These people do not have the best intentions. So actually, the state will have a much higher percentage of bad people in it then the subjected population will.

As much as one would expect from organized crime.

Basically, the human nature argument is plain ridiculous.

Lastly, for those pining for technocracy, I'd suggest you read The Road To Serfdom by Hayek. Technocracy is naive socialism.

[phantasma]

Anarchy would only work if every single individual had the devine wisdom to do the most optimal in all ways at all times. So maybe when/if mankind become true gods in both power and wisdom we can have anarchy.
The reasons have been stated already.



It's spelled "divine". Also, that's why I added "if it weren't for human nature". Ultimately, people ought to be able to take care of themselves.

[Radamisto]

My ideal is a society without any government. How to achieve it? Just like the old classical liberals did: educating the public and exerting pressure on the governments. Once instituted, it will be pretty stable, but continued education efforts will be needed. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!

[Assiette]

Very small, independent, self-sustaining communities with no "central power" overseeing everything. These small communities would democratically elect a committee (7 ish people), and hopefully choose intelligent, good people. The committee members would discuss issues and vote over them. They may have a committee head, but only if the community approves. The penalty for committee members who succomb to bribery/corruption is death.

[JonD]

My ideal form of government would be technocracy. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(bureaucratic)) The intellectual elite would rule, and not the people who play on the feelings of the voters.

Feelings are the only thing that separates us from machines. We are trained to be impartial, immoral, "just doing my job" kind of people. There's a great quote from Derrick Jensen, that "Technology cannot solve the problems technology creates." For a simple case of this, look to the amount of damage done to the world by industrial civilization in dollars. Compare this to the amount of money we have received from the natural world through industrialization. The damages outweigh the profits, showing that despite our knowledge of tools, our ignorance of basic ecosystems we need to survive spells our impending doom. The numbers may just be estimates, but the ballpark figures still stand.

The ideal society I believe is compatible with 'human nature' and the environment is small, tight-knit indigenous style communities. Smaller communities reward altruistic actions over selfish actions. Being selfish would mean being shunned from the community, and maybe even exile, which would spell certain death. This takes care of corruption through wealth, crime(since everyone knows each other. It wouldn't be hard to figure out who killed who, just think of how well small town folk know what's going on. Plus, why would you want to kill someone in your community, if everyone serves an important purpose?) Democracy in this situation would not work, and elders of the community who are interested in longevity of the tribe above all else would have priority over tribal decisions, but all members of the tribe could participate in the decision making processes that guide the group.

Obviously, this kind of politics isn't compatible with our current culture. But it is ideal.

[Karamazov]

My ideal is a society without any government. How to achieve it? Just like the old classical liberals did: educating the public and exerting pressure on the governments. Once instituted, it will be pretty stable, but continued education efforts will be needed. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!

Assuming that the populace is made up of rational individuals, capable of critical thinking when confronted with the facts. In which case, living under a republic today, it's proven to be quite futile. I suppose eternal vigilance is better than nothing.

[Chrysalis]

Meritocratic Technocracy.

[enWTFp]

After some critical mass of population there is no proper government. Connect them all to become one mind and get things even worse. I suspect civilization works pretty much like the core of a star.

Very small, independent, self-sustaining communities with no "central power" overseeing everything. These small communities would democratically elect a committee (7 ish people), and hopefully choose intelligent, good people. The committee members would discuss issues and vote over them. They may have a committee head, but only if the community approves. The penalty for committee members who succomb to bribery/corruption is death.This sounds great. +5 points for avatar too.

[Deliberator]

My ideal form of government is made up of democratically elected intelligent people who can see the big picture and who always strive for protecting personal liberties and fostering an environment where hard workers and innovative minds can get ahead. Pipe dream really.

The best I can hope for is intelligently regulated capitalism and a government that strives toward a libertarian ideal (even though that won't and probably shouldn't be reached). Most of all, keeping a sufficiently small government will cut down on the diffusion of responsibility that's made the US government so pathetic in recent years.

[Chrysalis]

There is no proper government with the death penalty for crimes who do not hurt another person physically. All this small communities with no central power crap is merely an oversimplistic black and white picture. It is even worse than the ideas of Ayn Rand. Reality is endless shades of grey.

Every system of small communities will eventually evolve back into more complex incarnations of society. You have to accept that sociocultural interaction is dynamic and not static. Becoming more and more complex like an organic system. So you will just see history relived and repeated, putting the whole species at risk of extinction. Humankind needs to improve the current state of its development instead of yearning for a fairytale world.

I know that in terms of politics and economics many believe that small equals good and big equals bad or evil. Contrastively superior intelligence was thought to coincide with a bigger brain. You can easily find more examples. The problem is similar to a confusion of quality with quantity. Apparently it is not very promising to observe anything in this manner. Drawing conclusions like that is of course even worse.

[reb]

governments are a human invention. so far, my observation has been that human inventions are always flawed, and have unintended consequences that no one seems to be capable of dealing with....therefore, i desire no government. i am fully capable of taking care of most of my needs without outside intervention by some idiot with a separate agenda. should i be robbed by those with better armament, so be it. i'm willing to deal with those consequences; what i am not willing to deal with is government with its nose stuck under my tent flap....and it's getting in further and further...watch this election....the camel will be in the tent afterwards, lying on the sleeping bag, and we'll be outside the tent in the sand....

[Hebr3wThunder]

The best government is a small one with minimal regulation whose soul purpose is to protect it's citizens from foreign threats. What America essentially does is create a problem through bureaucratic means, in turn eventually creating a larger problem. What we are left with is a seemingly unstoppable downward spiral of more complex government structures that are extremely inefficient and impossible to control. The best means to produce a desirable outcome is private citizens accomplishing tasks and goal that they see fit. As America has relied more so on politics to accomplish tasks people have become oblivious to their power to control where their country will go.

[Chrysalis]

I have to admit that I am highly sceptical about those libertarian ideas. Are there any examples of small governments in any successful nation or empire? I doubt it highly.

[Hebr3wThunder]

America was supposed to run in that fashion but didn't. Most likely due to misinterpretation of the constitution and the bending of it to one's will. We allowed the constitution to remain an open book, and the only way to form the government I propose would be stop that. I doubt there are any governments that run that way due to attitudes toward government, over reliance and such, and the ego's of those in office.

[Chrysalis]

So we never know if such a system would actually survive?

[Hebr3wThunder]

No more than we know the current one will. There are to many variables to make an accurate prediction of the success of a government. The best test is trial.