Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-29 01:18:03

In response to Euler's point, might it be practicable to specify certain attributes a 'candidate' must possess?
For example, a certain educational level might be mandatory or, conversely, certain occupations such as film star, sporting hero, or TV personality could be ruled out.
My first instinct was to allow only people who would be at least 45 years old at the beginning of their tenure and no more than 80 at the termination of tenure. This stems from my impression that life experience is beneficial in decision-making processes, and has the advantage of eliminating the great majority of active sports stars and pop idols. However, there are probably numerous reasons why these criteria shouldn't be applied ... who knows, maybe Britney Spears would make a great dictatorial oligarch!!

Bill's question: 'Who guards the guardians' is an eternally relevant point, to which I have no response except to ask whether anyone else here can suggest a straightforward safety mechanism to prevent our 7-year council becoming more permanent?
???

CC, you obviously expect your dictator to have made more than a few unpopular decisions if you think it necessary to get him out of the country when his 'reign' is through!!

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-29 04:29:22

Cobra,

Now if only we could get a reasonable ETA on the required level of technology.

I've basically been maintaining that it would be possible around when colonization is possible.

Glad to know that you see where I'm coming from.

One less person to think I'm crazy!

Byron · 2003-10-29 05:50:31

I was daydreaming one day about a possible alternative to democracy as we know it. It's a very underdeveloped notion and it's still democracy in a way but it gets rid of the career politicians and the big party system. (Or at least, I think it might! )
I got the basic idea from the political arrangement purportedly used in mythical Atlantis.
Every country produces extraordinary people in all walks of life. Most of us can probably think of several individuals who stand out as more intelligent, more public spirited, and/or wiser than the rest of us. These people usually stand astride the political scene, not in it but somehow above it - and that's the main point of my daydream.
How about having the people of a country vote for an individual, or very small group of individuals, that they regard as 'special' in terms of their humanity, intelligence, practicality, and wisdom. The thousands of names resulting from this poll are placed in a computer, which picks out the top seven (or ten or twelve, I'm not sure about group dynamics and haven't decided on a number).
This group of, say, seven is then required by the constitution to govern the country for so many years - perhaps seven years. They would be compensated in some way for the disruption to their lives and for any financial loss incurred as a result of their 'national service'. At the end of the set period, their service is terminated and they must step down, to be replaced by the next group for the next seven years.
This system has the potential to deliver impartial rule by a kind of dictatorial oligarchy. But the beauty of it is that the rulers aren't people who want to rule, it's actually more of a patriotic duty or an imposition to be one of 'The Council' - simultaneously an honour and a chore. And the members of the group are beholden to no political party, are not required to be wealthy in order to gain such power, and the power they hold, though almost absolute (within limits delineated by a basic bill of rights) is transient.
We get the advantages of centralised direction, like a monarchy or dictatorship, but we also get the security of knowing the rulers have a use-by date.
This is very much an idealised and, so far, embryonic system. There are thousands of details I haven't tackled, or indeed even thought of!
But could it be made to work, if not exactly as I've suggested, then at least in some similar form?
???

One of the more interesting ideas I've heard in a long time...especially the part about the computer selecting the names of people to serve on the council. I guess you're assuming that we'll have some form of artificial intelligence in place by then...lol..

I think this idea could be taken a step further by having the council (probably 9-12 people would work best) elect one of their own to serve as President, as you really need to have someone at the top...especially when it comes to matters of foreign relations.

I do think, however, that you would still need an elected Congress to balance out the power of the council....but I guess the power of Congress (or Parliment) would have to be reduced somehow in relation to the council.

In addition, I think having a Bill of Rights would be more important than ever to protect against possible mis-doings of the council, as some of those people really might not have a clue about what they are doing. (Like Bill Gates for example...he makes a great businessman, but in all honesty, how would he do as a national leader??)

If I had my say of who to put on the council, my first pick right now would be Jack McKeon, the 72-year old manager of the World Series winning Marlins (who started the season as a losing team before he took over in May)...now there's someone who can turn things around!

Ah well, it doesn't hurt to daydream, does it? Let's keep these cool ideas flowing...

B

clark · 2003-10-29 11:18:13

Public health infrastructure does not require the government for its existence.

No, but what is the alternative? Priavate hospitals? Private clinics? Private vaccinations? So, people without access to these private places, bleeding in the streets, what do they do? Better yet, YOU, Cobra, without Medical insurance, needs a certain medicine for your sick wife, She will die without it. And you can't make enough to purchase it. What would you do? Why force people into situations like this?

The post should pay for itself, and education isn't free.

Let's say the internet just died tommorrow. Along with all the telecommunications. How would you communicate with your government? With your loved ones? Private 'express'? Okay, now only those who can afford it can communicate- this is a big problem in a society that holds we need to be open to speech and ideas.

As for education... look, privatization is the wrong way to go. The fact of the matter is you can't have an egalitarian society based on meritocrasy unless everyone has equal access to education. Education is what allows our much vaunted, and much stabilizing, 'social mobility'. The GI bill should show you that.

As for the rest, I see the reasons for having them but I have serious concerns about government taking the responsibility for them. Besides, I never ruled out a modest tax on consumption.

If not the government, then who? Who is the government? Well, it's us, right? You agree that government should do more than just security and justice, so how far is to far, and why?

And as for taxing consumption- are you suggesting we should tax things like fast food to help cover the costs of morbid obseity? What happened to personal responsibility?

The only way I see it working properly is if it's controlled entirely by a government not directly answerable to the people, but then we have all sorts of other problems.

Take a look at Germany and the reforms Schroder is trying to make to the social saftey net. You're right about Democracy, which is why our Founders had enough sense to implement a Republic!

Of course, we've mucked up the Republic by instutiing a lot of feel good reforms that allow the worst parts of democracy to control government. Come to California and see what the ballot intitives have done! :laugh:

I'm in complete agreement, but if we then tax the populace in order to take care of these irresponsible people they're still stealing, just less directly.

Do you have fire insurance? Home owners insurance? What are you paying for? Think of it like that- an insurance against social breakdown, and an insurance in case you ever have the unfortunate circumstance to find yourself needing that saftey net.

Now, for the Council-of-Wise-Old-People-who-are-talented-and-skilled-but-not-Celebrities

You know the thing about lotteries, I never win, and some guy who is a fry cook from Albania and can't read, always does. The thing about people who have no interest in a job, they usually do as much as they need to get the job done, and do what is neccessary to get over with as quickly as possible. How many times have you joked with friends and family about ways to get out of jury duty? Now you want to do that with the government? Another thing to consider to is that in any system where you use these luckless vouleenteer, the burecrats who wrok there, day in and day out, will have the power. These burecrats get things done, or don't- but we, the people, would be hard pressed to understand that since the Council of Hyphens is the face of our government.

As for critera being 'special', 'wise', 'skilled', 'etc.'; what might that be? Who might decide that? Some here think I'm skilled, or 'special' (I am not saying in what way they meant it... ) but I would be the last person to suggest that I would make a good Council member, yet that idea itself somehow makes me more qualified since I don't want it... dosen't this all seem like approaching government with our ass backwards? :laugh:

I think the first order for any government is the idea that the people TRUST in the people they elect, however that is done. But our problems, in the US at least, is that we elect people we DON'T trust, and take it as par fro the course. Business as usual. Status quo. There is a breakdown in our expectations- we expect less, and when we get exactly that, we don't act.

So here are my suggestions: a "none of the above" choice. instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, let us have the choice to reject all options, and start the whole damn process over again. Let any legislation passed by slim majorities also require a public referendum, which merely votes on the legislation in 'yes', 'no', or 'none of the above'. A majority of 'no', or 'none of the above' negates the legislation. Let there be a neccessary majority winner- no plurality, no majority-minority vote (so those people with 22% can't just take the seat). Give me run-offs.

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-29 19:20:16

[

Public health infrastructure does not require the government for its existence.
No, but what is the alternative? Priavate hospitals? Private clinics? Private vaccinations?

This is essentially what we have, and it works. It's not perfect but nothing ever is.

Let's say the internet just died tommorrow. Along with all the telecommunications. How would you communicate with your government? With your loved ones? Private 'express'? Okay, now only those who can afford it can communicate- this is a big problem in a society that holds we need to be open to speech and ideas.

Free speech is one thing, but a right to spread it around is quite another. Does the government give you internet access? My comment on the Post Office was simply refering to the fact that it pays for itself by the fees it charges. Yes, it's government run but it is not free nor does it rely on direct taxation. A service paid for by those that use it. And yet some people see the need to pay more for FedEx.

As for education... look, privatization is the wrong way to go.

All I said was that it wasn't free. Some people think it is, but anything paid for with tax dollars is not free.

The fact of the matter is you can't have an egalitarian society based on meritocrasy unless everyone has equal access to education.

I would argue that you can't have an egalitarian society based on meritocracy at all The latter casts serious questions about the former.

You agree that government should do more than just security and justice, so how far is to far, and why?

I am of the opinion that the government should defend the nation, make just laws and enforce them, see to the maintenance of sanitation and transportation infrastructure (not necessarily directly, private contractors probably work better) and otherwise leave the citizenry alone. Create the conditions for free people to succeed, the rest is up to them. If a private charity wants to help the unfortunate, great, I fully support that and might even give some money when I can afford to; but by forcing me to give I've actually been deprived of the opportunity to do good and robbed in the process.

And as for taxing consumption- are you suggesting we should tax things like fast food to help cover the costs of morbid obseity?

I simply meant a sales tax. In single digits.

Of course, we've mucked up the Republic by instutiing a lot of feel good reforms that allow the worst parts of democracy to control government. Come to California and see what the ballot intitives have done! :laugh:

I know, you just keep getting more messed up over there on the Left Coast. Oh, sorry to hear that your state's on fire, the hits just keep comin' don't they? ??? Arnold'll fix it

Do you have fire insurance? Home owners insurance? What are you paying for? Think of it like that- an insurance against social breakdown, and an insurance in case you ever have the unfortunate circumstance to find yourself needing that saftey net.

The difference being that I'm not forced to have homeowner's insurance. I can take the risk.

Alright, moving on.

In response to Euler's point, might it be practicable to specify certain attributes a 'candidate' must possess?
For example, a certain educational level might be mandatory or, conversely, certain occupations such as film star, sporting hero, or TV personality could be ruled out.

I'm gonna put this on the reject pile. I've known a lot of highly educated people that I wouldn't want running a hotdog stand let alone a nation, and on the hand we have Ronald Reagan, film star who turned out to be pretty good President. And here come the shouts of vehement disagreement

who knows, maybe Britney Spears would make a great dictatorial oligarch!!

To quote the great philospher Dr. Evil, "How 'bout no!"

Bill's question: 'Who guards the guardians' is an eternally relevant point, to which I have no response except to ask whether anyone else here can suggest a straightforward safety mechanism to prevent our 7-year council becoming more permanent?

Surly, armed citizens.

CC, you obviously expect your dictator to have made more than a few unpopular decisions if you think it necessary to get him out of the country when his 'reign' is through!!

Well, if a leader can't make unpopular decisions he shouldn't have the job. But the exile thing was mainly a whim that would effectively keep the ex-dictator from constantly blathering on about what the current dictator is doing wrong. Thank you Bill Clinton for making this necessary. Can make that exile retroactive?

For my money, the essential question of politics has never been better expressed than in the first book of the Federalist Papers:
Quote
It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

Good one. Yet I always found it odd that the opportunity to reflect and choose came only after much accident and force. Force still rules, it's what you do with it that makes all the difference.

I do think, however, that you would still need an elected Congress to balance out the power of the council....but I guess the power of Congress (or Parliment) would have to be reduced somehow in relation to the council.

Ahh! Now we've got two inefficient committees to deal with! I hope that Congress isn't bi-cameral, we'll never get anything done!

Congress is the opposite of Progress

As for the idea of somehow randomly choosing those who will govern, this is the worst idea in the history of politics. Worse than Communism even. Everyone who governs should want to be there, the question is do they want the power to do something specific or do they just want the power? Means or end?

There are people who can have dictatorial power and not abuse it, but they are rare. If a group of people all have the same basic interests a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government they can have, the problem is that when a person is in power for a relatively short amount of time their interests no longer match those of the populace. look at Congress, anyone who thinks Trent lott, Ted Kennedy or Jim Jeffords are concerned about the same things as they are isn't quite in touch with real life.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-10-29 01:18:03

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#27 2003-10-29 04:29:22

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#28 2003-10-29 05:50:31

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#29 2003-10-29 11:18:13

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#30 2003-10-29 19:20:16

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

Board footer