doesn't exist, I know. Nevertheless, I'm collecting ideas about a government that cannot be corrupted as easily as today's governments. Any ideas, even crazy ones (especially crazy ones) will help me zip through this assignment. thanks
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
1) A perfect democracy, in which all citizens vote on all issues, and no issue is decided without a majority vote of the eligible population (and not just a voting majority.)
2) 24-hour surveillance of all government representatives, with web feeds available for persual online by any interested parties.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
My friend Don (he was in the wedding...) has this fantastic idea. Instead of electing people to Congress, we all get assigned at random to serve in the legislative branch for a specific term and then you go on your merry way. You don't have any campaigns, no funding, etc.
If the idea of the great unwashed being "in charge" for awhile makes you worried, we could make people pass a test first and then select at random from all the qualified candidates.
But I like treating it just like jury duty. Tag, you're it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Can't we just make me supreme dictator? I'll be nice and fair. I promise. Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I actually came up with a concept for a government that I think would be superior to any form so far devised. But I won't post it here, 'cause then everyone will jump on it and tell me why it's a terrible idea. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Bob, I'd hate that, 'cause then I'd have to serve! Actually, I might not have to. I haven't even been called for jury duty yet.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
mack...my first jury duty experience was on a Grand Jury. It was GREAT! I highly recommend it.
And just remember, a hung jury has nothing to do with nooses.
Or genitalia.
Posted by whydidntitakethebluepill (Member # 8320) on :
Come on Verily the Younger, lets discuss your concept for a government
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:1) A perfect democracy, in which all citizens vote on all issues, and no issue is decided without a majority vote of the eligible population (and not just a voting majority.)
What's the big deal about deciding issues through the consent of the majority? It's not possible that 51 percent of the people can be corrupt?
Posted by Homonculus (Member # 7486) on :
I like the idea of giving most of the power to the ordinary people. However, wouldnt they need to have some sort of qualification? i.e. some sort of higher education, distinction within their communities, etc.?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I feel like it would be very hard to get 51% of the population to agree on anything.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Um, didn't they agree to elect Al Gore to the presidency?
Posted by Homonculus (Member # 7486) on :
Extension of previous post... What if there weren't any politicians?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, that was a much smaller percentage, and even of those who voted it was a fraction of one percent total advantage to Gore.
You know, I'm not sure when the last guy actually got the majority of the population voting in his favor. Decades, at least.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I've got it! The perfect government:
There will be no rich or poor. Everyone will be equal. Jobs will be assigned by the government and...wait...
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Yea, with a turnout at 30% or lower and that being split, getting 50% to vote one way would be kinda hard. There'd have to be some sort of cash incentive or something. Posted by whydidntitakethebluepill (Member # 8320) on :
What if the voting process was made easier? Like portable electronic ballots built into cellphones or something (with finger print identification, of course). Anyway, to add to Bob and Homonculus' point, what if members of the congress weren't politicians, but people who contribute to society, like doctors and engineers?
Posted by Homonculus (Member # 7486) on :
Interesting idea. I wonder what Uncle Orson would have to say...
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: What's the big deal about deciding issues through the consent of the majority? It's not possible that 51 percent of the people can be corrupt?
Not in the same way as our elected and appointed officials are now, no.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Something that cannot become corrupt.
Simple, have a computer that is not able to be hacked in any shape or form, also, its programming is bug-free. (Just pretend it exists.) And have it make all of the decisions based on rationality.
Mind you, I would never follow under a government like this, for to teach a computer ethics would be very difficult.
But, it is, impossible to corrupt.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Again, one of my favorite quotes. From Brecht's Galileo:
quote:- Pity the land that has no hero. - No. Pity the land that needs a hero.
The solution to corruption in not in a system. The best system can only keep it at bay somewhat. The only way to be free of corruption is change the people in the system.
I think approaching government as an entity working on a static population is a mistake. Rather, I think seeing it as a function that takes in a population with some characteristics and results in a population with different characteristics can be a very useful perspective.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Appoint someone like me dictator. I am already self-serving, so you know what you are getting. On the other hand I have nothing against the populace, as mainly I would just want to enjoy a few simple pleasures. Therefore I would have an incentive to rule well, so that I may enjoy said pleasures for as long as possible without fear of assassination.
Posted by Homonculus (Member # 7486) on :
Danzig, that sounds all well and nice, and I'm not doubting that you would rule well. However, power corrupts, and I'm pretty sure that as a dictator, you would soon forget your initial plans. I wonder, how could we build a system that would be free from corruption and free from politicians? And as the bluepill guy said, a system governed by doctors, engineers, etc..
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
quote:My friend Don (he was in the wedding...) has this fantastic idea. Instead of electing people to Congress, we all get assigned at random to serve in the legislative branch for a specific term and then you go on your merry way. You don't have any campaigns, no funding, etc.
Read "Songs of Distant Earth" by Arthur C. Clarke. That book is the first place I came across this idea.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
How about drastically lowering all of the perks of being a politician? Give them, say, the median wage of the US population, no gifts, and no access to previous earned (or inherited) wealth while they're serving their term. In fact, make it downright unenjoyable to serve in office. Couple that with very strict rules on campaign finance (just give everyone in the race X amount of dollars, and that's ALL they get to spend), and there's no incentive to run for office unless you want to go in there and do something good for your country.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:and there's no incentive to run for office unless you want to go in there and do something good for your country.
Yes there is for anybody currently earning lower than the median.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Because humans are fallible and no human government can be absolutely perfect, The only perfectly incorruptible government is a theocracy ("government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided") with a infallible God as head.
FG
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
quote:Yea, with a turnout at 30% or lower and that being split, getting 50% to vote one way would be kinda hard. There'd have to be some sort of cash incentive or something.
Well of course you could just do what we do in Australia. It's illegal not to vote. You get fined if you don't. Even in local elections. It means usually at least one trip to the polls a year.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Well, then there's an incentive for around 90% of the population right now (I'm just taking a guess at the percentage) since the base wage for the House and Sente is $158,100. The Speaker of the House gets $203,000. Plus other benefits: linky The median household income in 2002 was $42,409.
The thing I'm trying to point out, however, is that there are a lot of benifits that come with being a member of congress or otherwise involved in politics. Many of those in power are also quite rich to begin with - they win campaign with their own money and then continue to live in a pretty nice manner while in office.
If you took that away, and made the time in office fairly "uncomfortable" - flying coach, living in a middle-class neighborhood, saving up for a vacation or night out - basically all the things the average American has to do, then I think a lot of the people who are in Congress now would decide that the power they gain from being in office isn't worth the loss of their old lifestyle. Especially if they didn't get anything from that power besides the ability to say "I am a U.S. Senator/Congressman/President."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:2) 24-hour surveillance of all government representatives, with web feeds available for persual online by any interested parties.
I'm no judge, but I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, yes, it's probably unconstitutional in the US, but we're talking about theoretically uncorruptible governments, not necessarily ways to make the US government uncorruptible.
In other words, if you're starting from scratch, you can easily make a goverment where such a thing would not be unconstitutional. Just don't put any right to privacy in your constitution. Or you could specifically deny any right to privacy to any holder of public office.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jhai -- however, its extremely hard for a congressperson to live on just that salary, the cost of living goes up hugely. She must maintain a residence in his home state and DC (some congresspeople share townhouses and such to keep costs down), she must travel extensively, she must maintain a high end wardrobe, she usually has a family who need to travel regularly to and fro in order to have time with her, et cetera.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Well of course you could just do what we do in Australia. It's illegal not to vote. You get fined if you don't. Even in local elections. It means usually at least one trip to the polls a year.
Yikes. I would say one of the most fundamental rights in government is to be able to not vote.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
The perfect government is one ruled by a perfectly wise philosopher king aided by a bureaucracy of the perfect size to enact all of the mandates of the king and no larger, manned by people who have no personal ambition. The king will make all of the right decisions and can implement them immediately through the efficient bureraucracy.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:In other words, if you're starting from scratch, you can easily make a goverment where such a thing would not be unconstitutional. Just don't put any right to privacy in your constitution. Or you could specifically deny any right to privacy to any holder of public office
I don't think I want to get rid of the right to privacy.
As long as we're starting over.
I think the new country should be smaller. Based just on the fact that people are more responsible, respectful, and considerate when dealing with people they know.
Keep your community small, and you have less problems. Especially since I think that most of our country's problems come from people taking advantage of the system, which there's no way to prevent.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
quote:Originally posted by Homonculus: Danzig, that sounds all well and nice, and I'm not doubting that you would rule well. However, power corrupts, and I'm pretty sure that as a dictator, you would soon forget your initial plans. I wonder, how could we build a system that would be free from corruption and free from politicians? And as the bluepill guy said, a system governed by doctors, engineers, etc..
You missed the point. I am already as corrupt as I am going to get. No one could bribe me because I would be at the top, and though I might be corrupt in the sense of being selfish it would be in my own self-interest to have loyal government officials and a reasonably content populace, with a system that could withstand foreign and domestic threats. I would never care for the citizens for their own sake. Also in my case it would work because I do not so much want to rule as I would prefer ruling to being ruled.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
An honest politician?
Danzig has my vote for dictator.
/"And I, for one, would like to welcome our new alien overlords."
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Why should people who don’t care or know anything about the issues vote? I’m not saying not to allow them to vote, but we seem to encourage people to vote no matter what.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I think that gets into a different issue of voter apathy, etc. If you don't care about an issue, you won't make the effort of learning about the issue, which means you're probably less likely to vote (unless it's some major issue or issues that is/are the ultimate deciding factor(s)). I don't really know what to do about that one though.
Posted by whydidntitakethebluepill (Member # 8320) on :
Several people have suggested a government that wasn't controlled by politicians -- or people whose lives are dedicated to furthering their own political goals -- but the idea doesn't seem to have caught on. Why do we need politicians, who don't seem too interested in serving the good of the people, to make all our decisions?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Holy shit. I agree with Jay. Seriously, why is voting at all costs (or worse, mandatory voting) a good thing? All it will do is add more randomness to the process.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
We need politicians because everybody doesn't have the time or desire to inform themselves of all the legislature that's being passed everyday Congress is in session. We don't want people randomly voting on laws anymore than we want people randomly voting for politicians who will then vote on those laws. The ancient Greek citizens had time to inform themselves because there was a large percentage of the population (slaves, workers, and woman) who kept the economy going while the citizens bickered about the laws.
I think we need to find a way to funnel the people interested in serving the common good into the job of politican, rather than the power/prestige-hungry politicans we see today.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
i think plato had it right --> an intellectual ruling class
i agree that democracy is flawed, because even if people do vote, most of them are idiots, and why would you want to put your future in the hands of the bumbling masses? with a big enough, self-policing, intellectual ruling class, you could get rid of corruption because everyone in power would be expendable, since all the people in the ruling class would be smart enough to rule, so in order to stay in power, you would have to do what you do good (haha i know you could think of a million scenarios in which this doesnt work, but the same goes for good ol democracy) yeah.. im not sure if im totally serious about what i just said, but it would be worth a try (oh and an intellectual ruling class doesnt imply a return to the class system as as whole)
Posted by whydidntitakethebluepill (Member # 8320) on :
Jhai, I think you're right. What if members of the community, served as politicians for a year or two, then went back to their regular jobs. There would be no incentive to further their political goals, since their entire political life would end within two years.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
But who would run the agency that selected the leaders? And who would enforce their laws? Voila, there’s where all the power-hungry would end up.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Random selection (as suggested above) could do the trick. Not that I'm suggesting that as a real option but it's a fun intellectual game.
(I once read a philosophy essay that suggested (tongue-in-cheek) that we do a "child swap," where every child in the US would be moved every 4 years to a different family, with the child spending the first 8 years with its original family, as well as at least one other "swap" before he turns 20. The author thought that would greatly improve education and social conditions in places where they may be lacking)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
If you are only in a political position for a couple of years, then off to private employment, wouldn't some be tempted to push government policy, and government contracts, to thier future employees--see Boeing and the Pentagon for an example or 100.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
1. Campaign Funding Restrictions 2. At least somewhat un-biased constituency border-drawing. 3. Better, more honest and cleverer journalists. 4. A focus on preventing economic corruption rather than getting distracted by social scandal.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't believe I'm seeing this. This is Hatrack? What happened? Normally if a question even smells like it might have to do with school all the asker gets is a chorus of "Do your own homework!" But this person flat out said it was homework!
quote:will help me zip through this assignment.
Posted by whydidntitakethebluepill (Member # 8320) on :
It's not homework. It's just something I've been thinking about for the past few weeks. I guess 'assignment' was the wrong word to use, but I would never ask for help on an assignment, especially since I'm not taking any classes right now.
Posted by Homonculus (Member # 7486) on :
Anyway, getting back on topic, advice for robots mentioned something about an agency running the management of laws, etc. This kinda made me think of OSC's Shadow series and the Hegemony. Does anyone know the inner workings of the system described by Card? It seems appropriate for the topic at hand...
[ July 06, 2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Homonculus ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Because humans are fallible and no human government can be absolutely perfect, The only perfectly incorruptible government is a theocracy ("government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided") with a infallible God as head.
quote:The perfect government is one ruled by a perfectly wise philosopher king aided by a bureaucracy of the perfect size to enact all of the mandates of the king and no larger, manned by people who have no personal ambition. The king will make all of the right decisions and can implement them immediately through the efficient bureraucracy.
The only "perfect government" I believe is possible at all is when Jesus Christ returns to rule with his apostles in the Millenium. Before that happens, forget it!
Posted by Homonculus (Member # 7486) on :
I don't see what it is that you're trying to achieve by writing this. The reason peace is unattainble is because everyone thinks it is impossible. If we all got into a mindset where we might think that there is the slightest chance of attaining it, and worked to achieve it, it would no longer be impossible. It would be improbable. However, I'm more satisfied with the thought of an improbable quest, rather than an impossible one.
Occasional, I myself am a Catholic, and although the idea of the coming of the messiah is a bright and hopeful one, it requires us to wait. He didn't come on the year 2000, so maybe he'll come in the year 3000. I don't think human beings are that patient. Especially since we can do this if we truly want to.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
If we truly want to, and not all of us do.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Part of it is that everyone has different ideas about what "Perfect Government" is depending on each individual. To go along with Danzig, but change his comment slightly, not all of us think another person's perfect government is MY perfect government. Some might even see another person's Perfect Government as dangerous.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Dear Satan, I agree with Occasional. (For the record, I see Occasional's perfect government as anything between dangerous and evil.)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)