PowerSwitch

Democracy prevents dictatorship. It provides the people with a say in their governance, and has been won only after centuries of common people fighting for their rights.

But it doesn't work very well. It leads to chronic short-termism and to politicians lying to the public and attempting to brainwash them - anything to get elected, basically. It also attracts the wrong people into positions of power (the last person you want in power is a person who seeks power.)

You have a choice whether or not to support a change to the following system, which cuts out both democracy and politicians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of a parliament, we are to have a council. This council will hold absolute power over the rest of the system.

The Council will consist of five distinguished scientists, five distinguished spiritual leaders (or related non-scientists), and one arbiter. The primary function of the arbiter, who shall be drawn from a pool of philosophers trained specifically for this role, will be to determine, in the case of disagreements, what qualifies as science and what does not. He also has a casting vote, but it is to be understood that his use of that vote will constitute a failure. As such, use of that vote will be the last act of any arbiter; the act of voting will automatically lead to the retirement of the arbiter from the council, his or her replacement being selected by the philosophers who are responsible for training arbiters. The arbiter is there to improve communication between the other members of the council, and to assist them in coming to a consensus agreement. At all times he must seek to avoid a 50/50 split between the scientific and non-scientific members of the council.

Members will serve for life, so long as they remain of sound mind, or until they choose to resign. They will be replaced individually as required, by the following mechanism:

New scientific members of the Council will be selected by the five spiritual leaders from a shortlist of at least three. This shortlist will be provided by the existing scientific members. And vice versa.

Meetings of the council will normally be held in public. Application to the arbiter in special cases will be required before a session can take place behind closed doors.

The arbiter can be removed by a majority vote of the council.

An individual council member can be removed from the council by the arbiter, but the arbiter must also stand down if this happens.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Any criticisms or suggestions for improvements are most welcome. This is just the top-level framework. I'm working on the rest of it, but unless I can get a 50% approval rating for something like the above on a board like this, the project is doomed...

I have voted yes, obviously.

How are the first members of the council selected?

I'm still rather puzzled about where you are coming from UE.

Two years ago your posts were expressions of misanthropic despair. Recently you seem to have experienced a sudden resurgence of hope, espousing some kind of global government in which democracy is abolished, the Third World is left to starve, and a tiny group of "enlightened" people, who unilaterally decide that they are on the side of the angels, dictate to everyone else.

This sort of thing has been tried in the past and failed miserably, because the only thing that dictators ever want is POWER.

To claim that your system cuts out politicians is untrue. Whoever ends up in charge is by definition a politician. Meanwhile, how do we know that these "spiritual leaders" are not false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing?

emordnilap wrote:How are the first members of the council selected?

They are selected by those who take power in a bloody revolution. Having selected the first council, they relinquish all power.

Ludwig wrote:I'm still rather puzzled about where you are coming from UE.

I'm coming from here, there and everywhere!

Two years ago your posts were expressions of misanthropic despair. Recently you seem to have had a remarkable change of heart, espousing some kind of global government in which democracy is abolished, the Third World is left to starve, and a tiny group of "enlightened" people, who unilaterally decide that they are on the side of the angels, dictate to everyone else.

I'm trying to be positive as possible while remaining realistic.

This sort of thing has been tried in the past and failed miserably, because the only thing that dictators ever want is POWER.

The whole point of the system described in the opening post is to solve that problem without using democracy.

To claim that your system cuts out politicians is arrant nonsense. Whoever ends up in charge is by definition a politician. Meanwhile, how do we know that these "spiritual leaders" are not false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing?

They are selected by distinguished scientists, who will presumably be uninclined to take much notice of religious prophecies.

Five scientists and five preachers and one hands tied arbiter. (do your job and lose your job). Sounds like a sure fiasco to me. You might want to add in a General or two unless you just want the first aggressor that comes along to take over. Maybe throw in a lawyer , a civil engineer, a corporate CEO, a farmer and a deep-water fisherman.
Really you can't have government that revolves around the phrases "More research is needed" and "Trust in the lord, Amen"

vtsnowedin wrote: Really you can't have government that revolves around the phrases "More research is needed" and "Trust in the lord, Amen"

Remember that this government does not have to face elections. It is free to take difficult decisions and tell people the truth in ways that existing politicians are not. The main reason why our politicians avoid answering questions (all the time) is every time they give a clear answer, they alienate a section of the electorate.

And the arbiter's hands are not tied if he does his job properly. His goal is not to have to use his casting vote. He's a philosopher. He is trained to help people think clearly and rationally, and to aid communication between disagreeing people. He holds the system together, but has to do so via the quality of his arguments and the power of his persuasion. That is what philosophers are for.

vtsnowedin wrote:Sounds like a sure fiasco to me. You might want to add in a General or two unless you just want the first aggressor that comes along to take over.

OK. Let's imagine that foreign policy is irrelevant. Change the thought experiment. Let's imagine that climate change has got out of control, most of the human race is dead and the survivors are eeking out a living in the arctic. There are no neighbouring powers to worry about, just a massive expanse of hostile desert in all directions south.

Maybe throw in a lawyer , a civil engineer, a corporate CEO, a farmer and a deep-water fisherman.

These people can act in advisory capacities. They can't have a place on the council. Especially not the corporate CEO...

Did you ever read Monbiot's The Age of Consent UE?

emordnilap wrote:Did you ever read Monbiot's The Age of Consent UE?

Not yet, no. Why?

I think I'm more radical than Monbiot.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

emordnilap wrote:Did you ever read Monbiot's The Age of Consent UE?

Not yet, no. Why?

I think I'm more radical than Monbiot.

Oh, totally, no question and I'm right behind you on that. Don't ever give that up.

His are practical ideas (though practical never got elected) about bringing back some kind of democracy in at least the moral sense. Rather than going here into the method(s) he proposes, I'd recommend getting the local library to stock it if it doesn't already and see how it fits in with your ideas. You might be pleasantly surprised.

His Heat was also meticulously researched and presented and likewise offered real possible solutions, possibly too radical for any currently electable party.

Despite his stance on nuclear, he's largely on the right track.

There is a big difference between what Monbiot is trying to do and what I'm trying to do in this thread. He is trying to act as a bridge between the current system and where he thinks we need to go. He's committed to trying to modify the existing system. He does not acknowledge that there is going to be some sort of hiatus - that the existing system must collapse before it can be replaced with anything radical enough to do the job.

In this thread I'm deliberately ignoring the question of how we get from here to there, and I'm also ignoring very real issues like defence and complex international trade. If we can't think of a system which would work in the absence of those complications, then we can't think of a system which would work any better when the complications exist.

I will look out for Monbiot's book (I have a lot of books to read already.) I guess he is also looking for an alternative to dictatorship, feudalism and democracy as we know it. Unfortunately, I think the only really positive thing I can say about democracy as we know it is that it isn't as bad as the others on that list.

Fair points UE.

Your council is far too small and could be taken over by one person on it, just look at the likes of Stalin. There is protection in numbers and, like it or not, our present system is safer for the masses than your small council.

You can bribe a small number of people but it is harder to bribe a large number without someone finding out what is happening. OK, the US government is bribed but at least the people know that it is happening. It's their own stupid fault if they don't do something about it.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:Maybe throw in a lawyer , a civil engineer, a corporate CEO, a farmer and a deep-water fisherman.

These people can act in advisory capacities. They can't have a place on the council. Especially not the corporate CEO...

Got a bone to pick with CEOs I see. The types of people I suggested ,which is far from a complete list ,all have experience dealing with complex logistical problems and dealing with adversity. The CEO also has experience dealing with and managing large groups of people to achieve goals beneficial to the entire group. A skill that might come in handy when setting up a new country. While some of your scientist might also have leadership ability some of them might have issues working on problems that don't get solved in a petri dish.