Replacing democracy

[UndercoverElephant]

Your council is far too small and could be taken over by one person on it, just look at the likes of Stalin.

It is designed to stop that happening, partly by where it draws its candidates from, and how, and partly by the way it works internally. How would someone like Stalin get onto the council in the first place?

There is protection in numbers and, like it or not, our present system is safer for the masses than your small council.

If size is the main problem, then just make it as many members as you like. The principle can remain the same.

[Ludwig]

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.

But do the people in the US know that it is happening? The intellectuals might, but most people don't pay any attention to politics, and if they do, they simply refuse to accept that the party they support is institutionally corrupt.

If the US is anything like the UK, most people just stick their heads in the sand. When I say to people how serious I think the undermining of civil liberties is, and that the risk of dictatorship is real, most of them seem to think I've lost my mind. Sometimes I wonder if I have lost my mind: am I really hallucinating all the stuff I'm seeing, hearing and reading that points unmistakably to this conclusion? It's the only explanation I can think of for why no one else seems concerned.

[frank_begbie]

As usual its all far too complicated.

Much better to revert back to nature, and have survival of the fittest.....perfection.

[Ludwig]

Your council is far too small and could be taken over by one person on it, just look at the likes of Stalin.

It is designed to stop that happening, partly by where it draws its candidates from, and how, and partly by the way it works internally. How would someone like Stalin get onto the council in the first place?

By pretending to be a nice guy, of course. In fact who's to say they wouldn't all be pretending to be nice guys?

This is all just child's talk UE. The idea that a group of well-intentioned intellectuals and mystics could wrest control of global power from an elite with money, resources, weapons and connections is just laughable. If it were possible, it would have been done centuries ago.

Besides, once you're in power you have to be as ruthless as your enemies, for obvious reasons. That might mean killing your enemies immediately. Hardly an auspicious start for a new age of ethical government.

[vtsnowedin]

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.

.

If it never faces elections how do you change it if it fails? Election cycles are too short in the USA though it doesn't seem that way to the party out of power but a regular assessment is preferable to waiting for someone to die.

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

If it never faces elections how do you change it if it fails?

Who decides it has failed?

The opening post explains how members are appointed.

Election cycles are too short in the USA though it doesn't seem that way to the party out of power but a regular assessment is preferable to waiting for someone to die.

It is the fear of being thrown out of power for having failed in the eyes of the electorate which makes our own politicians completely useless. It means that everything they do is geared to getting themselves re-elected rather than what they actually believe to be in the best long-term interests of the people.

[Ludwig]

Equal numbers now for and against the "revolution". The words "turkeys" and "Christmas" spring to mind...

[UndercoverElephant]

Your council is far too small and could be taken over by one person on it, just look at the likes of Stalin.

It is designed to stop that happening, partly by where it draws its candidates from, and how, and partly by the way it works internally. How would someone like Stalin get onto the council in the first place?

By pretending to be a nice guy, of course. In fact who's to say they wouldn't all be pretending to be nice guys?

Pretending to be a nice guy isn't enough to get you onto the council. You have to have served a distinguished career as a scientist or religious leader to even be considered, and neither of those can be faked.

This is all just child's talk UE.

I'll take that to mean it is not boxed and restricted like the thinking of most adults.

The idea that a group of well-intentioned intellectuals and mystics could wrest control of global power from an elite with money, resources, weapons and connections is just laughable. If it were possible, it would have been done centuries ago.

As explained earlier in the thread, I'm ignoring the issue of how we get from here to there. That's another aspect of the problem, but not the one I'm interested in in this thread. I'm also ignoring the issues of defence and international trade. What I'm interested in is the issue of effective and fair internal government - whether it is even possible in principle. Ludwig would say it is not, because power corrupts and the corrupt seek power.


Besides, once you're in power you have to be as ruthless as your enemies, for obvious reasons. That might mean killing your enemies immediately. Hardly an auspicious start for a new age of ethical government.[/quote]

[Ludwig]

It is the fear of being thrown out of power for having failed in the eyes of the electorate which makes our own politicians completely useless. It means that everything they do is geared to getting themselves re-elected rather than what they actually believe to be in the best long-term interests of the people.

Who are "the people"? All the people? If so, how are their long-term interests going to be addressed in a world of drastically declining energy supplies? Or is your vision of the world after die-off has occurred?

Don't know why I'm arguing, I'm afraid UE that I can't take any of this stuff seriously. It's vague and totally ignores the realities of human nature and power politics.

[Ludwig]

Pretending to be a nice guy isn't enough to get you onto the council. You have to have served a distinguished career as a scientist or religious leader to even be considered, and neither of those can be faked.

There are plenty of "distinguished" scientists who have done nothing but follow orthodox thinking, made the right friends, and perhaps come up with some meretricious theory that is either unprovable or that reformulates what we already knew in different terms, and does it so cleverly that no one notices.

As for religious leaders, don't get me started.

As explained earlier in the thread, I'm ignoring the issue of how we get from here to there. That's another aspect of the problem, but not the one I'm interested in in this thread. I'm also ignoring the issues of defence and international trade. What I'm interested in is the issue of effective and fair internal government - whether it is even possible in principle. Ludwig would say it is not, because power corrupts and the corrupt seek power.

I would, yes.

[UndercoverElephant]

Pretending to be a nice guy isn't enough to get you onto the council. You have to have served a distinguished career as a scientist or religious leader to even be considered, and neither of those can be faked.

There are plenty of "distinguished" scientists who have done nothing but follow orthodox thinking, made the right friends, and perhaps come up with some meretricious theory that is either unprovable or that reformulates what we already knew in different terms.

No there aren't. That's your view as an outsider, and it is basically wrong. You consistently undervalue scientists, and unjustly question their motives. You are often just a breath away from saying "science isn't so special." There is a culture of honesty and openess in science which exists nowhere else. What motivates most scientists, apart from a direct interest in finding out how things work, is to become recognised by other scientists as a great scientist.

What I'm interested in is the issue of effective and fair internal government - whether it is even possible in principle. Ludwig would say it is not, because power corrupts and the corrupt seek power.

I would, yes.

In that case there is no system I could suggest that you would not criticise in the same way. If humans aren't psychologically capable of remaining true to their principles when they are in positions of power, no system will ever avoid those problems.

[UndercoverElephant]

It is the fear of being thrown out of power for having failed in the eyes of the electorate which makes our own politicians completely useless. It means that everything they do is geared to getting themselves re-elected rather than what they actually believe to be in the best long-term interests of the people.

Who are "the people"? All the people? If so, how are their long-term interests going to be addressed in a world of drastically declining energy supplies? Or is your vision of the world after die-off has occurred?

I'm putting this thought experiment in that place, yes. Only to simplify it though.

Don't know why I'm arguing, I'm afraid UE that I can't take any of this stuff seriously. It's vague and totally ignores the realities of human nature and power politics.

Actually, it doesn't. I did not ignore those issues. On the contrary, the primary goal of the system is to solve the problems caused by those realities. I'm surprised you can't see that by the way it is presented. It ought to be obvious. Why else do you get the scientists to select the religious leaders, etc...? Why else stipulate that the arbiter stands down having used his casting vote? These are checks and balances which are there for the specific purpose of preventing typical "power politics."

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Democracy doesn't prevent dictatorship.

A robustly defended and universally applicable bill of rights prevents dictatorship.

[the_lyniezian]

I would personally prefer a vastly different setup.

Firstly I beliee you still need someone to represent the common people. They don't have to be the ones making the executive decisions, necessarily, and they don't even have to be voted in. Instead I would propose a "randomocracy" consisting of people selected at random from the citizenry, somewhat like jury service. This isn't a unique idea, and apparently the term does appear in a book called 'Envisioning Real Utopias' by Erik Olin Wright. (http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2011/ ... overnment/]) There should be some mimimum qualifications- age, being of sound mind, possibly baseline intelligence or other method to weed out the truly unsuitable. Perhaps have a list of legitimate reasons for opting out, but otherwise it's compulsory. These people would have to stand for so many years (longer than your average parliament, but no more than 10 years), and foesake any other interests which might jeopardise their judgement.

I think you should also have some sort of council of distinguished persons as UE suggests, but as other suggest, needs to come from a broad range of fields- scientists, philospohers, religious/spiritiual persons, persons of various other backgrounds who can provide unique insight. Maybe you could have these as your executive.

It's all about checks and balances, and if you don't have some sort of voice of the people, you're probably going to get mistrust and the potential for power-grabbing. Randomocracy at least weeds out the possibility that people are seeking power, also.

[the_lyniezian]

Democracy doesn't prevent dictatorship.

A robustly defended and universally applicable bill of rights prevents dictatorship.

What are you meaning here? Are you thinking more along the lines of someone being voted in who could turn dictator, or a party which enshrines totalitarianism? Or are you thinking more along the lines of "tyranny of the majority"?