Mr. Fox wrote:Apologies, the_lyniezian - you mentioned it back on page 2 ('Randomocracy').
No worries. "Sortition" is a better word than "randomocracy".
Or we could just go for a benign dictatorship with Stephen Fry as supreme leader.
Much though I like him as a TV presenter/actor/coedian, and perhaps for his advocacy of free software, I fear I would not want him as dictator (perhaps because due to my Christian beliefs I would have issues with him for obvious, and various, reasons... and at the end of the day, being a celebrity doesn't automatically make one a good leader.)
It's perhaps worth considering the disadvantages of sortition/randomocracy, too. Notably, for example:
1. In order to be truly unbiased, then like jury service it must be compulsory, and for various reasons the service must be far longer than jury service, causing far greater disruption to people's lives. (This is partly why I suggested earlier there should at least be exemptions.)
2. It does not ensure that persons to be elected have expertise relevant to political office/leadership. This at least means there must be some roles not chosen by lot (though this could be the same as now- judges, civil servants, military comanders and the like). Hence why I also suggested part of your governement should be meritocratic.
3. As Wikipedia points out (i.e. not something I had thought of before reading the article thereon), candidates selected by lot are less accountable due to the lack of need to seek re-election.
the_lyniezian wrote:It's perhaps worth considering the disadvantages of sortition/randomocracy, too. Notably, for example:
1. In order to be truly unbiased, then like jury service it must be compulsory, and for various reasons the service must be far longer than jury service, causing far greater disruption to people's lives. (This is partly why I suggested earlier there should at least be exemptions.)
If it were anything like jury service, only 25% of participants would have anything approaching an understanding of the issues, and of those 25% only half could be trusted to rule fairly.
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
I have recently woken up to the fact that democracy is a sham, and I do not mean that in a rhetorical sense.
It was in the interest of the real rulers to allow "democracy" and affluence to happen, because they allowed the upward flow of weath at the same time as keeping the plebs distracted and well-fed.
The whole ruling party/opposition party system was BS from the start. They were all in on the same scam, they knew about PO from the start and they had plans for it from the start. The rest of us were f***ed from the start.
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
Ludwig wrote:There is no perfect system of government.
I have recently woken up to the fact that democracy is a sham, and I do not mean that in a rhetorical sense.
It was in the interest of the real rulers to allow "democracy" and affluence to happen, because they allowed the upward flow of weath at the same time as keeping the plebs distracted and well-fed.
The whole ruling party/opposition party system was BS from the start. They were all in on the same scam, they knew about PO from the start and they had plans for it from the start. The rest of us were f***ed from the start.
One flaw in that argument is that the idea of, and implementation of, the modern democratic systm predates oil as a major fuel source.
If "democracy" was "allowed" by the "real rulers" then I could only imagine it was to prevent popular revolt, no more or less.
If democracy is a sham, it is because "we the people" are disinterested by and large on the things that really matter, and it is in the interests of TPTB to perpetuate that.
the_lyniezian wrote:
If democracy is a sham, it is because "we the people" are disinterested by and large on the things that really matter, and it is in the interests of TPTB to perpetuate that.
No, it goes deeper than that. There is no real choice. As Craig Murray wrote in the Grauniad:
How different is the UK, really? For example, I want to see an immediate start to withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan; I am increasingly sceptical of the EU; and I do not want to see a replacement for the vastly expensive Trident nuclear missile system. On each one of those major policy points, I am in agreement with at least 40% of the UK population, but on none of those points is my view represented by any of the three major political parties. And remember, only those three major political parties will be represented in the televised leaders' debates that will play such a key part in the election.
Those debates will take place between three representatives of a professional political class whose ideological differences do not span a single colour of the wider political spectrum. Voters in Wales and Scotland are luckier, but for most people, there is little really meaningful choice available.
the_lyniezian wrote:due to my Christian beliefs I would have issues with him for obvious, and various, reasons...
Erm... not sure I quite follow. Please do spell it out!
Ludwig wrote:If it were anything like jury service, only 25% of participants would have anything approaching an understanding of the issues, and of those 25% only half could be trusted to rule fairly.
Well, 6.25% would be a good start.
Back in 2001, prominent British anarchist Ian Bone stood for election in Bristol (Easton) as 'Nobody'.
‘Nobody will claim expenses’ ‘Nobody will solve your problems’ ‘Nobody Cares’……….’VOTE NOBODY’
How much better might it be for us all if nobody turned up for local council meetings, parliament etc.
Ludwig wrote:As Craig Murray wrote in the Grauniad:
How different is the UK, really? For example, I want to see an immediate start to withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan; I am increasingly sceptical of the EU; and I do not want to see a replacement for the vastly expensive Trident nuclear missile system. On each one of those major policy points, I am in agreement with at least 40% of the UK population, but on none of those points is my view represented by any of the three major political parties. And remember, only those three major political parties will be represented in the televised leaders' debates that will play such a key part in the election.
Those debates will take place between three representatives of a professional political class whose ideological differences do not span a single colour of the wider political spectrum. Voters in Wales and Scotland are luckier, but for most people, there is little really meaningful choice available.
Even the more radical opposition is infiltrated, and in many cases I suspect actually led by the infiltrators.
Some very good points there. No surprises though!
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
the_lyniezian wrote:due to my Christian beliefs I would have issues with him for obvious, and various, reasons...
Erm... not sure I quite follow. Please do spell it out!
Fry is a card-carrying Dawkinsite. His statements about religion and non-orthodox views on science have been glib, thoughtless and patronising, and are largely why I admire him less than I used to. In addition to that, these days he comes across as insufferably smug and self-admiring, too aware for comfort of his "national treasure" status.
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
Ludwig wrote:Even the more radical opposition is infiltrated, and in many cases I suspect actually led by the infiltrators.
I agree with this. Surely standard procedure?
Green groups, left groups, right groups ... illegal groups.
Indeed. Perhaps that partly explains why I've never found a movement I could really believe in - often their leaders never felt as "good" as it seemed they ought.
Now I'm going through all the journalists whose incisive anti-establishment writings have inspired me, and wondering which of them were working for the enemy all along.
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
Ludwig wrote:Even the more radical opposition is infiltrated, and in many cases I suspect actually led by the infiltrators.
I agree with this. Surely standard procedure?
Green groups, left groups, right groups ... illegal groups.
Indeed. Perhaps that partly explains why I've never found a movement I could really believe in - often their leaders never felt as "good" as it seemed they ought.
Now I'm going through all the journalists whose incisive anti-establishment writings have inspired me, and wondering which of them were working for the enemy all along.
Disrupt, misdirect, discredit, leak, give appearance of incompetence, create internal disharmony, take possession of both sides of an argument, undermine those who might be a genuine threat, be a sleeper awakened only when/if necessary – etc.
That's off the top of my head, I'm sure if you have the resources and put your thinking cap on there's a lot more you can do than this.
Quite an interesting intellectual challenge, I suppose.
the_lyniezian wrote:due to my Christian beliefs I would have issues with him for obvious, and various, reasons...
Erm... not sure I quite follow. Please do spell it out!
Fry is a card-carrying Dawkinsite.
That's one of the 'various'...
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Mr. Fox wrote:Apologies, the_lyniezian - you mentioned it back on page 2 ('Randomocracy').
No worries. "Sortition" is a better word than "randomocracy".
Or we could just go for a benign dictatorship with Stephen Fry as supreme leader.
Much though I like him as a TV presenter/actor/coedian, and perhaps for his advocacy of free software, I fear I would not want him as dictator (perhaps because due to my Christian beliefs I would have issues with him for obvious, and various, reasons... and at the end of the day, being a celebrity doesn't automatically make one a good leader.)
He in particular would make a crap leader, given that his response to the MPs expenses scandal was "Oh, let's be honest, we've all fiddled our expenses, haven't we?"
Well, actually Mr Fry, not all of us. Some of us are actually honest.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
Ludwig wrote:Even the more radical opposition is infiltrated, and in many cases I suspect actually led by the infiltrators.
I agree with this. Surely standard procedure?
Green groups, left groups, right groups ... illegal groups.
Indeed. Perhaps that partly explains why I've never found a movement I could really believe in - often their leaders never felt as "good" as it seemed they ought.
Now I'm going through all the journalists whose incisive anti-establishment writings have inspired me, and wondering which of them were working for the enemy all along.
Ludwig, I think you might be the most paranoid person I have ever encountered.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
