Ambrosia Software Web Board: democracy and other misconceptions... - Ambrosia Software Web Board

in interest of starting topics that have a real spark to them and not a hera topic, i give you this:

Which governement do you think would be the perfect government, this came up on a USA history test as an essay question in 8th grade and i got no credit because i put dictatorship even though it was a hypothetical question.

I think under ceartin circumstances a dictatorship is one of the best kind of governments. It is easily one of the most stable kind of governments available with no weird misoccerences coughthiselectionyearcough. And if you were to get a dictator(lets just use the word leader) that was an actual good ruer he could easily make the scociety very prosperos indeed. Look at the romans, the romans basically had dicators, but since you had to be "elected" you had to be a pretty good ruler. These rulers turned the roman society into a large empire with many happy resedents. Even when they conquered other empires, if you allowed your self to be romanized you lived a happy life and sometimes even got to keep your own religion. In some ways the romans lived better than we do today. The problem with dictatorships right now is all of them are in religious nations that hate each other and are obsessed with who can get the most horrifying weapon to date. Just give the presedent of the USA(well not any of the current presedents) more power almost to the level of dictator and we would have a better society, i think. I would like to hear yore responses on what you think would be the best kind of government.

Im probably forgetting someting in mine so ill porbably have to defend it but thats okay.

BTW: the topic title is kind of a response to the recent elections.

------------------
just take my post, and imagine everything is speeled right.
nickel count: 7

The problem with dictatorships, is that you WILL get a person that's interested in his own personal gain, and that'll make that system unwanted.

One type of government that COULD work is this. A person is chosen based on thier ability to govern. Various ways can be done to choose but basically, the senate would choose a person to be the president. That persons entire assets and valueables are then sold to the state. His property becomes the state's property. If the economy declines, or the country fails to prosper, his properties also lose value and he loses his own personal wealth. Should the country prosper and grow strong, then his property will likewise gain in value. After a certain period the person would step down and a new person would take the chair.

It keeps conflicts of interest down.

------------------
Ne Cede Malis Sed Contra Audientor Ito

Here's my plan. It's a mix of republic, democracy, and communism. I call it "duhism", because it's so obvious (in my opinion).

Ruling: No single person is the ruler. There'd be a council of 25 people, elected from all over the country, who come up with plans that people vote on for things. Say food production is down. They decide on three plans. Either beat the farmers until they work harder, or starve, or go to cannibalism. Then the people would vote. These council members would be able to be kicked out at any time, if 50% of the people wanted them kicked out.

Voting: Done electronically. Each item that needs to be voted on has a one-week voting period. Voting happens throughout the entire year, as issues arrise. Each person has an account made for voting when they are born. All people may vote. Each account has a certain number of "points," determined by your age multiplied by your IQ (IQ tests are required of everybody every 6 months). You may divide the points however you choose when you vote. Whichever plan has the most points at the end of the voting period gets chosen.

Pay: Each job has a range of pays, all of which begin equal. However, people that are registered as "employers" may add demand points to whatever jobs they need employees for. A supercomputer constantly shifts the ranges of the jobs (keeping the total money equal), so that jobs in higher demand get better pay. Employees can be paid less than the specified range, as long as their boss thinks they didn't work hard enough.

Basically, everybody has power, and pay is divided up so that jobs are fulfilled to the point where the economy is in complete balance. I think that would be the perfect government.

------------------
"Oi, oi, oi, me got a hurt n here
Oi, oi, oi, me smell a ting is near
Me gonna bosh and me gonna nosh
An da hurt'll dissapear"

[This message has been edited by Mag Steelglass (edited 12-17-2000).]

I kind of like the system the Nijayias have, but it wouldn't work for humans.
[It's also the system another alien race I'm making for something else have, but I applied it to the Nijayias after I realized I had never explained their government, and it fit them perfectly.]

Basicly, the Nijayias are all conected in a network, each able to pass thoughts at the subconcious level to one another. The Emperor (or Empress) is sorta like the "primary server" because (s)he gets the sum total of everyone's thoughts. These thoughts influence the decisions they make to a large degree, in effect a sort of "popular mind control" of the Emperor (Empress).

This would also make sure nobody is left out of the process. Here's an example of how it would work (I'm the current Emporer, although I don't let anyone know and I'm not about to take that title): I'm trying to decide whether to throw in the Nijayias's lot with the UGPA or the DGA. A very large amount of hatred is felt towards the Salrilians by almost every Nijayias. Therefor, I would be very reluctant to aid the DGA, and instead throw our lot in with the UGPA.

------------------
*Error: target is violating the laws of physics*
*Error: target is locally exceeding c*
*Error: unable to determine if target exists or not*
*Error: target cannot be hit*

Quote

That'd be called a "republic."

------------------
"I'm a controversial figure. My friends either dislike me or hate me."

Okay heres my other system of governemt that works well:

The country is ruled by a congress. This congress is very large, maybe 200-500 people. This is dependent on the population of the state for number of representitives. The representetives handle pretty much everything. What makes it special is that you are not elected into it, you are drafted. You get a letter in the mail drafting you into congress for 2 years, kinda like jury duty hehe . This takes place of youre job and everything. Hey its a drag, but its law. This gives a chance for the genral public to make desicions, these desicions work towards the public and not to get better personal gain like most politicians. The only downside of this is it works only when everyone in the country is educated enough to be able to make desicions like these.

------------------
just take my post, and imagine everything is speeled right.
nickel count: 7

I like your idea pyro. Except you'll regularly get really stupid people that do very stupid things. Government will become like the masses, and the masses are stupid, skittish, frightend and dangerous. Single people are smart and rational (usually).

Mag, people would rebel a lot... communism has an extremely hard time working. In theory, it's the perfect government. In practice, it just doesn't work.

------------------
Ne Cede Malis Sed Contra Audientor Ito

The reason communism doesn't work is it assumes all people (or at least most of them) are rational, good, and self-motivating, all NOT true.

Humans are scum. We work for reward, we backstab, we kill each other, we give in to stupidity/timidness/emotions far to much.

I've got a very pessimistic view of humanity, but reading too much history does that to you.
We've improved a little, but it's just built on our core of scumness.

[This message has been edited by Fleet Admiral Darkk (edited 12-18-2000).]

It really is an issue of making the government fit the speices.
Humans are selfish, etc., and so need capitalism and democracy to channel it productively.
A speices that shares its thoughts might have a socialist economy, with all property held in common and used as needed. It might also do well with a dictatorship, with the one with the strongest will being naturally in charge.
A species that is naturally shrewd/clever (like the Tyndians(sp) from Star Wars) might make the lottery system work.

Avatara:

Quote

Better, now?

Darkk: That's an interesting way of doing it. Sounds like a good idea. Now all we have to do is get those genetic engineers working on giving us telepathy. (also look at my stuff to El Spamo)

Pyro: If people were drafted, they wouldn't want to run the country, and wouldn't pay much attention. People would also get mad if they were drafted.

El Spamo: The reason communism doesn't work is people try to get easier jobs or just look like they're working, or don't work. They do this because they'll get paid the same amount whatever they do. In my system, the jobs in higher demand get more pay, so people working harder jobs that they don't want to do as much get paid more, and thus want to continue working harder. And if people just look like they're working or don't work, they don't get paid, just like in this country.

------------------
"Oi, oi, oi, me got a hurt n here
Oi, oi, oi, me smell a ting is near
Me gonna bosh and me gonna nosh
An da hurt'll dissapear"

Oh, Mag: why age multiplied by IQ? Does a person of age 30 really have that much less wisdom than someone age 45?

------------------
*Error: target is violating the laws of physics*
*Error: target is locally exceeding c*
*Error: unable to determine if target exists or not*
*Error: target cannot be hit*

everyone would have to be smart for my governemt to work, i already said that.

------------------
just take my post, and imagine everything is speeled right.
nickel count: 7

Because, Darkk, a 3 year old doesn't know as much as a 90 year old.

------------------
"Oi, oi, oi, me got a hurt n here
Oi, oi, oi, me smell a ting is near
Me gonna bosh and me gonna nosh
An da hurt'll dissapear"

The age thing is calculated into your IQ. the number you get after they do that test is already age corrected, they look up the number of answers you get in a little book, on a table that has the ages, scores and IQ numbers.

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

These would be different IQ tests. These wouldn't test you on knowledge, but your actual ability to reason and such. Kind of like the theories of animals being nearly as smart as humans. The animals didn't know the things on IQ tests for the researchers to come to that conclusion.

------------------
"Oi, oi, oi, me got a hurt n here
Oi, oi, oi, me smell a ting is near
Me gonna bosh and me gonna nosh
An da hurt'll dissapear"

[This message has been edited by Mag Steelglass (edited 12-17-2000).]

I'll start by critiquing everybody's ideas. Then I'll offer my own.

Quote

Personally, I think unless you didn't give a defense of your idea, otherwise, it shouldn't be marked wrong completely. I'm not convinced there is actually a right or wrong answer.

Quote

I appreciate the fact that you added the qualifier of "under certain circumstances." Unfortunately, you made several errors. First, you used the Romans as an example. Second, you didn't try to anticipate criticisms and prepare defenses.

1) It is questionable whether dictatorships are actually stable. For example, when JFK got assassinated, transfer of power proceeded almost like clockwork. Ditto for Lincoln. The same may not be said for dictatorships. They usually lack a clear line of succession. (Which is understandable, considering the mentality of dictators.)

2) The Roman example you used is extremely flawed. (Although that might be forgiven considering that I have trouble trying to think up a good example for you.) I can assure you, the likes of Trajan, Caligula, Nero, and Commodus were most definitely not popularly elected. These emperors I have in mind caused immeasureable suffering on their people.

Not to mention the period in the 3rd century when in 50 years, there were more than 20 emperors. All of them elected by armies. Only one of them died of natural causes. Others died in battles, executions, assassinations, poisonings,...etc. I can assure you, 3rd century Roman Empire is not a time you would look forward to.

I hope you can understand what I have just done. This is a technique that can be very useful in debates. Basically, you provided only one historical evidence to try to back up your claims. What I did was to steal your only witness and used it to my advantage.

3) Not all dictatorships today are in religious countries. Take North Korea for example. Or Castro in Cuba. As you might know, those are atheist states.

4) You suggested that "In some ways the Romans lived better than we do today." But you failed to list even one of those ways. You can't expect to be persuasive if you provide a blanket statement without any supporting evidence.

5) You also have to realize the international situation. Countries are above all, pragmatic. In international relations, there are no eternal allies nor eternal enemies. Not all dictatorships hate each other. Many dictatorships also hate democracies and vice versa. (Cuba v. US)

Quote

That much is evident.

Quote

1) Whether you can consider 200-500 people as "large" is questionable. After all, the US Congress is composed of 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen. Combined and you get 535. 35 more than your upper limit.

I would consider the Chinese People's Assembly as an example of a "large congress." It has 2,000 - 3,000 members. And it is completely a rubber stamp body. Large assemblies tend to be useless.

2) You also failed to specify how those draft letters were sent. Were they sent randomly or do you have some criteria? If so, what are they? If not, why not? (Please don't say no. Otherwise I'll start asking you about what happens when illegal immigrants and people with felony records get those letters.)

Quote

The problem with this statement is that it is self-defeating and unrealistic. I think that expecting people to all be intelligent is too much to expect. If everyone can truly be intelligent as in the Hobbesian idea of the "enlightened self-interest," then you won't even need a government!

I hope you won't take this personally. If you can refine your ideas and address the points I made, I'll look forward to your next post.

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

Quote

The problems with your ideas are:

1) You failed to even supply a few examples of what those criteria for selection might be.

2) Once you supplied the criteria, the question becomes: How do you ensure the Senate to select people based upon those criteria alone?

3) How do people even become candidates for consideration?

4) Why would anyone want to become the leader of this kind of system. After all, all of his property has already been sold. He has nothing. However the country does will not affect his property any more because they are no longer his.

5) How long might that "certain period" be?

6) Is the Senate simply reduced to an electoral body?

Now you can have a complimentary copy of my usual disclaimer:

I hope you won't take this personally. If you can refine your ideas and address the points I made, I'll look forward to your next post.

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

Quote

A) How specific should the plans be? Should every detail of government be subject to approval of the population?

If these council members are to be removed, how can that be accomplished? Does the council have to call for a referendum? If so, by what margins or does it simply take the assent of a single council member? If the referendum is called by the people, how can it be done? If it is done through a petition, how many signatures must be on the petition before the referendum can be held?

Quote

C) Will the voting time period of one-year be applicable to all issues? Are there certain issues that do not require that long of voting time? If so, what might they be? And if those issues do exist, what wil their voting time period be? Or will they simply be decided by the council?

D) I hope you realize how problematic the concept of an ID test is. That is why colleges and universities don't require IQ tests as an admission requirement. The kind of IQ test you have in mind ("These wouldn't test you on knowledge, but your actual ability to reason") sounds even more complex than the ones available. I don't believe it's realistic to expect such accurate tests to be designed in the first place.

How do you plan to address complaints about the test? Surely it'll bring up civil rights memories of literacy tests. Before you know it, the NAACP will accuse you of being a racist. Don't think this is an excaggeration. I've seen tons of well-intentioned people who got burned this way and their reputations virtually destroyed.

Finally, some colleges are even thinking about abolishing the requirement of an SAT. Their reasoning is that tests are inherently unfair and that admissions should be based on years of a person's work (such as GPA, involvement in extracurricular activities,...etc.) rather than a test that can be completed in a few hours. How do you address complaints such as these?

Quote

E) I'm afraid this section is a bit unclear to me and I kindly ask that you specify. Who are the "employers" in question? Are they normal, everyday business owners? Or are they directors of government agencies? Who are the employees? Are they normal, everyday business workers? Or are they employees of government agencies?

Now you can have a complimentary copy of my usual disclaimer:

I hope you won't take this personally. If you can refine your ideas and address the points I made, I'll look forward to your next post.

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

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, I have to concur.

Thomas Hobbes suggested that people are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He's been dead for more than 200 years and he's still right!

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

Before I get into the government I have in mind, I'd just like to cite a few more governments in literature, philosophy, and political science and why they are all seriously flawed in one way or another. Then I'll cite the government forms that exist today and with one exception, (which will be the one I'll be advocating) they are all seriously flawed.

Let's see, the number of philosophers who proposed ideal forms of government is endless. I'll simply list some of the most notable and most interesting ones: Plato, Solon, Hobbes.

Plato's idea of an ideal government is contained in his "Republic" so I won't bother detailing it here. What I will say is that it includes the execution of most adults. Suffice it to say, it's unrealistic. Even Plato admitted as much.

Of the 3 philosophers cited, Solon is the only one who actually created a form of government. Unfortunately, when someone asked him whether he gave the Athenians the best form of government, he admitted (with good reasons) that he only gave them the best form of government possible at that time.

Basically, it is rule of the rich. Considering that most people on these web boards have liberal/socialist tendencies, I don't think I need to elaborate to point out why it's problematic. But if anyone's still interested, let me know.

The problem about Hobbes' idea of an ideal government is not that it is unrealistic but that it is not what most people would call "ideal." Anyone who has ever read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" or George Orwell's "1984" already got a glimpse of Hobbes' "Leviathan." If you're in it, you'll probably love it. Since we're not in it, it scares the hell out of people.

If you look at the governments of today, you can see the following categories: oligarchy, dictatorship, republic, parliamentary republic. Examples of oligarchy include China and Vietnam. Basically, it is rule by a few people.

Examples of dictatorship include North Korea and Cuba. I define dictatorships strictly. (Which is why I don't consider Vietnam and China as dictatorships. We need to use the proper words when we're talking about government forms.) The countries that fit this description are Cuba and North Korea.

The best example of republic is of course the US and since the election has been over not too long ago, I think I can safely assume that you are fairly well aware of what it entails. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but some people will probably think this is the worst of the 4 listed.)

Parliamentary republics are numerous, United Kingdom being the best example.

You'll all note that I never listed "democracy." There's a reason for that. The only democracy I know of was Athens. Like I said, if we are to discuss government forms, then democracy should be described as rule by the popular majority. Under Athenian democracy, issues as important as war and peace will still require popular majority whereas in republics, it requires a majority (sometimes 2/3 sometimes simple majority) of a select group of representatives. Therefore if we are to define the terms strictly, there are no democracies in the world.

Just in case anyone's not clear about the differences between republic and parliamentary republic: A republic like the US has an independent executive whereas a parliamentary republic like the UK does not. The executive in UK, a.k.a. prime minister, must have a majority in Parliament before he/she can become the prime minister. Of course I'm aware of numerous variations in between the 2 systems. But they can be categorized under one or another.

Just in case someone actually made it this far, if there is sufficient interest, I'll post my concluding thoughts later today. Right now, I need to get to bed.

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

[I meant to put "communism doesn't work" and not "communism works". Sorry if I confused anyone.]

------------------
*Error: target is violating the laws of physics*
*Error: target is locally exceeding c*
*Error: unable to determine if target exists or not*
*Error: target cannot be hit*

Quote

A. The plans would be made about any problems brought to the council's attention by the people. If the people don't like any of the plans, they'd be able to vote on "make another plan", I guess. That one would need a 50% vote to go through.

B. You got a bit to technical for me to understand what you were saying.

Quote

C. The voting period is one week on each issue. The thing about one year is that things topics will come up to be voted on year round, instead of in one big fat pamphlet full of a couple hundred measures once a year, like it is now.

D. Quiet, you.

Quiet, you.

Yeah! Go colleges! Um, back to the argument- Quiet, you.

Quote

E. Well, say you were a cow-pusher. Suddenly, a lot of cow-pushers decide that cow-pushing is a stupid thing to do all day and become computer programmers. Suddenly, the people that were previously employing cow-pushers need more of them. So they add demand points to the occupation of cow-pusher. The rest of the other job's pay drops a bit, the pay for cow-pushers goes up. So, some other people become cow-pushers, because they know that that's where the money is, and things come back into balance.

The employers are anybody that's employing somebody. The employees are anybody that's being employed.

Quote

Thanks.

------------------
"Oi, oi, oi, me got a hurt n here
Oi, oi, oi, me smell a ting is near
Me gonna bosh and me gonna nosh
An da hurt'll dissapear"

Quote

Well, new questions arise then. How many people must complain about a certain aspect of government policy before the council will receive the complaint and obligated to design reforms? In addition, how much should the people know about government programs? After all, you can't complain about something you don't know. Finally, when you say "50% vote," are you suggesting that 50% alone is enough or does your system require a simple majority? (50% + 1)

Quote

I apologize and I'll endeavor to clarify.

In your original post, you stated:

Quote

What I'm asking is what it takes to remove these council members. You said "if 50% of the people wanted them kicked out." However, that is not very detailed. After all, how will you know if 50% of the people want a certain council member removed? Do you trust private polling services? If not, does 50% of the people have to sign a petition to remove the council member in question? Or does it take a much smaller minority to petition for the removal of a council member and the council will be obligated to call a referendum on the fate of the council member in question?

Quote

Thank you for your clarification. Now I have a new question. In your initial post, you stated that:

Quote

I'm wondering what restrictions are there. Are there any? For example: Can non-citizens vote? If not, can legal residents (but non-citizens) vote? What if some citizens have criminal records? Say, a felon v. a misdemeanor. Do both of them get to vote or should only the latter be allowed to vote? Are there any property, income, or age restrictions? Literacy restrictions? Residency requirements for citizens? Do naturalized citizens get to vote?

Quote

That's interesting, but it doesn't address the questions I had for that section.

Quote

Part of your statement (regarding the cow-pushers and their wages) sound very much like free market mechanisms so I won't quibble with those. What I am troubled by is your statement of: "The rest of the other job's pay drops a bit." Why? If other sectors of economy remain the same, then there should be no appreciable decrease in the wages the employers of other sectors are willing to pay.

Quote

Thank you for not taking offense at my questions. Personally, I thought long and hard about how to reform government before I gave up (for various reasons). I am hoping that some of you may have better luck than I did. I look forward to hearing from you.

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

Quote

Okay, some revision here:

If anybody complains about anything, then it's fair game for the council to decide on. Each issue can only be presented to the council once a year, and 20% of the people in the country has to vote, and it needs more than 50% of those votes to succeed. And the people should know everything that 30% of the council wants them to know.

Quote

The removal of council members is treated like anything else the people vote on. If somebody wants one of them removed, they do a vote, just like the way they vote on everything else.

Quote

I'll revise the points: (age * IQ) / (1 + crimes commited) = points. No other restrictions, except that you must be a citizen.

Quote

The "Quiet, you!" stuff was me not thinking up any good counter-arguments. The college stuff was me being glad at less schoolwork.

Quote

Well, the increase of pay isn't a monetary value. It's a certain percentage of the total pay of all jobs being funneled into the job that has more demand. The job in demand gets pay increase from all other jobs, and all other jobs pay slightly less to make up for the increase there. Otherwise, all jobs would increase in pay over time, and there'd be nasty inflation.

------------------
"Oi, oi, oi, me got a hurt n here
Oi, oi, oi, me smell a ting is near
Me gonna bosh and me gonna nosh
An da hurt'll dissapear"

Communism for the US! I always thought that would be an excellant solution! (ok im waiting for somone to shoot me)

------------------
I`ve been bit by a rabid dog!...(foamfoamfoamfoam)
I aint normal!!!