Make everyone a Renaissance Man, people who know how to do a little bit of everything. Take turns for positions; every farmer has had experience in politics and every politician has picked beans at one time. Everyone can set bones, critique a painting, and understand complex mathematics. Holding several doctorates is not uncommon.
That way, a politician can't be corrupt because everyone else already knows all the tricks!
Make everyone a Renaissance Man, people who know how to do a little bit of everything. Take turns for positions; every farmer has had experience in politics and every politician has picked beans at one time. Everyone can set bones, critique a painting, and understand complex mathematics. Holding several doctorates is not uncommon.
That way, a politician can't be corrupt because everyone else already knows all the tricks!
Make everyone a Renaissance Man, people who know how to do a little bit of everything. Take turns for positions; every farmer has had experience in politics and every politician has picked beans at one time. Everyone can set bones, critique a painting, and understand complex mathematics. Holding several doctorates is not uncommon.
That way, a politician can't be corrupt because everyone else already knows all the tricks!
Make everyone a Renaissance Man, people who know how to do a little bit of everything. Take turns for positions; every farmer has had experience in politics and every politician has picked beans at one time. Everyone can set bones, critique a painting, and understand complex mathematics. Holding several doctorates is not uncommon.
That way, a politician can't be corrupt because everyone else already knows all the tricks!
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Robert Heinlein was, of course, a very silly goose indeed.
Make everyone a Renaissance Man, people who know how to do a little bit of everything. Take turns for positions; every farmer has had experience in politics and every politician has picked beans at one time. Everyone can set bones, critique a painting, and understand complex mathematics. Holding several doctorates is not uncommon.
That way, a politician can't be corrupt because everyone else already knows all the tricks!
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Robert Heinlein was, of course, a very silly goose indeed.
No more private schools or homeschooling. Sorry, your cult can duke it out with SCIENCE! if it wants your kid's mind. Also, major schooling reforms and tons more funding; don't know what needs doing exactly, so I'll consult the experts.
I have a major problem with this. It's not up to the government to decide where kids should go to school. Especially in light of the fact that private schools (whether parochial or not) and homeschooling tend to lead to better educational results than private schools.
Your argument here seems to be that you don't like the ideology certain parents teach their kids, so you want to teach them ideological views that you find more palatable. That's a pretty terrifying concept, frankly.
I don't care what they teach their kids. And I'm not saying the schools should be pushing any ideaology; just, ya know, what science has shown us. If they still decide that science is wrong, that's fine.
But yes, I'm in favor of neutralizing ignorance, even if it does step on some people's toes. Ignorance is the main factor behind 90% of the shit wrong with the world, so I'd say fighting it is a pretty noble cause.
And I enjoy how you ignore the fact that if private schools and homeschooling didn't exists, the public ones would become better as rich daddies pumped money into the system and the better teachers moved back into public schools (reforms would obviously include improvements to the pay of qualified teachers).
I would also be in favor of trying various experimental schooling styles with special opt-in schools.
Democracy (in the true meaning as in, rule by the people) sans voting.
I don't trust the average citizen to have an informed opinion. I do trust the majority opinion of experts. Therefor my ideal government would be a series of self-regulating bodies formed of the topmost experts in the related fields, paid well to encourage success.
This would take the form of, for example, the top 100 doctors in the country form the medical senate. They discuss, shape, and form laws about medical practices.
The same would happen for economists and other fields. The top 100 economists in the country would form the economic senate and would debate, discuss, and eventually decide on economic policy.
Whenever a new need arises for the rule of law, the experts in that field would be arranged by the skeleton government that was run by experts in political science.
Any one or more members of any senate can have their credentials (body of work) challenged at any time by anyone with a sufficient amount of evidence (as decided by the self-regulating committee). The laws of the land would be heavily enforced by the law tribunal to ensure no corruption takes place. Penalties for abusing one's position within a senate body would consist of disbarment, banishment, and potentially prison (the death penalty being abolished)
Religion would be free to practice, but abolished from all governmental policies.
Questions? As a thought the entire structure is only 15% formed, so feel free to critique it, I'd love some feedback.
2) [strike]No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.[/strike]
I don't really care about money or religion's place in politics, per se. I think that the financial records of officials should be completely open to the public however, and I think that the punishment for corruption should be very harsh.
3) [strike]Much, much more citation in the media. Make a claim, then have your sources available to everyone.[/strike]
I don't really care about this either. I would be happy to have such a practice become commonplace, but I think media is naturally trending that way as old media dies and the internet becomes a more popular means of getting news. I don't think regulation is required.
4) Not just free education, mandatory education. For everyone. Until eighteen or even twenty. Emphasis on global cultures, global history, science and the scientific method. Seriously people, learn about the world and learn how to be rational.
I would add a large number of incentives and subsidies for training and education of people both between jobs as well as when they are employed, as a means to better adapt to changes in the economy and to keep the public educated.
5) [strike]Voting on the major issues every two months. Every two months, a document will be produced for all citizens (probably via the internet) containing the biggest (ie, most campaigned for, contested or otherwise deemed important) issues broken down and explained clearly, with outcomes to be selected via checkboxes. Results MUST be returned by each civilian on each 'voting day', though an 'I have no opinion' option is permissable.[/strike]
Direct democracy is monotonous and leads to awful, tyranny of the majority decisions. I'd prefer to have professional politicians who are able to spend lots of time engaged with these issues. Studies have shown that voters are persistently either wrong or systematically misinformed or irrational on a variety of issues, and (possibly with the exception of the rare informed voter) I would prefer to have them as far away from the legislative process as possible.
6) Many more video cameras and other government observation. [strike]Data to be observed only by permitted officials.[/strike] People to get over it, and stop whining about a nanny state or 1984. I've got nothing to hide.
If you have nothing to hide, why not make the information available to the public? I would rather have an ambitious partially decentralized surveillance system of as many cameras in public places as possible, with access to anyone who has access to the internet and records kept for at least a month.
I would also attempt to create a state that actively seeks to expand itself to other regions/encourages membership of other countries. If my ideal state were in The United States, I would actively encourage integration of Canada, Mexico, islands in the Caribbean... I don't know that geographic closeness would be a necessity either, actually.
I would also attempt to create a state that actively seeks to expand itself to other regions/encourages membership of other countries. If my ideal state were in The United States, I would actively encourage integration of Canada, Mexico, islands in the Caribbean... I don't know that geographic closeness would be a necessity either, actually.
I've long since pondered this myself.
Whats an easy way to eliminate illegal immigration? Add Mexico to the union. They are already a major force in our economy, we may as well incorporate them in my opinion.
I would also attempt to create a state that actively seeks to expand itself to other regions/encourages membership of other countries. If my ideal state were in The United States, I would actively encourage integration of Canada, Mexico, islands in the Caribbean... I don't know that geographic closeness would be a necessity either, actually.
I've long since pondered this myself.
Whats an easy way to eliminate illegal immigration? Add Mexico to the union. They are already a major force in our economy, we may as well incorporate them in my opinion.
Democracy (in the true meaning as in, rule by the people) sans voting.
I don't trust the average citizen to have an informed opinion. I do trust the majority opinion of experts. Therefor my ideal government would be a series of self-regulating bodies formed of the topmost experts in the related fields, paid well to encourage success.
This would take the form of, for example, the top 100 doctors in the country form the medical senate. They discuss, shape, and form laws about medical practices.
The same would happen for economists and other fields. The top 100 economists in the country would form the economic senate and would debate, discuss, and eventually decide on economic policy.
Whenever a new need arises for the rule of law, the experts in that field would be arranged by the skeleton government that was run by experts in political science.
Any one or more members of any senate can have their credentials (body of work) challenged at any time by anyone with a sufficient amount of evidence (as decided by the self-regulating committee). The laws of the land would be heavily enforced by the law tribunal to ensure no corruption takes place. Penalties for abusing one's position within a senate body would consist of disbarment, banishment, and potentially prison (the death penalty being abolished)
Religion would be free to practice, but abolished from all governmental policies.
Questions? As a thought the entire structure is only 15% formed, so feel free to critique it, I'd love some feedback.
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
Democracy (in the true meaning as in, rule by the people) sans voting.
I don't trust the average citizen to have an informed opinion. I do trust the majority opinion of experts. Therefor my ideal government would be a series of self-regulating bodies formed of the topmost experts in the related fields, paid well to encourage success.
This would take the form of, for example, the top 100 doctors in the country form the medical senate. They discuss, shape, and form laws about medical practices.
The same would happen for economists and other fields. The top 100 economists in the country would form the economic senate and would debate, discuss, and eventually decide on economic policy.
Whenever a new need arises for the rule of law, the experts in that field would be arranged by the skeleton government that was run by experts in political science.
Any one or more members of any senate can have their credentials (body of work) challenged at any time by anyone with a sufficient amount of evidence (as decided by the self-regulating committee). The laws of the land would be heavily enforced by the law tribunal to ensure no corruption takes place. Penalties for abusing one's position within a senate body would consist of disbarment, banishment, and potentially prison (the death penalty being abolished)
Religion would be free to practice, but abolished from all governmental policies.
Questions? As a thought the entire structure is only 15% formed, so feel free to critique it, I'd love some feedback.
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
This is exactly what we have right now. Except the people making decisions have *zero* knowledge and extreme levels of self interest and are puppets of the lobbyists doing the real work of running our lives.
This system would essentially bring all of that out into the open, remove the figurehead middlemen that is our current senate, and switch the corporate-hired lobbyists with actual experts in the field that have proven (through papers, experience, and results) that they know what they are talking about.
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
You don't talk to a lot of economists, do you?
Thanatos on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
Economists might suggest stuff that'd drive people bonkers because, while it makes sense and possible does so in a non-intuitive manner, it would be against what people would believe is best, and there is quite a hot debate about the best course of action in regards to consequences that are unable to be determined until they happen.
And for the most part micro econ theory doesn't need to be enshrined in law, because you can't really escape the theory.
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
You don't talk to a lot of economists, do you?
Then who do you want to write economic policies? Clowns?
You either respect the accomplished person or you don't. I have to assume from your offhand disregard for economists that you think someone that knows shit about economic policy is a better choice than a body of the best economists in the country and you know where that road takes us? Bush.
You're trying to tell me you'd rather have a guy you'd like to drink a beer with than an expert?
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
Economists might suggest stuff that'd drive people bonkers because, while it makes sense and possible does so in a non-intuitive manner, it would be against what people would believe is best, and there is quite a hot debate about the best course of action in regards to consequences that are unable to be determined until they happen.
And for the most part micro econ theory doesn't need to be enshrined in law, because you can't really escape the theory.
Thus the first part of my proposal: Citizens are uninformed and generally too stupid to be trusted to make decisions.
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
You don't talk to a lot of economists, do you?
Most of my friends are econ majors. They're largely moderate Democrats who are kind of radical (relative to the population at large) in regards to liberalization of immigration and trade.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
Economists might suggest stuff that'd drive people bonkers because, while it makes sense and possible does so in a non-intuitive manner, it would be against what people would believe is best, and there is quite a hot debate about the best course of action in regards to consequences that are unable to be determined until they happen.
And for the most part micro econ theory doesn't need to be enshrined in law, because you can't really escape the theory.
Thus the first part of my proposal: Citizens are uninformed and generally too stupid to be trusted to make decisions.
But some economists are just as stupid. Do you really want a marxist to have a seat at the table when their entire approach is semantics and engaging in meta world discussions instead of looking at the numbers?
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
Economists might suggest stuff that'd drive people bonkers because, while it makes sense and possible does so in a non-intuitive manner, it would be against what people would believe is best, and there is quite a hot debate about the best course of action in regards to consequences that are unable to be determined until they happen.
And for the most part micro econ theory doesn't need to be enshrined in law, because you can't really escape the theory.
Thus the first part of my proposal: Citizens are uninformed and generally too stupid to be trusted to make decisions.
But some economists are just as stupid. Do you really want a marxist to have a seat at the table when their entire approach is semantics and engaging in meta world discussions instead of looking at the numbers?
I think it's just one of those flukes of history that "Marxist economics" isn't as absurd on its face in educated circles as "creation science".
EDIT: I guess my point is that yes, there are crackpots in every field, but that doesn't really count against the field itself.
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
You don't talk to a lot of economists, do you?
Most of my friends are econ majors. They're largely moderate Democrats who are kind of radical (relative to the population at large) in regards to liberalization of immigration and trade.
Most of the economists I've known have been big-time fans of the free market, and strict believers in rational behavior theory. Of course, they were mostly graduate students and professors, rather than undergrads.
And who, exactly, is going to determine who gets to be the experts, by the way? Is it going to be the Friedman school, worshipers of the great invisible hand of the free market? Or the Keynesians? Or the soft paternalists? Who, exactly, gets to decide which experts are the expertiest?
Thanatos on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
Economists might suggest stuff that'd drive people bonkers because, while it makes sense and possible does so in a non-intuitive manner, it would be against what people would believe is best, and there is quite a hot debate about the best course of action in regards to consequences that are unable to be determined until they happen.
And for the most part micro econ theory doesn't need to be enshrined in law, because you can't really escape the theory.
Thus the first part of my proposal: Citizens are uninformed and generally too stupid to be trusted to make decisions.
But some economists are just as stupid. Do you really want a marxist to have a seat at the table when their entire approach is semantics and engaging in meta world discussions instead of looking at the numbers?
I think it's just one of those flukes of history that "Marxist economics" isn't as absurd on its face in educated circles as "creation science".
EDIT: I guess my point is that yes, there are crackpots in every field, but that doesn't really count against the field itself.
You're right that one bad apple doesn't ruin them all, but I certainly wouldn't like unspoiled apples to be the least common in a barrel.
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
You don't talk to a lot of economists, do you?
Most of my friends are econ majors. They're largely moderate Democrats who are kind of radical (relative to the population at large) in regards to liberalization of immigration and trade.
Most of the economists I've known have been big-time fans of the free market, and strict believers in rational behavior theory. Of course, they were mostly graduate students and professors, rather than undergrads.
And who, exactly, is going to determine who gets to be the experts, by the way? Is it going to be the Friedman school, worshipers of the great invisible hand of the free market? Or the Keynesians? Or the soft paternalists? Who, exactly, gets to decide which experts are the expertiest?
I've had limited exposure to the various schools, but I understand that there is pretty much broad consensus on things like immigration, trade/"sending jobs overseas", education, and affinity for technology. They generally aren't unhappy with welfare (though the ones who are have somewhat disproportionate pull with certain political elements), and they're pro-liberalization of the workforce, in terms of women and minorities playing a larger part.
That's not to say there is consensus on everything. Clearly, there is not. But there is pretty much unanimity on a good number of key issues, some divergence on others, and yes, some very divergent views on a few others.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Most importantly this sort of funding would be reliable across multiple administrations—none of this "start working on the Constellation program/SSC/whatever now only to have it canceled in the next administration" bullshit.
It helps if that drawn out program is actually decent and worthwhile.
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
You don't talk to a lot of economists, do you?
Most of my friends are econ majors. They're largely moderate Democrats who are kind of radical (relative to the population at large) in regards to liberalization of immigration and trade.
Most of the economists I've known have been big-time fans of the free market, and strict believers in rational behavior theory. Of course, they were mostly graduate students and professors, rather than undergrads.
And who, exactly, is going to determine who gets to be the experts, by the way? Is it going to be the Friedman school, worshipers of the great invisible hand of the free market? Or the Keynesians? Or the soft paternalists? Who, exactly, gets to decide which experts are the expertiest?
I don't think that most up to date and non dogmatic believe in rational behavior or EMH.
Most importantly this sort of funding would be reliable across multiple administrations—none of this "start working on the Constellation program/SSC/whatever now only to have it canceled in the next administration" bullshit.
It helps if that drawn out program is actually decent and worthwhile.
It would indeed help. But the standard procedure now is to replace one half-completed half-worthwhile project with another half-worthwhile project that will itself be canceled halfway through. It is depressing.
This is a really terrible idea. You're essentially arguing that the AMA should be in charge of all medical regulation in the country; well, the AMA is a self-interested body, whose primary duty is making things better for doctors. Which is why there are something like 5% of doctors making up like 50% of malpractice suits (it's something ridiculous like that, I don't remember the exact numbers). It's the same problem you have letting MBAs or economists write business regulations, letting cops write police regulation, and deciding which environmentalists get to be the foremost experts for what they're advocating.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
You don't talk to a lot of economists, do you?
Most of my friends are econ majors. They're largely moderate Democrats who are kind of radical (relative to the population at large) in regards to liberalization of immigration and trade.
Most of the economists I've known have been big-time fans of the free market, and strict believers in rational behavior theory. Of course, they were mostly graduate students and professors, rather than undergrads.
And who, exactly, is going to determine who gets to be the experts, by the way? Is it going to be the Friedman school, worshipers of the great invisible hand of the free market? Or the Keynesians? Or the soft paternalists? Who, exactly, gets to decide which experts are the expertiest?
Apologies for my absence, work is a bitch sometimes.
My pont with all of this is that if you lock a 100 monkies in a room long enough, you get Shakespeare. If you locked Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs, and Alan Greenspan in a room with 97 other economists with a dozen CSPAN cameras and forced them to argue the facts with evidence, you would eventually get sane economic policy.
Note: I'm a liberal, you're probably a liberal, I think we all probably agree on the salient economic points. That being said, Group Think is the bane of empires and I would strongly argue that every qualified, sane, skilled economist deserves a seat at the table, especially the dissenting voices so long as they are committed to doing the job over sheer debate.
Most of my friends are econ majors. They're largely moderate Democrats who are kind of radical (relative to the population at large) in regards to liberalization of immigration and trade.
Most of the economists I've known have been big-time fans of the free market, and strict believers in rational behavior theory. Of course, they were mostly graduate students and professors, rather than undergrads.
And who, exactly, is going to determine who gets to be the experts, by the way? Is it going to be the Friedman school, worshipers of the great invisible hand of the free market? Or the Keynesians? Or the soft paternalists? Who, exactly, gets to decide which experts are the expertiest?
I've had limited exposure to the various schools, but I understand that there is pretty much broad consensus on things like immigration, trade/"sending jobs overseas", education, and affinity for technology. They generally aren't unhappy with welfare (though the ones who are have somewhat disproportionate pull with certain political elements), and they're pro-liberalization of the workforce, in terms of women and minorities playing a larger part.
That's not to say there is consensus on everything. Clearly, there is not. But there is pretty much unanimity on a good number of key issues, some divergence on others, and yes, some very divergent views on a few others.
Well, we're talking about economists setting economic policy, right? Business regulation and such?
So, not immigration, not trade, not education, not technology, and not civil rights. So, everything there's broad agreement on won't matter when it comes to the policies they're setting. And you still haven't explained who picks the experts.
My pont with all of this is that if you lock a 100 monkies in a room long enough, you get Shakespeare. If you locked Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs, and Alan Greenspan in a room with 97 other economists with a dozen CSPAN cameras and forced them to argue the facts with evidence, you would eventually get sane economic policy.
Note: I'm a liberal, you're probably a liberal, I think we all probably agree on the salient economic points. That being said, Group Think is the bane of empires and I would strongly argue that every qualified, sane, skilled economist deserves a seat at the table, especially the dissenting voices so long as they are committed to doing the job over sheer debate.
Again, who decides who's qualified, sane, or skilled? And you may be able to lock 100 monkies in a room long enough to get Shakespeare, but if you lock 100 economists in a room long enough, you get 10 economists walking out, and a big mess to clean up.
Meritocracies, in the end, are almost never meritocratic. It turns into a game of who can buy the most influence.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying representative democracy is perfect; far from it. Representative democracy fucking sucks. It just sucks less than anything else we've tried so far.
My pont with all of this is that if you lock a 100 monkies in a room long enough, you get Shakespeare. If you locked Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs, and Alan Greenspan in a room with 97 other economists with a dozen CSPAN cameras and forced them to argue the facts with evidence, you would eventually get sane economic policy.
Note: I'm a liberal, you're probably a liberal, I think we all probably agree on the salient economic points. That being said, Group Think is the bane of empires and I would strongly argue that every qualified, sane, skilled economist deserves a seat at the table, especially the dissenting voices so long as they are committed to doing the job over sheer debate.
Again, who decides who's qualified, sane, or skilled? And you may be able to lock 100 monkies in a room long enough to get Shakespeare, but if you lock 100 economists in a room long enough, you get 10 economists walking out, and a big mess to clean up.
Meritocracies, in the end, are almost never meritocratic. It turns into a game of who can buy the most influence.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying representative democracy is perfect; far from it. Representative democracy fucking sucks. It just sucks less than anything else we've tried so far.
I addressed the point in the original post in which I set out the idea.
It would be a strictly meritocratic system. You wouldn't be able to buy your way in any more than you could buy your way to a high IQ. Your seat at the table is never certain and based solely upon the community's opinion of your body of work as a whole.
Once the initial group of experts was established, it would be a matter of letting anyone sit at the table that can add to the discussion. Those that sit idly by or attempt to regurgitate facts spoken by other mouths would loose their seat as voted by the economic community as a whole.
In addition, I would suggest something even more radical. Proposals put forth by the individual members of the committees would be attributed to that particular member, and they would be responsible for the success of the proposal as a whole. Being consistently right or wrong would have consequences to the point where you could lose your seat, along with its power and exorbitant salary.
No more private schools or homeschooling. Sorry, your cult can duke it out with SCIENCE! if it wants your kid's mind. Also, major schooling reforms and tons more funding; don't know what needs doing exactly, so I'll consult the experts.
I have a major problem with this. It's not up to the government to decide where kids should go to school. Especially in light of the fact that private schools (whether parochial or not) and homeschooling tend to lead to better educational results than private schools.
Your argument here seems to be that you don't like the ideology certain parents teach their kids, so you want to teach them ideological views that you find more palatable. That's a pretty terrifying concept, frankly.
I don't care what they teach their kids. And I'm not saying the schools should be pushing any ideaology; just, ya know, what science has shown us. If they still decide that science is wrong, that's fine.
But yes, I'm in favor of neutralizing ignorance, even if it does step on some people's toes. Ignorance is the main factor behind 90% of the shit wrong with the world, so I'd say fighting it is a pretty noble cause.
And I enjoy how you ignore the fact that if private schools and homeschooling didn't exists, the public ones would become better as rich daddies pumped money into the system and the better teachers moved back into public schools (reforms would obviously include improvements to the pay of qualified teachers).
I would also be in favor of trying various experimental schooling styles with special opt-in schools.
The quality of public schools tends to directly correlate with the wealth in the surrounding area. If you simply eliminate private schools, the public schools in wealthier neighborhoods will continue to be good on average and the schools in poorer neighborhoods will continue to be bad on average.
Even if you nationalize the education system and spend the same amount on every school, better teachers will still prefer to work at schools in more wealthy areas (some even for less money) so they don't have to deal with the issues commonly associated with lower socioeconomic neighborhoods.
Really, all eliminating private schools will do is take away a possible alternative to the public school education. With less alternatives, it makes it more difficult for students from poorer neighborhoods to obtain quality education. After all, there are many private schools that give out scholarships to promising students who would otherwise not be able to afford to attend, so lack of financial means isn't necessarily a bar to attending private school now.
I don't know about coming up with some kind of coherent set of policies that are ideal. That's a bit above my capacity.
I guess my ideal approach to government would be to have the federal government actively encouraging the states to experiment with policy more than they do now. Give conservative states federal grants to try out conservative policy proposals, and liberal states grants for liberal proposals.
I feel like in a sense we really overlook one of the core strengths of the organization of our country because we don't push experimentation as much as we could - we always just try to push though whatever we favor at the national level and wonder why D.C. is a political traffic jam.
We really aren't that smart, and the world is changing in so many ways, so fast, so much of the time, that empirical evolution of national policy working up from lower levels of government seems reasonable.
Of course, you can't take that approach with everything because some issues are inherently federal. But you see what I'm saying hopefully.
Your seat at the table is never certain and based solely upon the community's opinion of your body of work as a whole.
You don't see the obvious flaw of discouraging any radical new ideas?
Why are radical ideas a bad thing?
Our current government is locked in a perpetual parody of change, we could use a little radical thought right about now.
Its not like I'm advocating a Senate that would let one crazy Anarchist write a law abolishing all currency but poontang. I would just like a little more rationality and responsibility than we're getting with this "republic" ruled by lobbyists.
*edit* apparently I can't read when I'm tired. I think you misunderstand me, if a young upstart genius of an economist wrote a few amazing papers he could be given a seat at the table, even if only a temporary one to try out his ideas.
Its a hell of a lot more than the brainless puppets we have now.
Posts
Also, beat the hell out of the people making Texas history textbooks.
That way, a politician can't be corrupt because everyone else already knows all the tricks!
You joke, but...
Robert Heinlein was, of course, a very silly goose indeed.
Damn, I was hoping no one knew about him. :P
I don't care what they teach their kids. And I'm not saying the schools should be pushing any ideaology; just, ya know, what science has shown us. If they still decide that science is wrong, that's fine.
But yes, I'm in favor of neutralizing ignorance, even if it does step on some people's toes. Ignorance is the main factor behind 90% of the shit wrong with the world, so I'd say fighting it is a pretty noble cause.
And I enjoy how you ignore the fact that if private schools and homeschooling didn't exists, the public ones would become better as rich daddies pumped money into the system and the better teachers moved back into public schools (reforms would obviously include improvements to the pay of qualified teachers).
I would also be in favor of trying various experimental schooling styles with special opt-in schools.
My ideal government would be...
Democracy (in the true meaning as in, rule by the people) sans voting.
I don't trust the average citizen to have an informed opinion. I do trust the majority opinion of experts. Therefor my ideal government would be a series of self-regulating bodies formed of the topmost experts in the related fields, paid well to encourage success.
This would take the form of, for example, the top 100 doctors in the country form the medical senate. They discuss, shape, and form laws about medical practices.
The same would happen for economists and other fields. The top 100 economists in the country would form the economic senate and would debate, discuss, and eventually decide on economic policy.
Whenever a new need arises for the rule of law, the experts in that field would be arranged by the skeleton government that was run by experts in political science.
Any one or more members of any senate can have their credentials (body of work) challenged at any time by anyone with a sufficient amount of evidence (as decided by the self-regulating committee). The laws of the land would be heavily enforced by the law tribunal to ensure no corruption takes place. Penalties for abusing one's position within a senate body would consist of disbarment, banishment, and potentially prison (the death penalty being abolished)
Religion would be free to practice, but abolished from all governmental policies.
Questions? As a thought the entire structure is only 15% formed, so feel free to critique it, I'd love some feedback.
I've long since pondered this myself.
Whats an easy way to eliminate illegal immigration? Add Mexico to the union. They are already a major force in our economy, we may as well incorporate them in my opinion.
Also:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/24/ending-global-apartheid
This is exactly what we have right now. Except the people making decisions have *zero* knowledge and extreme levels of self interest and are puppets of the lobbyists doing the real work of running our lives.
This system would essentially bring all of that out into the open, remove the figurehead middlemen that is our current senate, and switch the corporate-hired lobbyists with actual experts in the field that have proven (through papers, experience, and results) that they know what they are talking about.
What's wrong with letting economists write business regulations?
1) A flat tax rate and removal of most of the government intervention we have today.
2) Expansion of civil liberties (legalize gay marriage, etc).
3) Remove most of the government programs we have today.
So, sexual-orientation discrimination by the free market?
You'll have to explain that a little further.
Economists might suggest stuff that'd drive people bonkers because, while it makes sense and possible does so in a non-intuitive manner, it would be against what people would believe is best, and there is quite a hot debate about the best course of action in regards to consequences that are unable to be determined until they happen.
And for the most part micro econ theory doesn't need to be enshrined in law, because you can't really escape the theory.
Then who do you want to write economic policies? Clowns?
You either respect the accomplished person or you don't. I have to assume from your offhand disregard for economists that you think someone that knows shit about economic policy is a better choice than a body of the best economists in the country and you know where that road takes us? Bush.
You're trying to tell me you'd rather have a guy you'd like to drink a beer with than an expert?
Thus the first part of my proposal: Citizens are uninformed and generally too stupid to be trusted to make decisions.
But some economists are just as stupid. Do you really want a marxist to have a seat at the table when their entire approach is semantics and engaging in meta world discussions instead of looking at the numbers?
I think it's just one of those flukes of history that "Marxist economics" isn't as absurd on its face in educated circles as "creation science".
EDIT: I guess my point is that yes, there are crackpots in every field, but that doesn't really count against the field itself.
And who, exactly, is going to determine who gets to be the experts, by the way? Is it going to be the Friedman school, worshipers of the great invisible hand of the free market? Or the Keynesians? Or the soft paternalists? Who, exactly, gets to decide which experts are the expertiest?
You're right that one bad apple doesn't ruin them all, but I certainly wouldn't like unspoiled apples to be the least common in a barrel.
I've had limited exposure to the various schools, but I understand that there is pretty much broad consensus on things like immigration, trade/"sending jobs overseas", education, and affinity for technology. They generally aren't unhappy with welfare (though the ones who are have somewhat disproportionate pull with certain political elements), and they're pro-liberalization of the workforce, in terms of women and minorities playing a larger part.
That's not to say there is consensus on everything. Clearly, there is not. But there is pretty much unanimity on a good number of key issues, some divergence on others, and yes, some very divergent views on a few others.
It helps if that drawn out program is actually decent and worthwhile.
I don't think that most up to date and non dogmatic believe in rational behavior or EMH.
Apologies for my absence, work is a bitch sometimes.
My pont with all of this is that if you lock a 100 monkies in a room long enough, you get Shakespeare. If you locked Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs, and Alan Greenspan in a room with 97 other economists with a dozen CSPAN cameras and forced them to argue the facts with evidence, you would eventually get sane economic policy.
Note: I'm a liberal, you're probably a liberal, I think we all probably agree on the salient economic points. That being said, Group Think is the bane of empires and I would strongly argue that every qualified, sane, skilled economist deserves a seat at the table, especially the dissenting voices so long as they are committed to doing the job over sheer debate.
So, not immigration, not trade, not education, not technology, and not civil rights. So, everything there's broad agreement on won't matter when it comes to the policies they're setting. And you still haven't explained who picks the experts.
Meritocracies, in the end, are almost never meritocratic. It turns into a game of who can buy the most influence.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying representative democracy is perfect; far from it. Representative democracy fucking sucks. It just sucks less than anything else we've tried so far.
*weeps*
Then Chairman Mao was right - murder all the intellectuals since they're the ones causing all the unrest with their petty disagreements.
I addressed the point in the original post in which I set out the idea.
It would be a strictly meritocratic system. You wouldn't be able to buy your way in any more than you could buy your way to a high IQ. Your seat at the table is never certain and based solely upon the community's opinion of your body of work as a whole.
Once the initial group of experts was established, it would be a matter of letting anyone sit at the table that can add to the discussion. Those that sit idly by or attempt to regurgitate facts spoken by other mouths would loose their seat as voted by the economic community as a whole.
In addition, I would suggest something even more radical. Proposals put forth by the individual members of the committees would be attributed to that particular member, and they would be responsible for the success of the proposal as a whole. Being consistently right or wrong would have consequences to the point where you could lose your seat, along with its power and exorbitant salary.
The quality of public schools tends to directly correlate with the wealth in the surrounding area. If you simply eliminate private schools, the public schools in wealthier neighborhoods will continue to be good on average and the schools in poorer neighborhoods will continue to be bad on average.
Even if you nationalize the education system and spend the same amount on every school, better teachers will still prefer to work at schools in more wealthy areas (some even for less money) so they don't have to deal with the issues commonly associated with lower socioeconomic neighborhoods.
Really, all eliminating private schools will do is take away a possible alternative to the public school education. With less alternatives, it makes it more difficult for students from poorer neighborhoods to obtain quality education. After all, there are many private schools that give out scholarships to promising students who would otherwise not be able to afford to attend, so lack of financial means isn't necessarily a bar to attending private school now.
I guess my ideal approach to government would be to have the federal government actively encouraging the states to experiment with policy more than they do now. Give conservative states federal grants to try out conservative policy proposals, and liberal states grants for liberal proposals.
I feel like in a sense we really overlook one of the core strengths of the organization of our country because we don't push experimentation as much as we could - we always just try to push though whatever we favor at the national level and wonder why D.C. is a political traffic jam.
We really aren't that smart, and the world is changing in so many ways, so fast, so much of the time, that empirical evolution of national policy working up from lower levels of government seems reasonable.
Of course, you can't take that approach with everything because some issues are inherently federal. But you see what I'm saying hopefully.
Why are radical ideas a bad thing?
Our current government is locked in a perpetual parody of change, we could use a little radical thought right about now.
Its not like I'm advocating a Senate that would let one crazy Anarchist write a law abolishing all currency but poontang. I would just like a little more rationality and responsibility than we're getting with this "republic" ruled by lobbyists.
*edit* apparently I can't read when I'm tired. I think you misunderstand me, if a young upstart genius of an economist wrote a few amazing papers he could be given a seat at the table, even if only a temporary one to try out his ideas.
Its a hell of a lot more than the brainless puppets we have now.