How bout the Ender model. Identify the truly gifted genius children and have them run simulations in preparation to rule actual countries, only these simulations are the real thing.
I read a short story like that. A kinda rip-off (or inspiration, I don't know the publication dates) on Ender's Game. In the end, the genius defeats the alien fleet in orbit of Earth, and for his big finish he decides to do it in a way so that the radiation fallout will wipe out all life on Earth. Beacause it'll look cool, and after all, it's just a simulation...
Truly benevolent dictators wouldn't survive for long; you need to crush dissent to keep power, if you're a dictator.
Besides, what happens when the good one is deposed or dies?
Exactly, the problem with many non-democratic systems is the faith they (wrongly) put in the individual leader and their idiosyncrasies. Rather than everyone just really hoping that the next dictator will be totally awesome, democracy gives us a nice moderate middle ground. Sure, the trains might not always run on time, but there are also significantly fewer gulags.
Sure, the result is often just mediocrity, but that's good because we exchange the few gains that might be accomplished under dictatorship for a degree of protection from the extreme loses that will typically result from autocracy.
I'm curious for a number of reasons, but I came to mulling over this subject when I was designing an advanced society for a Dungeons and Dragons campaign( :P ), and got to thinking about the vetting process for individuals in China, specifically in regards to the wisdom of their leaders.
For all its (significant) faults, for all the problems of liberty and poverty in China, one thing that they do have going for them is that their leaders are almost frighteningly intelligent. The vetting process that they undergo to rise to the top is apparently extremely effective at weeding out the dumb ones.
Um...living in China, knowing many Chinese, and having spoken to them about the government here...I am laughing. Out loud. Not rolling on the floor, because I haven't cleaned my floor in a while, but I am laughing.
As far as I'm concerned "benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron, perpetuated by the eagerness of some in freedom-minded governments to deal with dictators. If you're truly loved by your people, why not hold elections?
Benevolent refers to the dictator loving the people, not vice versa. If the dictator truly acts in the best interests of the people and is competent, then you have an extremely effective form of government that avoids the majority of problems faced by other forms of government. That said, dictatorship is a horrible system of government that should be avoided at all costs, given that the number of truly benevolent dictators throughout history can be counted on one hand, and even if you managed to get one they'd kick it sooner or later.
I believe that in order for a government to work and benefit the human race the most, it has to embrace the human race for everything it is.
The American representative republic combined with the capitalist economic system does just that. It encourages competition between people, and encourages a degree of darwinism, while also doing some things to try and help those that darwinism would have die. Socialist/Communist governments hold the idealogy that all people are good, and will work for the good of their fellow man. The US government, and most western governments, think that most people will not work for the good of their fellow man, but they WILL work for the good of themselves and their families.
In any society, there will be people who want to triumph over others, and there will be people who just don't care, and simply want to eat, drink, and have sex until they die. Democracy/Capitalism accounts for that, and provides a system where all of these people have roles in society. The problem is that another trait of humanity is envy, so the people who don't want to work as hard WANT the same things the hard-workers do. This can lead to revolutions, riots, etc., but re-distrubuting wealth drives away the hard-workers of society, leaving a nation with only its uneducated and unmotivated. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, and socialist tendencies tend to develop in democratic/capitalist societies over time, for better or for worse.
Obviousy there are a few things America could do better. For one, the presidential elections as this point should probably be a nationwide popular percentage vote instead of the electoral college, but for the most part I think it's set up pretty well.
Like some of you have said, socialism or anarchy would be great... if every human being was a saint. But people are not saints. We get pissed when we see a girl we like with another man, and we want to find a way to be better than that man. It's just human nature. You can either give us an economic way to overcome that other man (I'll get a better job, a bigger house, and a faster car!) or you'll unwillingly encourage people to use a much more primitive and worse method (kill the man, or rape the girl).
People have always advanced society by being motivated with a reward (a better afterlife, a better life, higher quality of living), so I think democracy in conjunction with capitalism really is the best way, since it offers rewards without forcing religious belief.
As far as I'm concerned "benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron, perpetuated by the eagerness of some in freedom-minded governments to deal with dictators. If you're truly loved by your people, why not hold elections?
Benevolent refers to the dictator loving the people, not vice versa. If the dictator truly acts in the best interests of the people and is competent, then you have an extremely effective form of government that avoids the majority of problems faced by other forms of government. That said, dictatorship is a horrible system of government that should be avoided at all costs, given that the number of truly benevolent dictators throughout history can be counted on one hand, and even if you managed to get one they'd kick it sooner or later.
If a dictator does what is best for his people, I think it follows that they love him. The definition of "a benevolent dictator is one who loves his people" sounds a bit off as it is. Didn't Franco love his Spain? Didn't Mussolini love his Italy? The fascist movement in Europe especially, because of its strong ties to nationalism, shows that dictators who love their people are still, well, dictators.
By "better" I mean nothing in particular. Merely the individual's appraisal that favors some entirely novel form or radical mutation of an existing system, though for the sake of discussion, an explanation would be nice.
Well, with that wonderful acting definition of "better" in mind...
I think the best form of government would be one led by some uninvolved third party who had no personal stake in the decisions made. If we had some sort of being with the ability for rational thought who could accept data and a system of desires / goals and then form reasonable laws and whatnot based upon those goals we would be in good shape.
I think the problem with most forms of government is that the individuals in positions of power have a personal stake in their own existence and so craft systems that benefit their selves. If we could remove that and instead have some device or being who made selfless evaluations of situations we could perhaps have a more functional system of government.
So does Heinlein's idea of a civil service based meritocracy ala Starship Troopers warrant any merit? I've always been a bit fond of the idea. Basically, under Heinlein's government, only whose who've volunteered for two years service in the military are given suffrage or allowed any involvement in government. The idea being that only those willing to sacrifice for the common good are wise enough to vote on anything.
Like some of you have said, socialism or anarchy would be great... if every human being was a saint. But people are not saints. We get pissed when we see a girl we like with another man, and we want to find a way to be better than that man. It's just human nature. You can either give us an economic way to overcome that other man (I'll get a better job, a bigger house, and a faster car!) or you'll unwillingly encourage people to use a much more primitive and worse method (kill the man, or rape the girl).
This view is sort of narrow-minded. The entire point of syndicated anarchism (which is what I'll argue for, here) is to design a society wherein the rational, selfish choice is economic collaboration (as part of a syndicate) through various means, from the desire to express oneself through whichever form of work they choose to the existence of simple community expectations. The example you give seems a bit odd. There is a multitude of ways to get a girl, or express distaste for a guy, or whatever. I wouldn't consider purely economic means the first choice, even in present capitalist society. And rape/murder are certainly not my second and third options. Social motivations, such as relationships, can easily be dealt with using social means. The extent to which economic means are social means depends on the role of wealth as a social force, which ideally would be minimal in such a society where the social emphasis with regards to the economy is placed not on production nor competition but rather on creativity and collaboration (beyond meeting base needs).
So does Heinlein's idea of a civil service based meritocracy ala Starship Troopers warrant any merit? I've always been a bit fond of the idea. Basically, under Heinlein's government, only whose who've volunteered for two years service in the military are given suffrage or allowed any involvement in government. The idea being that only those willing to sacrifice for the common good are wise enough to vote on anything.
:v:
I guess the crux of my disagreement lies in the connection between the fighting in the military and serving the common good. Of course, Heinlein's universe had bugs. Ours just has other societies. But even then, one shouldn't be expected to risk death just to have a say in how is life is run.
As far as I'm concerned "benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron, perpetuated by the eagerness of some in freedom-minded governments to deal with dictators. If you're truly loved by your people, why not hold elections?
Benevolent refers to the dictator loving the people, not vice versa. If the dictator truly acts in the best interests of the people and is competent, then you have an extremely effective form of government that avoids the majority of problems faced by other forms of government. That said, dictatorship is a horrible system of government that should be avoided at all costs, given that the number of truly benevolent dictators throughout history can be counted on one hand, and even if you managed to get one they'd kick it sooner or later.
If a dictator does what is best for his people, I think it follows that they love him. The definition of "a benevolent dictator is one who loves his people" sounds a bit off as it is. Didn't Franco love his Spain? Didn't Mussolini love his Italy? The fascist movement in Europe especially, because of its strong ties to nationalism, shows that dictators who love their people are still, well, dictators.
(watch how I expertly avoided that Godwin)
It's important not only that the dictator love the people, but that they act in the people's best interests - the eyes of history have determined that your examples have not fulfilled that obligation. Those dictators who do what's best are normally loved by the people, but since there are other ways to get the people to love you besides doing the right thing, if a benevolent dictator is already in power, elections are technically bad for the people, since the current leader is sure to act in their best interests while other candidates carry no such guarantee.
The whole thing is moot anyway. We're in agreement that dictators are a bad, bad idea, and we think so for pretty much the same reasons.
So does Heinlein's idea of a civil service based meritocracy ala Starship Troopers warrant any merit? I've always been a bit fond of the idea. Basically, under Heinlein's government, only whose who've volunteered for two years service in the military are given suffrage or allowed any involvement in government. The idea being that only those willing to sacrifice for the common good are wise enough to vote on anything.
:v:
I guess the crux of my disagreement lies in the connection between the fighting in the military and serving the common good. Of course, Heinlein's universe had bugs. Ours just has other societies. But even then, one shouldn't be expected to risk death just to have a say in how is life is run.
Nor should one be required to kill to have a say. I'm with Chaos Theory on this one. Most of the indifferent in the population don't vote anyway, so I don't think it's a big problem.
Like some of you have said, socialism or anarchy would be great... if every human being was a saint. But people are not saints. We get pissed when we see a girl we like with another man, and we want to find a way to be better than that man. It's just human nature. You can either give us an economic way to overcome that other man (I'll get a better job, a bigger house, and a faster car!) or you'll unwillingly encourage people to use a much more primitive and worse method (kill the man, or rape the girl).
This view is sort of narrow-minded. The entire point of syndicated anarchism (which is what I'll argue for, here) is to design a society wherein the rational, selfish choice is economic collaboration (as part of a syndicate) through various means, from the desire to express oneself through whichever form of work they choose to the existence of simple community expectations. The example you give seems a bit odd. There is a multitude of ways to get a girl, or express distaste for a guy, or whatever. I wouldn't consider purely economic means the first choice, even in present capitalist society. And rape/murder are certainly not my second and third options. Social motivations, such as relationships, can easily be dealt with using social means. The extent to which economic means are social means depends on the role of wealth as a social force, which ideally would be minimal in such a society where the social emphasis with regards to the economy is placed not on production nor competition but rather on creativity and collaboration (beyond meeting base needs).
I suppose you would just end up having a group of creative people who rule the society, and a group of uncreative people who just do the bidding of the creative ones. Even if you eliminate wealth, you will have people who are creative and/or smart, and people who are morons. Social classes would still develop.
What are people's thoughts on mandatory participation in government? "If you don't care enough to help govern the society, you don't deserve to benefit from it." Aye or nay?
What are people's thoughts on mandatory participation in government? "If you don't care enough to help govern the society, you don't deserve to benefit from it." Aye or nay?
Nay. Government is a neccessary entity to maintain the existance of societies. It is not the purpose of said societies. Some people hate politics, and could care less about the policies of governments, as long as they are protected and have rights. These people can be mathmaticians, artists, scientists, etc. They help society to a great degree, and should not be forced out because they are indifferent toward government. I do believe, however, that people should be informed of their government's actions... but there's no real way to FORCE people to seek news. There's channels, papers, magazines, the internet. It's put in front of them, but you can't force them to watch or read it.
The methods non-democratic governments use to hold power cancel any benefits they might have 10 times over.
Is it always a simple matter of democratic vs non-democratic? There seem to be varying measures of democracy, such as Singapore's peculiar blend of democratic and authoritarian government. It certainly isn't a liberal democracy, though its population continues to support, and prosper under, its one-party system.
What are people's thoughts on mandatory participation in government? "If you don't care enough to help govern the society, you don't deserve to benefit from it." Aye or nay?
I am of the opinion that the role of a citizen in a society is of the utmost importance. Ideally, the whole notion of citizenship would include in it not just "rights" but rather "rights and obligations to the state and society." Citizens would thus be responsible for acting in the best interests of society and the state at large so that the mechanism that guarantees their rights continues to exist and flourish. We don't have that in any western country, unfortunately. The closest there is to a culture of engaged citizen action is Australia, with their mandatory voting law - but even then, people just go out and vote once every 5 years. For the most part, the citizenry is just as apathetic and disinterested as any other population in the West.
While I don't like the idea of having the state compel the citizen to act and engage the mechanisms of the state - something that I believe should be automatic and expected of the citizen - it's probably right now the best option to reinvigorate our democracies. However pitiful it may be.
I suppose you would just end up having a group of creative people who rule the society, and a group of uncreative people who just do the bidding of the creative ones. Even if you eliminate wealth, you will have people who are creative and/or smart, and people who are morons. Social classes would still develop.
The market wouldn't be competitive, however. Creativity would not garner material reward, simply social reward and self-reward (expressing one's will through one's work). Because self-reward is emphasized, the value of one's work to oneself is what matters. People can easily like jobs that in our system are regarded as low, such as menial labor. In our society, classes form around the exterior, impersonally-defined value of one's work. In syndicated anarchy, as the value is personally defined, there's no real room for a class to form. So, if those jobs that no one really likes, such as sanitation, could be placed on a rotation/mechanized to the greatest extent as is possible, all that is left would be jobs that various people can personally prefer/enjoy, and the formation of economic classes could be prevented.
Basically, I don't see innate differences in learning capacity and social interaction as being themselves capable of defining economic classes, unless given the tools that are present in modern society.
The methods non-democratic governments use to hold power cancel any benefits they might have 10 times over.
Is it always a simple matter of democratic vs non-democratic? There seem to be varying measures of democracy, such as Singapore's peculiar blend of democratic and authoritarian government. It certainly isn't a liberal democracy, though its population continues to support, and prosper under, its one-party system.
Singapore, if memory serves, is one of the least corrupt countries in the world according to the CPI.
You know what I always thought was an interesting pet-project?
Governments in Internet-based Clans.
Because, on a forum, you have a limited amount of members (far less than a country), and they're generally more intelligent than the mob mentality that a large voting group has. However, the advantages of an internet democracy are offset by the fact that democracies act on the 'net pretty much the way that Plato describes them.
You know what I always thought was an interesting pet-project?
Governments in Internet-based Clans.
Because, on a forum, you have a limited amount of members (far less than a country), and they're generally more intelligent than the mob mentality that a large voting group has. However, the advantages of an internet democracy are offset by the fact that democracies act on the 'net pretty much the way that Plato describes them.
How about government as a science experiment? Ideas are submitted ideas to academic journals, tried in states/provinces, vetted for integrity by political peers, bad policy weeded out by virtue of not working.
I would totally go for applying empiricism to the structure of society. Of course, we could start at looking at historical examples, depending on how many variables we want to work through.
I think you encounter a problem when you assert that any intelligent leader is somehow favourable. The United States has elected plenty of presidents who were extremely intelligent, but who, upon entry to office, proved to be complete failures. Hell, you have Nixon and Carter just in the last fourty odd years.
Not to mention the (extremely obvious) fact that even if a leader is intelligent, they might not have the people's interests at heart. This is especially true in the case of, for instance, totalitarian regimes. Look at Stalin: ferociously intelligent and tough, but the lack of accountability he had made him, on top of deficiencies in his personality, a horrible and cruel leader. At least, in regards to the actual people he was governing, if not the Soviet state itself. So your China example is flawed by definition. Yes the men at the top are smart, but, if allied with cruel or ridiculous policies, they just end up better at enacting these policies themselves. I would much rather have a stupid leader in charge of a democracy than a smart one in charge of a dictatorship.
However, the main thing you begin to realise is that it's not so much the system you live under that matters, but the quality of the people in charge of the system. I could quite happily live under Caesar Augustus, for instance, while I'd be shit scared of a mad man like Nero. I'd be happy under Reagan, but not LBJ.
Of course, this stops being true when the system you encounter is a totalitarian dictatorship, where, no matter who is at the top, the goal is always to continue the perpetuity of the ruling system, which, inevitably slides into something immoral.
So basically, by and large, most systems of government are good if the leader leading them is good. It just so happens to be that democracy, with its built in accountability and wisdom of crowds, offers the most practical, feasible way to run a country while consistently choosing able leaders who will act in the majority of the peoples' best interests.
What are people's thoughts on mandatory participation in government? "If you don't care enough to help govern the society, you don't deserve to benefit from it." Aye or nay?
That brings up one of the biggest problems with governmental systems in general: What about the people who don't WANT involvement?
They're stuck in one country or another.
It's like an extremely indirect form of quasi-slavery.
What are people's thoughts on mandatory participation in government? "If you don't care enough to help govern the society, you don't deserve to benefit from it." Aye or nay?
That brings up one of the biggest problems with governmental systems in general: What about the people who don't WANT involvement?
They're stuck in one country or another.
It's like an extremely indirect form of quasi-slavery.
Put them on an island somewhere to fend for themselves, and as they start realizing the benefits of setting up and participating in their own little island government, start letting them back in.
Really, I'm not entirely sure if mandatory voting is beneficial or not, but I think comparing it to slavery is a bit much, even if you're saying an extremely indirect form of quasi-slavery. You're forcing them to do something, yeah, but what you're forcing them to do is govern themself and others. It's supposed to empower them, not restrict them.
But for the jackass who can't even bring himself to vote for the lesser of two evils, we might want to simply make it an opt-out thing. That is, right now (in the US), voting is opt-in. By default you're not expected to vote. Make it opt-out, so you are expected to vote and will be penalized if you leave the ballot box empty, unless you take some time out of your life to go down and fill out a bunch of forms withdrawing from all future elections except those in which you choose to vote.
Then it becomes "would I rather take the time to vote or take the time to make it so I don't have to," and I honestly think more people would vote if they actually had to do something not to (as opposed to having to take time out of their day only if they want to vote).
Assuming that more people voting = beneficial, then that sounds good to me. We should get more voters and still give people a chance to not vote, although they still have to be proactive about it if nothing else. But more people voting might also not be beneficial (if they don't care enough to go out and vote on their own in the first place). And then it also may not really change anything.
In the US, for example, Motor Voter helped get a lot more people registered. I don't remember if it increased turnout at all or not, but either way I'm pretty sure it didn't have that much impact on elections themselves.
The best form of government is where I am king of the world and everyone else is my slave. No no, see, I'm going somewhere with this. When eventually I die of old age, everyone will be so relieved to have their freedom back and stuff, they will like, you know... be really happy. Because it won't be as bad as when Itylus was king and beheading people for no reason and whatnot.
I think you encounter a problem when you assert that any intelligent leader is somehow favourable. The United States has elected plenty of presidents who were extremely intelligent, but who, upon entry to office, proved to be complete failures. Hell, you have Nixon and Carter just in the last fourty odd years.
Not to mention the (extremely obvious) fact that even if a leader is intelligent, they might not have the people's interests at heart. This is especially true in the case of, for instance, totalitarian regimes. Look at Stalin: ferociously intelligent and tough, but the lack of accountability he had made him, on top of deficiencies in his personality, a horrible and cruel leader. At least, in regards to the actual people he was governing, if not the Soviet state itself. So your China example is flawed by definition. Yes the men at the top are smart, but, if allied with cruel or ridiculous policies, they just end up better at enacting these policies themselves. I would much rather have a stupid leader in charge of a democracy than a smart one in charge of a dictatorship.
However, the main thing you begin to realise is that it's not so much the system you live under that matters, but the quality of the people in charge of the system. I could quite happily live under Caesar Augustus, for instance, while I'd be shit scared of a mad man like Nero. I'd be happy under Reagan, but not LBJ.
Of course, this stops being true when the system you encounter is a totalitarian dictatorship, where, no matter who is at the top, the goal is always to continue the perpetuity of the ruling system, which, inevitably slides into something immoral.
So basically, by and large, most systems of government are good if the leader leading them is good. It just so happens to be that democracy, with its built in accountability and wisdom of crowds, offers the most practical, feasible way to run a country while consistently choosing able leaders who will act in the majority of the peoples' best interests.
I disagree completely with this post.
Both the ideas that intelligent people are more selfish and that the people in charge, and not the laws, are the important thing seem obviously false.
Eh, Democracy is a terrible system. Just the lest terrible. Which isn't any sort of ringing endorsement.
It encourages short-sightedness. Politicians rarely think longer then past their next election.
Sadly, I've never seen a system I would consider better. They all fail the People Test. If people are involved, it will be screwed up. We can always find a way.
I want to give a big :roll: to everyone past and future in this thread who posts a paraphrased quote by Churchill, Lord Acton or another figure without attributing it to them. Good game guys.
You know what I always thought was an interesting pet-project?
Governments in Internet-based Clans.
Because, on a forum, you have a limited amount of members (far less than a country), and they're generally more intelligent than the mob mentality that a large voting group has. However, the advantages of an internet democracy are offset by the fact that democracies act on the 'net pretty much the way that Plato describes them.
We'll see about that when the Civilization democracy game kicks off later this week. Stay tuned. My hope, for the sake of the sheer entertainment of all involved, is that we'll find both wisdom and philosopher-kings to be rare commodities :P
I want to give a big :roll: to everyone past and future in this thread who posts a paraphrased quote by Churchill, Lord Acton or another figure without attributing it to them. Good game guys.
I figured we all knew where it came from. It pretty much gets straight to the heart of the "Is democracy any good?" debate. Plus, I hate citations, I do enough of them at school.
Posts
Sure, the result is often just mediocrity, but that's good because we exchange the few gains that might be accomplished under dictatorship for a degree of protection from the extreme loses that will typically result from autocracy.
Um...living in China, knowing many Chinese, and having spoken to them about the government here...I am laughing. Out loud. Not rolling on the floor, because I haven't cleaned my floor in a while, but I am laughing.
Seriously, dude, no.
The American representative republic combined with the capitalist economic system does just that. It encourages competition between people, and encourages a degree of darwinism, while also doing some things to try and help those that darwinism would have die. Socialist/Communist governments hold the idealogy that all people are good, and will work for the good of their fellow man. The US government, and most western governments, think that most people will not work for the good of their fellow man, but they WILL work for the good of themselves and their families.
In any society, there will be people who want to triumph over others, and there will be people who just don't care, and simply want to eat, drink, and have sex until they die. Democracy/Capitalism accounts for that, and provides a system where all of these people have roles in society. The problem is that another trait of humanity is envy, so the people who don't want to work as hard WANT the same things the hard-workers do. This can lead to revolutions, riots, etc., but re-distrubuting wealth drives away the hard-workers of society, leaving a nation with only its uneducated and unmotivated. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, and socialist tendencies tend to develop in democratic/capitalist societies over time, for better or for worse.
Obviousy there are a few things America could do better. For one, the presidential elections as this point should probably be a nationwide popular percentage vote instead of the electoral college, but for the most part I think it's set up pretty well.
Like some of you have said, socialism or anarchy would be great... if every human being was a saint. But people are not saints. We get pissed when we see a girl we like with another man, and we want to find a way to be better than that man. It's just human nature. You can either give us an economic way to overcome that other man (I'll get a better job, a bigger house, and a faster car!) or you'll unwillingly encourage people to use a much more primitive and worse method (kill the man, or rape the girl).
People have always advanced society by being motivated with a reward (a better afterlife, a better life, higher quality of living), so I think democracy in conjunction with capitalism really is the best way, since it offers rewards without forcing religious belief.
XBL: QuazarX
If a dictator does what is best for his people, I think it follows that they love him. The definition of "a benevolent dictator is one who loves his people" sounds a bit off as it is. Didn't Franco love his Spain? Didn't Mussolini love his Italy? The fascist movement in Europe especially, because of its strong ties to nationalism, shows that dictators who love their people are still, well, dictators.
(watch how I expertly avoided that Godwin)
Well, with that wonderful acting definition of "better" in mind...
I think the best form of government would be one led by some uninvolved third party who had no personal stake in the decisions made. If we had some sort of being with the ability for rational thought who could accept data and a system of desires / goals and then form reasonable laws and whatnot based upon those goals we would be in good shape.
I think the problem with most forms of government is that the individuals in positions of power have a personal stake in their own existence and so craft systems that benefit their selves. If we could remove that and instead have some device or being who made selfless evaluations of situations we could perhaps have a more functional system of government.
This view is sort of narrow-minded. The entire point of syndicated anarchism (which is what I'll argue for, here) is to design a society wherein the rational, selfish choice is economic collaboration (as part of a syndicate) through various means, from the desire to express oneself through whichever form of work they choose to the existence of simple community expectations. The example you give seems a bit odd. There is a multitude of ways to get a girl, or express distaste for a guy, or whatever. I wouldn't consider purely economic means the first choice, even in present capitalist society. And rape/murder are certainly not my second and third options. Social motivations, such as relationships, can easily be dealt with using social means. The extent to which economic means are social means depends on the role of wealth as a social force, which ideally would be minimal in such a society where the social emphasis with regards to the economy is placed not on production nor competition but rather on creativity and collaboration (beyond meeting base needs).
:v:
I guess the crux of my disagreement lies in the connection between the fighting in the military and serving the common good. Of course, Heinlein's universe had bugs. Ours just has other societies. But even then, one shouldn't be expected to risk death just to have a say in how is life is run.
It's important not only that the dictator love the people, but that they act in the people's best interests - the eyes of history have determined that your examples have not fulfilled that obligation. Those dictators who do what's best are normally loved by the people, but since there are other ways to get the people to love you besides doing the right thing, if a benevolent dictator is already in power, elections are technically bad for the people, since the current leader is sure to act in their best interests while other candidates carry no such guarantee.
The whole thing is moot anyway. We're in agreement that dictators are a bad, bad idea, and we think so for pretty much the same reasons.
XBL: QuazarX
XBL: QuazarX
XBL: QuazarX
Is it always a simple matter of democratic vs non-democratic? There seem to be varying measures of democracy, such as Singapore's peculiar blend of democratic and authoritarian government. It certainly isn't a liberal democracy, though its population continues to support, and prosper under, its one-party system.
I am of the opinion that the role of a citizen in a society is of the utmost importance. Ideally, the whole notion of citizenship would include in it not just "rights" but rather "rights and obligations to the state and society." Citizens would thus be responsible for acting in the best interests of society and the state at large so that the mechanism that guarantees their rights continues to exist and flourish. We don't have that in any western country, unfortunately. The closest there is to a culture of engaged citizen action is Australia, with their mandatory voting law - but even then, people just go out and vote once every 5 years. For the most part, the citizenry is just as apathetic and disinterested as any other population in the West.
While I don't like the idea of having the state compel the citizen to act and engage the mechanisms of the state - something that I believe should be automatic and expected of the citizen - it's probably right now the best option to reinvigorate our democracies. However pitiful it may be.
The market wouldn't be competitive, however. Creativity would not garner material reward, simply social reward and self-reward (expressing one's will through one's work). Because self-reward is emphasized, the value of one's work to oneself is what matters. People can easily like jobs that in our system are regarded as low, such as menial labor. In our society, classes form around the exterior, impersonally-defined value of one's work. In syndicated anarchy, as the value is personally defined, there's no real room for a class to form. So, if those jobs that no one really likes, such as sanitation, could be placed on a rotation/mechanized to the greatest extent as is possible, all that is left would be jobs that various people can personally prefer/enjoy, and the formation of economic classes could be prevented.
Basically, I don't see innate differences in learning capacity and social interaction as being themselves capable of defining economic classes, unless given the tools that are present in modern society.
Singapore, if memory serves, is one of the least corrupt countries in the world according to the CPI.
EDIT: Yup, perceptions are that it is the fifth least corrupt out of 159 countries.
Governments in Internet-based Clans.
Because, on a forum, you have a limited amount of members (far less than a country), and they're generally more intelligent than the mob mentality that a large voting group has. However, the advantages of an internet democracy are offset by the fact that democracies act on the 'net pretty much the way that Plato describes them.
How about government as a science experiment? Ideas are submitted ideas to academic journals, tried in states/provinces, vetted for integrity by political peers, bad policy weeded out by virtue of not working.
Not to mention the (extremely obvious) fact that even if a leader is intelligent, they might not have the people's interests at heart. This is especially true in the case of, for instance, totalitarian regimes. Look at Stalin: ferociously intelligent and tough, but the lack of accountability he had made him, on top of deficiencies in his personality, a horrible and cruel leader. At least, in regards to the actual people he was governing, if not the Soviet state itself. So your China example is flawed by definition. Yes the men at the top are smart, but, if allied with cruel or ridiculous policies, they just end up better at enacting these policies themselves. I would much rather have a stupid leader in charge of a democracy than a smart one in charge of a dictatorship.
However, the main thing you begin to realise is that it's not so much the system you live under that matters, but the quality of the people in charge of the system. I could quite happily live under Caesar Augustus, for instance, while I'd be shit scared of a mad man like Nero. I'd be happy under Reagan, but not LBJ.
Of course, this stops being true when the system you encounter is a totalitarian dictatorship, where, no matter who is at the top, the goal is always to continue the perpetuity of the ruling system, which, inevitably slides into something immoral.
So basically, by and large, most systems of government are good if the leader leading them is good. It just so happens to be that democracy, with its built in accountability and wisdom of crowds, offers the most practical, feasible way to run a country while consistently choosing able leaders who will act in the majority of the peoples' best interests.
That brings up one of the biggest problems with governmental systems in general: What about the people who don't WANT involvement?
They're stuck in one country or another.
It's like an extremely indirect form of quasi-slavery.
Really, I'm not entirely sure if mandatory voting is beneficial or not, but I think comparing it to slavery is a bit much, even if you're saying an extremely indirect form of quasi-slavery. You're forcing them to do something, yeah, but what you're forcing them to do is govern themself and others. It's supposed to empower them, not restrict them.
But for the jackass who can't even bring himself to vote for the lesser of two evils, we might want to simply make it an opt-out thing. That is, right now (in the US), voting is opt-in. By default you're not expected to vote. Make it opt-out, so you are expected to vote and will be penalized if you leave the ballot box empty, unless you take some time out of your life to go down and fill out a bunch of forms withdrawing from all future elections except those in which you choose to vote.
Then it becomes "would I rather take the time to vote or take the time to make it so I don't have to," and I honestly think more people would vote if they actually had to do something not to (as opposed to having to take time out of their day only if they want to vote).
Assuming that more people voting = beneficial, then that sounds good to me. We should get more voters and still give people a chance to not vote, although they still have to be proactive about it if nothing else. But more people voting might also not be beneficial (if they don't care enough to go out and vote on their own in the first place). And then it also may not really change anything.
In the US, for example, Motor Voter helped get a lot more people registered. I don't remember if it increased turnout at all or not, but either way I'm pretty sure it didn't have that much impact on elections themselves.
I disagree completely with this post.
Both the ideas that intelligent people are more selfish and that the people in charge, and not the laws, are the important thing seem obviously false.
It encourages short-sightedness. Politicians rarely think longer then past their next election.
Sadly, I've never seen a system I would consider better. They all fail the People Test. If people are involved, it will be screwed up. We can always find a way.
HAPPINESS IS MANDATORY, CITIZEN. ARE YOU HAVING A HAPPY DAY?
"Y... yes?"
"DECEPTION DETECTED. WITHHOLDING INFORMATION FROM A FEDERAL INVESTIGATOR IS A CRIME. CALLING FOR BACKUP."
I hadn't considered that, but go wild.
I figured we all knew where it came from. It pretty much gets straight to the heart of the "Is democracy any good?" debate. Plus, I hate citations, I do enough of them at school.
Until the computer, for some unknowable reason, abdicates power and elevates Kevin Mitnik to the office of Benevolent Dictator For Life.