New form of government

[conceptualizer]

You are promoting Platos idea of the 'philosopher kings' and the Republic.

Employers generally try to pick the best candidate who fits in.

Thank you Arising_uk
I suspect that Plato’s ideas are similar in the sense that they both are meritocratic.
I only have a very light understanding of Plato’s ‘The Republic’, so I cannot comment further.
Please expand if you feel there are other similarities. It would be good to know.

As regards your second comment, I agree. I suggest that ‘fits in’ is always important, even with experts.

[chaz wyman]

You are promoting Platos idea of the 'philosopher kings' and the Republic.

Employers generally try to pick the best candidate who fits in.

Thank you Arising_uk
I suspect that Plato’s ideas are similar in the sense that they both are meritocratic.
I only have a very light understanding of Plato’s ‘The Republic’, so I cannot comment further.
Please expand if you feel there are other similarities. It would be good to know.

As regards your second comment, I agree. I suggest that ‘fits in’ is always important, even with experts.

Platos' ideas are racist, classist, and are not primarily concerned with merit. They are concerned to constrain social mobility and social change to lock families into specific types of work.
Carpenters stay carpenters; kings stay Kings.
Plato is out of date and without merit - pun very much intended.

[Hamish Stockdale]

Well my idea for a new form of government would be a international senate. Each country provides one senator to the council. At the head of the council is a herdiatry monarch who holds the council but has little real power and only ensures everyone is heard and holds the gavel. Each indiviudual sentor also sits on a countries senate with elected representtives from the countries provences. And further the senaters from the country senate sits on a provinsual senate with elected representatives from each county. Anyone can run for there county and ordianary people vote on them. From there you work your way up the ranks. The terms of the senators is 4 years. Of course there are other details, but that is the basic structure of the government system.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.










Sounds good.



Why don't you run for an office & get this thing started?


I'll help you.


Give us your name & where you live.





We''ll help you get started.


Tell us more about where & how you will begin your campaign.



Let's get this ball a-rollin!




.

[The Voice of Time]

The best government is a government with results that satisfies its own population.

Technocrats doesn't necessarily do that, especially since some technocrats (would likely) completely lack vision. The people that takes the world forward are not the well-educated, because they are just good at doing what they do, the people that takes the world forward are the ones who are bad at doing what they've been taught and good at doing something else. Creativity cannot be taught at a basic level (though it can be refined).

[chaz wyman]

Well my idea for a new form of government would be a international senate. Each country provides one senator to the council. At the head of the council is a herdiatry monarch who holds the council but has little real power and only ensures everyone is heard and holds the gavel. Each indiviudual sentor also sits on a countries senate with elected representtives from the countries provences. And further the senaters from the country senate sits on a provinsual senate with elected representatives from each county. Anyone can run for there county and ordianary people vote on them. From there you work your way up the ranks. The terms of the senators is 4 years. Of course there are other details, but that is the basic structure of the government system.

What is the monarch for?
Why do you think that 'ordinary people' are qualified to choose an appropriate senator?
What makes a Senator qualified to govern? What do they do? What power do they have?
How do Arab senators talk to American ones?
Is there any separation of powers?
What is to stop the senators getting together and carving up the world for themselves?

[bobevenson]

Well my idea for a new form of government would be a international senate. Each country provides one senator to the council. At the head of the council is a herdiatry monarch who holds the council but has little real power and only ensures everyone is heard and holds the gavel. Each indiviudual sentor also sits on a countries senate with elected representtives from the countries provences. And further the senaters from the country senate sits on a provinsual senate with elected representatives from each county. Anyone can run for there county and ordianary people vote on them. From there you work your way up the ranks. The terms of the senators is 4 years. Of course there are other details, but that is the basic structure of the government system.

Unfortunately, an international government is not even within the realm of possibility at the present time. For instance, the concept of human rights is not an internationally-shared value, so why even consider world government. Even the United Nations is a joke.

[conceptualizer]

The best government is a government with results that satisfies its own population.

Technocrats doesn't necessarily do that, especially since some technocrats (would likely) completely lack vision. The people that takes the world forward are not the well-educated, because they are just good at doing what they do, the people that takes the world forward are the ones who are bad at doing what they've been taught and good at doing something else. Creativity cannot be taught at a basic level (though it can be refined).

It is impossible to satisfy an entire citizenry as choices usually advantage some at the expense of others. Nonetheless, I agree that it should be an objective, as opposed to trying to satisfy those governing I assume you mean.
I don't see any evidence that experts are inherently less visionary than non-experts, or lacking in creativity. Indeed, it is usually necessary to understand a field well to know what is possible. Not understanding a field and creating many ideas is probably an expensive way to come up with a few good ones. Regardless, mostly we need experts to just keep turning the handles and making incremental improvements, not creating radical visionary stuff. I can't immediately think of any creative/visionary thing the UK government has done in a long time. That kind of thing usually comes from the private sector, and often in spite of government activity. Anyway, it is not unreasonable to include inexpert creative types in a process when new thinking is needed, but not to deal with quotidian issues.

[bobevenson]

I am seeking constructive comments on a theoretical new form of government I have been developing, called Expert Government.
Its principal feature is that all policy is devised by experts that act only within their specialisations. Expert Government is a single entity with no politicians or parties, just experts and some administrative staff to help them. Otherwise it is dogma free to enable it to adapt to changing needs and circumstances. Structurally its experts are grouped according to their respective specialisations, and all experts have equal influence within their specialism, but none outside of it. Influence is not organised into hierarchies.
The web site has a more information http://expertgovernment.org.uk/ .
There are two significant observations that influenced the principal feature of Expert Government. Firstly, most problems that befall us seem to be within our ability to prevent, because they arise from our own actions. Take for example recent sovereign debt problems. Secondly, humans have constructed very sophisticated and necessarily complex systems that enable advanced civilisation. Those systems are based on the principle of collaboration between many experts acting in their own specialisms. Indeed, it is hard to see how else such sophisticated systems could be organised. It is my opinion that a country is also a sophisticated system. I believe that the problems that befall us are because we do not use a system of collaborating experts as government. Instead administrators are making decisions. These administrators are not sufficiently aware of all the sophistication and complexity in the system, so problems appear to them to come out of nowhere.
Thanks for reading, and for any useful thoughts you can offer.

" Expert Government is a single entity with no politicians or parties, just experts and some administrative staff to help them." This strikes me as some kind of fantasy, where self-appointed experts just appear out of nowhere and become the government without resistance from anybody.

[conceptualizer]

" Expert Government is a single entity with no politicians or parties, just experts and some administrative staff to help them." This strikes me as some kind of fantasy, where self-appointed experts just appear out of nowhere and become the government without resistance from anybody.

Specialists, but preferably experts, are not self-appointed. Rather they are given posts in a similar way to any other job – that is one applies for a post, goes through a selection process that includes approval of one’s potential colleagues, and the best candidate gets the job, but for a limited tenure. Apart from the limited tenure feature, this is a very heavily tested and mostly successful way of appointing appropriate people to posts. If there were a better way then I believe that businesses the world over would be using it by now. They have the freedom to change how to select people as they see fit, but have settled on this scheme.
Play this selection scenario the other way around and see how it looks. A company needing an employee goes to its customers and asks them to vote for one of a few candidates, some self-appointed, and some appointed by a small group of self-appointed wannabe candidates. Does that sound sensible?
In the end the objective is the same, to install an appropriate person into a position. The people best placed to select a candidate are not the customers, but the incumbent specialists/experts. Naturally, measures are needed to prevent nepotism and other forms of corruption, but the primary objective is to select the best candidate. The selection process should be based around that.

[bobevenson]

" Expert Government is a single entity with no politicians or parties, just experts and some administrative staff to help them." This strikes me as some kind of fantasy, where self-appointed experts just appear out of nowhere and become the government without resistance from anybody.

Specialists, but preferably experts, are not self-appointed. Rather they are given posts in a similar way to any other job – that is one applies for a post, goes through a selection process that includes approval of one’s potential colleagues, and the best candidate gets the job, but for a limited tenure. Apart from the limited tenure feature, this is a very heavily tested and mostly successful way of appointing appropriate people to posts. If there were a better way then I believe that businesses the world over would be using it by now. They have the freedom to change how to select people as they see fit, but have settled on this scheme.
Play this selection scenario the other way around and see how it looks. A company needing an employee goes to its customers and asks them to vote for one of a few candidates, some self-appointed, and some appointed by a small group of self-appointed wannabe candidates. Does that sound sensible?
In the end the objective is the same, to install an appropriate person into a position. The people best placed to select a candidate are not the customers, but the incumbent specialists/experts. Naturally, measures are needed to prevent nepotism and other forms of corruption, but the primary objective is to select the best candidate. The selection process should be based around that.

OK, when this new form of government is put into action, exactly who selects the best candidates since there aren't any incumbents? Who determines how many experts are needed and what their pay will be? A limited tenure? I guess that means telling a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs to hit the road after a couple years.

[conceptualizer]

OK, when this new form of government is put into action, exactly who selects the best candidates since there aren't any incumbents? Who determines how many experts are needed and what their pay will be? A limited tenure? I guess that means telling a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs to hit the road after a couple years.

The 'first experts' problem is not unique to my proposal. New companies form all the time, they have the same problem, so clearly it is not that difficult to overcome. I can explain my thoughts on this, but for now I think it is obvious that this is a quite tractable problem.
I have a scheme for deciding how many experts are required. It is a little difficult to explain in a short space, but in summary it is based on incumbents identifying and justifying a need to specialists/experts in assessing that need. Like the whole design of Expert Government it is not orchestrated by hierarchical authority. It manifests as a self-organising system rather than one orchestrated through an authority hierarchy.
Pay the specialists/experts no more than the national average salary. If you offer large remuneration packages you get people whose main concern is money. The main concern should be selflessly to do a good job. Some people will not work for that little money. That is ok, there are lots of people and some will. Most likely those with lots of experience who made plenty of money in their profession and so are probably good at it. The important thing is getting good people, not ensuring every single one that may want to try it gets a chance.
Limited tenure ensures a turnover in people and therefore influence for the latest thinking in a field. Usually there is a good turnover of people running very successful companies. In Gates and Jobs you picked a couple of exceptions. However, it is notable that the most successful companies employ the best experts.

[bobevenson]

OK, when this new form of government is put into action, exactly who selects the best candidates since there aren't any incumbents? Who determines how many experts are needed and what their pay will be?

Pay the specialists/experts no more than the national average salary. If you offer large remuneration packages you get people whose main concern is money. The main concern should be selflessly to do a good job.

Well, let's see, you scored an A+ in socialism, but flunked human nature and free-market capitalism.

[conceptualizer]

Well, let's see, you scored an A+ in socialism, but flunked human nature and free-market capitalism.

Your comments imply you believe that this is a socialist idea, that people will not do anything without money as a motivator, and the idea is antithetical to free-market capitalism.

The idea certainly has no socialist or capitalist agenda, either stated or implied, because it has no fixed policies, dogma, or ideologies. It is only a way of organising government. If a system of government does not follow the American system very closely it is not inherently socialist. Every political system cannot usefully and accurately be measured solely on a scale of American to socialist any more than all people can be usefully and accurately measured solely on a scale of American to Eskimo.

I know people who do work for organisations that benefit others and do it for nothing. They are usually retired or semi-retired and have had very successful professional careers. They may not have a money motive any more but are still much smarter than the average person many years younger. You mentioned Mr Gates before. He is in this category. There are armies of people like him who although not as famous and wealthy are equally great assets to any organisation. The pursuit of money distorts ones perspective. Those who are lucky enough to be free of that constraint have an advantage.

[bobevenson]

The problem is that high-level government positions don't pay enough for qualified personnel, so these jobs are taken by people who are on an ego trip and don't care about the salary, and would even pay money to get the job. The same mindset can be said about all non-profit organizations. Regardless of their good intentions, they don't have the discipline of the free market, where if they don't do a good job, they go bankrupt. Non-profit organizations just go on and on and on, ad infinitum, regardless of results.