New form of government

[conceptualizer]

Before one can share your idea about a new form of government let us understand what form of government you are living under or think you are living under. Your perception of how you and your people are governed would help to understand where you are coming from and whether your views are more than just reactionary.

Than you spike
I live in the UK and see a constant parade of incompetence and corruption highlighted by the press.
I think my reply to John highlights a few problems in a general way with representative democracies. You can probably detect the references to the US and UK. I wanted to keep the discussion as general as possible rather than pick small specific examples which I feel would inevitably lead the discussion away from the bigger vision. I am sure residents of any democracy can identify many specific faults for themselves with their own government. It is fortunate that most have a functioning free press to highlight them.

[Arising_uk]

I live in the UK and see a constant parade of incompetence and corruption highlighted by the press. ...

You don't think that the 'press' might have an agenda here? Headlines like 'Adminstrator did competent job today', 'Official accepted no bribes', won't be selling rags.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



I like the sound of this one:

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Liberal_democracy

...initial framework for modern liberal democracy was created during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty.




.

[conceptualizer]

You don't think that the 'press' might have an agenda here? Headlines like 'Adminstrator did competent job today', 'Official accepted no bribes', won't be selling rags.

I am sure that some stories are ‘sexed-up’ or even made-up. Equally I expect that many outrageous acts go unreported. I think that we should not have to rely on the press to get good government.

[conceptualizer]

Without getting into too much detail here, I am working developing a contract, which sets out the rights and responsibilities of citizens and government. It is a complex undertaking and I would appreciate any thoughts on its content. Naturally it builds on all the usual good stuff about liberty and other freedoms that have benefited from lengthy development. Importantly, it should also mandate a mechanism by which citizens and groups can challenge the behaviour of government that they see as not conforming to the contract. Currently I feel that this should be an independent institution from all others, including the legal system. It could appoint its members as needed from randomly selected citizens to ensure it is open and fair. One of the most difficult problems is developing an acceptable means of checking that those citizens are moderate, intelligent, impartial, and benign.

Expert Government is an on-going project. I don’t expect that everyone will agree with it. Most of Expert Government must be open to tuning by experts, as they must be able to adapt it over time. Some details must be immutable, or more likely difficult to change, to ensure that it evolves in the correct way. I am most interested in hearing views that could improve the idea.

[mickthinks]

I think that we should not have to rely on the press to get good government.

Hmmm... "Should" invokes an ideal view of the world. In an ideal world everything, including the way we were governed, would be perfect, of course. But the task you have set yourself, conceptualizer, is to devise a way that government in the real world might be arranged better, and it seems to me that you haven't properly understood the nature of the problem.

For example, it seems you believe either; that provided the right people have all the power, they can be trusted to get on with it without being watched; or that we can watch them by some means other than "the media". Neither of these seems plausible to me.

Please would you say a little more about how corrupt experts are excluded from power in your scheme.

[conceptualizer]

Thank you mickthinks
Please explain what you think is the nature of the problem.

I am suggesting it is time to evolve government, and that my idea is worth discussing. I would not presume that Expert Government would be the last form of government, any more than anyone should assume that representative democracy is. Historically people who have declared that something could not be improved have been shown as foolish.

I am not an expert in the necessary fields to make policy about the media. However, the appropriate experts may wish to consider if there is a case for some regulation to prevent any unwarranted interference in it from government, and misuse of the influence wielded by the media.

I should declare here that this problem of making policy based on subjects I am not an expert in inevitably keeps returning. I generally restrict myself to decisions regarding the administrative systems of government. Otherwise I make temporary decisions where I must and expect them to be overridden later by experts.

I am surprised that you think the details I have already given are not adequate at this level to indicate I have given careful thought about excluding corruption from the system. I considered it to be one of my major occupations. Features such as very limited influence, limited tenure, constant policing, the as yet unnamed institution to examine that government and individuals are conforming to the contract, are I think these are a good start. Perhaps you would like to suggest some more. Certainly I view corruption as very corrosive to government. Any idea that limits it is worth consideration.

[mickthinks]

The problem is the one you have set yourself; improving the system of government. I don't think you understand what is wrong with the current sytems.

For example, you seem to be convinced that most bad decisions are the result of ignorance and incompetence. I believe they are overwhelmingly the result of corruption.

[artisticsolution]

The problem is the one you have set yourself; improving the system of government. I don't think you understand what is wrong with the current sytems.

For example, you seem to be convinced that most bad decisions are the result of ignorance and incompetence. I believe they are overwhelmingly the result of corruption.

I agree with you here Mick. So then how do we fix that little problem? Seems to me transparency in government would not be enough as the corruption is becoming more and more brazen. It almost seems they know they can get away with murder even if they're caught, so why bother to go to great lengths to hide it.

I think a possible solution would be to have transparency and more branches of government...even volunteer forms of government, all checking what the other is doing. Things might not be done as quickly as they are now but do we really need any more laws?

I would also like a committee that would be entirely set up to function as a law removal system as laws become outdated or are proven to have made matters worse in hindsight. I think one of the worst things my government has done is to make too many petty laws that dilute the meaning of the word 'law' and make laws into expensive jokes (too expensive to enforce them all I mean) that many feel they should not be forced to keep. It's sort of like, "Ho hum pass the law" over here. Or maybe more accuratley is to say that most Americans act like divas and we all think we should be above the law while the lower "riff raff" should be held according to the law. But obviously if every one thinks they are above the law...then the law be diluted in strength. Right? Sorry...can't think of another word of how I mean 'diluted laws'...lol

[conceptualizer]

Thanks for your feedback.
I have added a poll to find out what the main concern is.
Are there any other strong views about more poll options?

I feel that I have addressed both corruption and incompetence.
I would appreciate knowing why you feel that my measures against corruption are not strong enough.

[artisticsolution]

Thanks for your feedback.
I have added a poll to find out what the main concern is.
Are there any other strong views about more poll options?

I feel that I have addressed both corruption and incompetence.
I would appreciate knowing why you feel that my measures against corruption are not strong enough.

Hi Conceptualizer,

I don't usually vote in the polls but I did this time. I chose corruption only because I feel that government shouldn't be run as a strictly empirical system. Government is more about emotional intelligence rather than academic intelligence. In fact I would go as far to say there would be more corruption in a government which only allowed a certain "type" of person (namely only high IQ or people with certain education or class backgrounds).

I believe there would be more corruption simple for the fact that people like to herd and tend to have an 'us against them'
mentality. This mentality does not know any boundaries among humans...it goes as much for the intelligent as the dumb, rich or the poor. The "competent" tend to think there way is the only way...the problem is they are human and as humans they are fallible. The problem is left to their own devices ego is sure to be a problem.

Think about it this way...as far as intelligence goes, computers out perform us in that area completely. We are no match. The only place we excel and out distance them is in emotional intelligence. I believe that many extremely intelligent people lack emotional intelligence because they value the gift of intelligence over and above all else (of course they would because most people value their own talent over another person's talent.) The sports guy values sports, the artist values art, the educated value an education, etc. As a rule people do not play fair to the things they don't value. You can see this in the outdated school system where algebra is placed at an extreme value as opposed to some other area of study that would benefit the masses more. The well educated will not let algebra become an elective...they can't let it go...even though the majority of the masses never use it and would be better served to learn computers, etiquette or how to balance a checkbook. Sometimes ego gets in the way of good sense.

I think a good government is a balanced government representing all types. Where one person is lacking another will take up the slack. Where one person is uncaring about a certain group another will be there to put them in check to ensure a system of government is in place for all people and not just a select few.

I just think it's wrong to glorify a certain type of person. They start to think they are less like human beings and more like Gods.

[conceptualizer]

Thanks artisticsolution
After reading your comments it seemed to me that I needed some more options. Unfortunately this has reset the poll.

I understand what you say about one’s own world view. However I do not see at this point that all significant concerns cannot be addressed to some degree. Anyway I think it is important to try. I would be poor imitation of a philosopher to give-up just because a task is difficult.

[mickthinks]

... the corruption is becoming more and more brazen. ...

This is the kind of thing people often say out of anger, but I'm not sure it is true. It isn't easy to quantify the levels of corruption in government, let alone the levels of brazenness. Can you say why you think the problem is increasing, AS?

... I would appreciate knowing why you feel that my measures against corruption are not strong enough.

I'm not sure what you mean by your measures against corruption. It seems to me that you are relying entirely on the unimpeachable honesty and selflessness of the experts.

[conceptualizer]

I'm not sure what you mean by your measures against corruption. It seems to me that you are relying entirely on the unimpeachable honesty and selflessness of the experts.

Thanks mickthinks
I think that it is important not to assume that experts are somehow less moral and empathic than anyone else. Has anyone seen any evidence that they differ? I feel that some people here are conflating two concepts. By experts I am not implying an elite class, a charge I could certainly level at UK politicians. Experts are ordinary people who are good at their jobs. They need not have a high IQ or come from a privileged background. Advanced civilisation is dependent on everyone collaborating as experts in some field. The odd arrangement is that UK government is based on an elite class sating their egos and avarice. Everyone is corruptible to some degree. The system should be designed to encourage the best in people and prevent the worst.

I think that dishonesty and selfishness will more quickly become apparent in a system composed of individuals than one of special interest groups. Members of special interest groups inevitably help each other. Political parties are special interest groups. As there are many experts each with a very narrow range of influence and limited tenure, they have little chance for corruption. This also allows more people the chance to be in government. By contrast there are few politicians, and they can get repeatedly elected, giving them more scope for corruption and preventing more people from entering government. My suggestion of constant policing of members of government should weed out the corrupt and incompetent. It is important that this function is independent. In a system of government which organises influence into hierarchies (as usually used by representative democracy) this is impossible, as the police would always have to answer to politicians. In the proposed specialism structured government they are truly independent. Naturally this is a powerful function, so multiple independent policing units must exist with power only to remove members of government. Transparency of government behaviour combined with the opportunity to challenge it in a system that is independent of government and the legal system goes far beyond that provided by representative democracy. If one thinks that a government department has behaved in a way that does not conform to the citizen-government contract, or law contradicts it, individuals and groups have the right to challenge them for free. This opportunity does not exist in representative democracy.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




Let me wrap my mind around this...



Conceptualizer, you say that you are not able to understand the complexities of common law.

Yet, you want to develop a sophisticated, complex, social/economic/governmental matrix that would actually supersede this existing law and encompass the entire world.




You don't know how to do this so you are asking us, the same ill-informed cur that you hope to eliminate from your vision of a perfect, sophisticated system of government, for help.



Does that sound a bit circular to you when you hear it fed back to yourself?



Somehow, I just feel like you may be getting off on the wrong leg.



You asked for constructive comments. Here's mine.

I visited your Expert Government web site.

The theory of Expert Government has an odd feeling of oppression and futility.

I don't think you have to worry about being a poor imitation of a philosopher.

I think you should be more concerned the avenues and destinations of your thought process.

I am guessing that you are a young female. When you are old enough to obtain a job, you will experience a mini-system of Expert Government in the form of your employer. A few years down the line, stop back at this site and let us know how that works out for you.



.