And it would be exactly the same if anyone else were in charge so bear that in mind before complaining so much
If you want a model for how to effectively run society I suggest that you look at the collectivism of other species
But it would never work within human society since our sense of collectivism is in conflict with our individualism
95% of the people in any society use to be always vulnerable to what remaining 5% say, irrespective of what is the average level of wisdom of the society is. In our earlier discussion, you were of the opinion that relatively more literate people of the west will never compromise with their freedom but that is not true. People will follow whatever they find or think more appealing or useful.
True.
Firstly, change can be initiated from both ends, either from top or from the bottom, either from the people or the politicians.
It is all about the momentum of the society, in which direction it is going. Once it is put on the right path, required results would come sooner or later.
This is precisely the point that i mentioned to take up later in the last post.
Just as i suggested a wisdom benchmark for the voters, it is even more necessary to apply the same thing in the case of politicians, otherwise people like Trump or even Hillary will continue to be the contenders to the president post of the most powerful of the country in the world.
Gib, if anyone, any organization, or even any country want to hire anyone for any post, it can be done in two ways. The first, simpler and easier way is to put a nominal eligibility for it and let the candidates apply. This is what is our general practice now to select the politicians, right from bottom to the top. Right. But, there is a slightly different way too. Instead for allowing the contenders to come the society, society should find the deserving candidates. My wordings of both options may be looking the same but they are not. Let me explain it further.
There can be two types of people who can do any job. First ones are those who want to do that job for their interest. The second one are those who are also fit for the job but they never do it because they do not have any personal interest in that. The second type are more suitable for the job, but the problem is that they will not come for that job because they do not have any personal interest in that. Society has to find those second type of persons to become politicians and run itself.
Now, the question is how to find those!
The answer is that somehow the society has to find such people who are not only wise but altruistic also. It is most likely that they will not come up on their own. Voters, who are already sorted out by the wisdom benchmark, have to nominate such candidates. Voters, as they know more about any such worthy candidate, who are known to them closely, may come up with hundreds or even thousands of such worthy candidates. Then, set a voting number benchmark and select some hundred candidates given by voters. This selected group will do what our present senate, congresses and lower and upper houses use to do. This selected group will have all powers, including choosing presidents/prime ministers and other ministers from within it or even outside from it.
No campaigning is allowed, no party system is allowed, no debates are allowed. Sorted voters will just come on the voting day and nominate any such person who they think is worthy to be in that group. Yes, there would be some routine conditions to be selected in that group like criminal background etc. But, when it comes to actual administrators like president or ministers, the conditions would be very strict.
Any such person, who is nominated by that group to become president or minister, would have to lose all his personal belongings forever. They would be given enough facilities as far as they are at the chair, but after that, they will not be allowed to have anything except what is their monthly salary, which also would be very nominal, just enough to live an ordinary but comfortable life, not a luxurious one. They would never be allowed to engage in any private activity to earn money or post. And, if any selected person by that elected group refuses to accept these conditions, he cannot become president or minister.
This is merely a broader idea which i have in my mind.
You already answered that in your this very post when you said that people will do anything what they were told. There would nothing such happened as you are fearing.
I think that i have addressed that already above how to keep people having vested interest away.
with love,
sanjay
Gib,
By the way, though i do not know much, but your PM seems to be more reasonable person to me than his US counterparts, at least prima facie.
with love,
sanjay
Run civilization? No, I want to walk over it’s ashes and ruins.
I desire its annihilation and end.
I will state again that I do not support nuclear warfare because it is not total annhiliation and our souls may end up on other earths and planets. Therefore, I support the idea of annihilation of the universe, but science does not know how to do it yet so I don’t support the annhiliation of Earth because our souls may end up on Earth like celestial bodies.
Ideally the destruction of civilization will come about without nuclear weapons. That’s what I’m hoping for even though I acknowledge that the odds are against it. It’s really a random coin toss as to how civilization will destroy itself.
My preference is civil war, but not before china is obliterated from the face of the earth.
Sanjay,
I’ll reply to your post when I have more time.
It seems to me the points I raised are not trivial. They include what today would be considered crimes against humanity.
Same point. One could have ruled without doing the things I specfically mentioned and not been remotely a saint.
As I mentioned most of those rulers started wars, extended their regimes and this led to the deaths of large numbers of their own citizens: iow poor soldiers - and then also the citizens of other countries. They consolidated power for their families in reverse of directions toward class freedom and democracy. And so on. I am not sure you read what I wrote.
Straw man fallacy.
Likewise.
I tend not to notice what people do not write. Unless they do not write something that is clearly entailed by a fair response to what I wrote.
If we look just at the considerations of their era, then you are arguing that we cannot evaluate them. Only those who are no longer with us can. I am certainly no fan of those people. Given the non-democratic facets of US society really quite horrendous people are much more likely to be elected. The US has not achieved democracy and is backtracking from whatever vestiges of it it had.
One facet of democracy, usually, is that there is a balancing of powers and restrictions on the powers of the leaders. This has been eroding in the US for a long time, but even so, Bush and Reagan had to spend a very large amount of money and lie a lot and use all sorts of pressure AND the corporations behind them had to wage all sorts of disinformation campaigns to manipulate Congress and the people to back a number of the harsher policies. Autocrats do not have to do this as much. They have god given rights to make decisions that the people may not want.
Democracy, generally, is not merely voting for the leader who may be a dictator. It has many other facets to limit the powers of the leader. In the US there are three branches who divide power and can stop each other in various ways. Many people seem not to understand this. They think we can vote in Alexander the Great. Of course this happens more and more because democracy is even less present than earlier in the US, for example.
Yes, I also prefer civil war, chaos, and total anarchy over global thermonuclear exchange. I think we can all agree with that.
I think we should all dump our nukes on China, but not anywhere else.
In the broad picture, yes, but for most of the history of the modern West, freedom is what they have found most appealing and useful. And it varies which Western country you’re talking about.
But I don’t think it matter. Most people who are brainwashed to believe they are free and that freedom is worth fighting for won’t actually act on their beliefs.
Broader idea meaning not all the details are fleshed out? Perhaps there is potential there, but I certainly think it needs to be fleshed out.
I can see a few problems with it. For one thing, anyone who is forced into a position unwillingly and who is unmotivated to do it can easily get out of it by doing a shitty job.
For another thing, this may only shift the corruption from those in power to those who elect those in power (which essentially means a shift in power). Such elections can be rigged if only a few corrupt individuals stage a “pon” or a “confederate” as their candidate. The general rule about pilitical corruption is that if there is a will there is a way. No political system is perfect–there will always be loop holes–and anyone who wishes to exploit those loop holes for their own corrupt purpose only need find them and jump through.
In today’s America, yes, but what about in 200 years from now? Or what about in a different republic? The point I’m making is a lot more generalized. What I’m saying is that any government that suppresses certain rights of the people will have to contend, over the course of history, with potential uprisings and rebellions, and these are usually filled with violence, bloodshed, and death. History is rife with this, and any politician vying for power ought to be aware of this history. Such a politician may stand a reasonable chance of not seeing such violence within his own lifetime, like in America today, but he also stands a reasonable chance within the next 40 years or however long he remains in power of an angry mobbing wanting to chop his head off.
This is why the West has seen fit to extend the vote to as many people as possible. Give them the sense that they are controlling their own destiny and the chances of bloody violence in the face of disappointment in leadership will be significantly mitigated.
Justin Trudeau, you mean? He hasn’t been in power very long, so it’s too early to tell. Though there are high hopes for him as he is the son of Canada’s most venerated prime minister, Pierre Trudeau. He hasn’t done any twirling yet though. 
That is why it is necessary to to make common people to understand two things -
1 - As everyone has his/her own limitations thus people should not try to overreach in their deductions.
2 - It is better to leave some complex and subtle issues to wiser and trustworthy people of the society.
Fighting for freedom or equality is one thing and worth doing but assuming that i am as wise as the experts of all verticals, is nothing but stupidity and dangerous too. Listen and have faith in those who are close, more experienced, well-wishers or have good intent.
It is merely an outline and certainly needs nuances to be figured out.
Yes, there certainly are, perhaps even more than those which i figured out myself.
At least that is not the problem. If any selected person by the voters do not want to take up the duty, he/she should not be forced to do that. Only willing person from the selected group should be asked to take responsibility. Unwilling persons are not fit for the job.
I agree that no system can be perfect but that still not mean that all systems are equal. Some may be worse or better than others. That is precisely for what we should aim to discern. Let us make it better, even given that perfection is not possible.
Secondly, i have considered your objection long ago when i thought about this election process for the first time.
Instead of like our present election systems, which usually take place in 4 or 5 years, this election system will vote and choose that elite congress on fixed dates in every six months, or even after every quarter it possible practically. Means, sorted voters can drop, retain or elect new members of that working group. That will help to keep elected members on the right path to a good extent.
Gib, my main focus is to give ultimate power to general voters, neither to that selected few hundred members nor to the actual administrators selected by that group. In my scheme of things, sorted general voters would be the final authority. No elected member would be either able to ignore or take them for granted even for some months.
Secondly, i propose negative voting for the incumbent elite congress members as well. Means, in every voting, general voters may vote both positively and negatively for as many elite congress members as they like. If any incumbent elite congress member will get more negative votes than the positive ones, he would be dropped from the congress.
with love,
sanjay
The problem with allowing the wise and the virtuous to run society, or to vote for those who run society, is that, at least in the West, we can’t tell who’s really wise and virtuous from those who only put out an image of wisdom and virtuosity. We’ve been lied to too many times in the West, seen too much corruption, watched too many politicians break their promises, to honestly believe those who are running for government office are really wise and virtuous. Some of them may be wise and virtuous, but we know some of them won’t be, and we don’t know which is which.
On this point, maybe the conservatives are right. Maybe we shouldn’t be voting for strangers who live half a continent away–people whom we only know through the media–the filtered, distorted, and intentionally manipulated media–maybe we should be voting for local community leaders instead–people whom we’ve seen in person, whom we have an opportunity to talk to directly, maybe get to know a little better, people whose work we can experience the effects of more directly. Then maybe we’ll have the grounds to trust or distrust with a bit more certainty, to be able to distinguish between true wisdom and virtuosity versus lies and corruption.
Ok, I see. But earlier you said these would be people who would not be motivated. Do you mean people who find it difficult to put their hearts into it but understand that it has become their responsibility anyway, so they take it as a kind of “call of duty”?
I completely agree with this.
I suppose. I mean, if they only have six month, how much damage can they really do? But don’t you think this can be an extremely stifling process? I mean, it’s always during election time that government is pressed to do the most challenging balancing act it can do–they have to spend equal time on campaigning as they do running government. It is usually during election time that enemies abroad look to the West for moments of weakness because they know the government’s full attention is not being paid to foreign affairs.
Yes, I get that. But you must understand that in proposing a new system that is unfamiliar to people, it will be tested (at first intellectually, and later through practice) because the people will feel like you are inviting them into the unknown. You really have to give reassuring arguments to each and every of their nuanced questions and doubts. A system like yours may work but it’s going to have to run through a lengthy process of philosophical discourse (maybe centuries) coupled with real world examples that, at the very least, approximate it.
So by “negative” votes, you mean voting members of Congress out of office? Sure! Great! Absolutely!
It’s actually an interesting idea, now that I think about it. We’re so used to voting people into office here in the West that I don’t think anyone’s ever thought of the prospect of voting people out of office (except for impeachment).
Personally, what I think you’re system needs is, first of all, some way of connecting the voting elite to the needs and demands of the general public, something that assures that they are voting not only on behalf of themselves but the good of the people in general. I think most in the West would see a disconnect here–a separation between the elder, wiser, elite who vote for the nation’s leader(s) and the general public–but if we could flesh out your system such that the former are somehow connected to the latter in terms of their interests, then they would feel a bit more comfortable with the idea. Secondly, as much as you feel that the elder, wiser voters in society must be stern and disciplining, like a parent showing tough love to their children, they have to deliver some degree of comfort and happiness to the people–otherwise, eventually, the people will not tolerate it. And this is kind of the point I’ve been trying to make–as much as the wiser, elder voters may be right in their leadership roll, as long as the people don’t understand their wisdom, there will be the impetus to rebel and attempts will be made to slit their throats. The elite will have to be sure to make life comfortable for the majority of people so that they have little reason to overthrow them. I’m not saying give them whatever they want, but I am saying give them enough so that they don’t attempt to overthrow the only source of their security and well-being.
The case is the same in all democracies, all over the world, whether east, west or anywhere else. And, the simple reason is that present democracies were formulated in a hurry and with a biased mind. Democracies originated in Europe as a counter to replace monarchy, thus, freedom and equality were stretched to such extremes that they start causing harm to the system instead of adding value to it.
No, conservatives were not right, at least intent wise, though their implementation sounds somewhat similar to what i am proposing, but by intent is totally different , or rather just opposite. Founding fathers of US allowed only wealthy landowners white male to vote. The basic idea behind was to give control to a selected and privileged class only, irrespective of their knowledge and intent. On the other hand, i am not interested in their other qualities like social or monetary status, origin, cast, breed, color, gender etc. I am looking only for knowledge and right intent. That is all.
Yes, that is precisely the problem with present election system, and the only way to correct it to bring down elections to that local level, where voters can know about their leaders personally, not via any third party. If that happens, right people will start getting elected. Modern election campaigns are not real but doctored, just like TV serials and films, where candidates do nothing else but acting. The success of the candidates depends more on scriptwriters and directors of the show than the candidates themselves. It is now not much different than marketing a product to the customers.
Chanakya, the greatest political guru that ever happened in India, centuries ago said that if you want to judge the intent of any person, you just have to watch how he behaves in private with those over whom he has some control like subordinates, juniors, employees, servants etc. But, you cannot judge these things from present election campaigns.
Voters should not be asked to vote to any candidate beyond a certain distance. It is matter of debate but my personal opinion is that 1000 voters should be asked to choose one person from their locality. That benchmark is lower enough to have enough in person knowledge about their leader. That means that there will be 1000 leaders to on one million voters, and as those voters are sorted ones, thus my guess is that 1000 leaders would cover at least 10 million citizens. Going by the present US population of around 325 million, there will be approximately 32,000 elected local leaders all over US.
Now, from here on, things can be handled in either in one step or two steps. These elected members can choose the President and other administrators directly, but, if it becomes too complicated because of huge number of elected members, these members can choose the second layer of congress from within themselves, something to the tune of one thousand to control the overall governing system.
If their election as a leader is not good enough motivation for any person, he cannot be motivated in any other way, thus not fit for the job just because of not having right intent. He is either interest in himself only, lethargic or lacks courage to take up the responsibility. All intelligence and knowledge is useless without right intent. So, if any elected leader do not want to be one, he will not be forced and next most getter will be elected in his place.
Again, there will be no such thing in my proposed system which will be similar to present election system, especially campaigning. I very specifically mentioned that there would no political parties, no election campaigning, no TV debates. Yes, people and elected members also are free to believe in any ideology they like. And, the debates are reserved for the congress sessions will be telecasted live, so general voters and public can see what they are concluding and how.
As far as this issue of election mode is concerned, the congress and government will remain in election mode always, not because they have to fight elections, but because they have to perform all the time just to be at their posts, forget about reelection.
Secondly, my proposed election system may vote positively (elect local leaders) after some fix time intervals, but negative voting system will be open for the sorted voters 24/7. All eligible grassroot voters would have an online account saved with password with main election server. And, they can login and vote negatively anytime both for their local elected representative and also for anyone in the executive government, including president or PM. And, as soon as negative votes cross 50% even for a fraction of a second, targeted elected person would have to step down, no matter whoever it would be, though voters will have the right to take back their negative vote anytime also, Thus, all elected members of the congress and nominated government executives by that congress have to on their toes and perform.
I think it is merely new or you may call it somewhat strange but i do not think it is much complicated to understand. And, once you understand it, the intention behind it and what can be achieved by this, its acceptance would not be that much difficult.
You are assuming rightly. But, most of these issues would not trouble much if merely 1000 voters would be choosing one member.
Secondly, my number of sorted voters would not be that much less as you are assuming. All citizens crossing 45 (open for debate) would become automatically eligible for voting, irrespective of their education level. All post graduates. or graduated at least would be eligible for voting. Besides this, there would a voting eligibility exam held in every six months. Anyone else can attempt it irrespective of his age and education. If if clears it, he would also become a voter.
So, my guess it that one out of every ten citizens would become a voter. The scrutiny is not that high as you are thinking. Having said that, yes, the faith of the people in having some faith in others has to restored to some extent, which is decreasing constantly since long. I think that choosing leaders from personally known local persons may restore the faith of citizens in politics and politicians.
with love,
sanjay
I tried to have a general idea of the spread of US population, and it came out that every age year covers roughly 1.25% of us population. I am not sure what is present voting age limit in US, but if that is 18, it means that about 22.5% of US citizens are not voters now. If we calculate it for 21 years, this figure would be 26.25%. The official figure was 27% in 2009, which confirms that my ratio is almost on the target.
Now, as i proposed that all above 45 years would be voters by default. That means 43.75% of the citizens will be able to cast votes. besides this, US has almost 10% of its population which has masters degree and above. Adding this to above figure of 43.75%, the total goes up to 53-54%. So, we can safely assume that at least half of the US citizens would be able to vote, which is not a big deal statistically, but that can change the course of politics for sure.
That also tells that my earlier assumption about figures was wrong, especially in the case of US. I equated it with India but US has both of more life expectancy and higher educated citizens also. I also tried to have a rough idea about indian numbers, and it comes out that india has only 21.9% of population above 45. The ratio of post graduates and above in not more than 3% here. Means, if we apply the same benchmark at india, only 1 out of 4 citizens would be able to vote, which i still think not a very big deal for the masses.
with love,
sanjay
I realized that I am still making a mistake in calculation. There must be some overlapping in above 45 citizens and post graduates and it would be wrong to add both figures. Having said that, I still feel that one can take 50% as an eligible voters.
With love,
Sanjay
In the light of the actual numbers, US would have around 160, 000 elected local leaders, instead of 32000 as i gussed earliar. That is a huge number. Now, this can be tackled in two way. Either voters should be asked to choose a local leader from more than 1000 citizens, or elected local leaders have to once again elect a second layer of leaders within themselves. I prefer second option.
First layer of leaders (160,000) should be asked to elect the second layer in n the same way how they ( first layer) were elected. No political parties, no nomination from the candidates, no campaigning, no TV debates etc.
First layer of leaders may again nominate 1 out of either 500 or 1000 to reduce the actual working either to 320 or 160. That number is good enough to manage and work unitedly.
Remember, negative voting by the grassroot voters still applies to all elected members, be it first layer, second layer or executives.
With love,
Sanjay
Hi Sanjay,
I see you posted a lot since I last visited this thread. You’ll have to give me some time to read it all. I probably won’t get back to this thread for a while, but I will get back.