If a person gave himself the task to formulate a new form of goverment what should be the terms by which the goverment be subjected to? What whould be the functions of the goverment? What should be the purpose, why have a goverment? By what terms should one assert that any goverment is better than the other?
Anyone has any thoughts please reply if you do.
First and foremost, you’d need some mechanism with which you can use violence or the threat thereof to coerce people to pay you for your “services” as the government. That’d be the first order of business.
Any government “should” be held to the exact same promise it expects from its citizens. Governments are formed by people so as to benefit those people. The idea that the people belong to the government (Socialism) is a folly thousands of years old.
The agreement between governor and governed should be as simple as; “I will help you to maximize the total joy in life and you will help maximize mine.” Joy is the inner perception of progress. Such perception is attained by observation of progress toward chosen goals. A government system perceives joy by observing that it is achieving its chosen goals. A person, on many inner levels, does the same. The governor should be held to using what power is being given to it to set goals designed around the eternal joy of the people (and nothing else). By thus, all people and nations live longer, more progressively, and joyously.
All it takes is the right agreement. Ref; Constitution of Rational Harmony
A more/less Minarchist Representative Democracy + A more/less Maxsophist Representative Demosophy combines and adds the best of both worlds (Liberty + Presence of Government) whilst combining and subtracting the worst of both worlds (Authority + Absence of Government).
We can have our cake and eat it.
Actually, I think our form of government is pretty good. We have a federation of states, each of which has agreed to an umbrella type Constitution that’s meant to provide for a modicum of uniformity without disallowing the individual states to make their decisions based on their individual needs. The federation meets at an established site, Washington D.C., to frash out any differences.
As I see it, there are only a couple of problems: the Federal government is the only government that can declare war (with permission given to it by the States) on enemies that threaten all of the federation of states and, in order to finance those wars, the Federal government has the Constitutional ability to levy taxes.
Let’s look at it from an individual state’s point of view.
Amend the Constitution and take away it’s tax collecting ability (the XVI Amendment.) Wouldn’t this shift the entire burden of taxation onto the individual states? Would each state, then, be obligated to collect taxes in order to pay only for what they want for their state? Would they allocate a certain amount of their tax revenue to pay for the cost of war–if they all agree war is necessary to protect the Federation? ( One of the things the Federal government does is ‘spread the wealth.’ It gives money to states that can’t afford certain things taken from states which can. Anything left over is attacked the way hyenas attack a carcass. The House does that regularly.)
Let the states train their militias as they can. This means the militias should be prepared to be called up by the Federal government in the event of war. Get rid of the Pentagon and the defense budget. Let the states handle the expense of weaponry and training as they have the money to do so.
Let the states levy taxes on multinational and “big” corps–without interference by the state elected members that meet in D C. and are swayed by party affiliations and lobbyists at that level. (State governments have lobbyists as well, you know.)
This has turned into a rant, so I’ll cease and desist.
Government isn’t really subject to anything and it can do anything it wants if it is done right. A government can serve any purpose it wants ranging from controlling to providing freedom to just executing everyone.
That being said, i have an idea for a government to use when i start my own country (if that ever happens, probably wont).
I call it The Patriarch and The Parliament.
The country is divided into separate province type groups that run themselves and send tithes and representatives to the central government.
The Parliament controls the laws and the treasury and The Patriarch controls the military.
If one goes against the other, it can be destroyed.
And in times of crisis the patriarch would serve as a sort of figure head to rally around.
Not quite perfect but nothing ever is.
i was actually thinking about something about those lines but as you rightly stated it would inevitably collapse, every system i think of does, would not it be better to have a shiftable system, one which is self regulatory like the market? But this will then lack consisntensy and would then lack organization which is the basis of all goverment.
None of you creatures are capable of coming up with a new form of government (or anything new for that matter), only I am. I presented it in detail in Gaia’s new post on the philosophy forum of ILP. Go look for it.
Nevermind, here it is…
In Demosophy, we put moral, economic and metaphysical ideas on philosophical trial. Each philosophical trial is made up of one Moderator, one Assenter, one Dissenter and the voters. The Demosophy may have anywhere from 10 to 1000 members. The Assenter’s job is to defend the idea, the Dissenter’s job to oppose it and the Moderator’s job to make sure the debate appeals to the voters reason (more or less) as opposed to their emotions, that the debate is civil, orderly and above all, philosophical. After the debate has concluded (there could be a time limit, say, one hour maximum), the voters decide not who won the debate, but whether the idea is true or false. If true, then the Moderator decides how long the idea should become official dogma of the Demosophy (say, anywhere from 1 - 20 years), he may consult the voters prior to making his decision. If the voters were divided (49/51 percent in favour of the proposition/idea), then the Moderator ought to make it official dogma for 6 months or so. If 1/99% in favour, then 10 or 20 years.
The members of the Demosophy would elect Overseers every 5 or 10 years. The Overseers job would be to select which ideas are put on trial and select the Moderators, Assenters and Dissenters. The Demosophy could function like a temple, services could be held once a week, or it could function like a philosophical commune, where all members sleep, eat, work and argue together, depending on the disposition of it’s members and it’s doctrines, either could be applicable. During services, Overseers could discuss or select members to discuss the doctrines of the Demosophy, offer advice, council based on what the Demosophy has learned so far. When a doctrine’s time is up, it will be up for debate again. So, the big question is, what happens when a member or even a non-member fails to adhere to official dogma? The answer, they’re put on trial, if found guilty, what should we do? Torture them, execution, no no no, that wouldn’t be very philosophical or civil, now would it? The members would simply be suspended, at worst, excommunicated, perhaps nothing even. So in essence, this would be a way for us to philosophically and collectively evolve, without infringing upon our individual right to make up our own minds about things, very philosophical. People would be free to come and go as they wish.
Also, a scribe would be appointed to keep track of the doctrines and their reasons for being adopted. The doctrines would be made available to all members.
I read your ideas about Demosophy in your first posting. I thought to my selves, “We’ll get back to this once we’ve had a chance to mull it over.” We really haven’t had that chance, but you seem to want a critique–so my selves and I will try.
What you’re suggesting seems to imply frequent paradigm shifts based on what elected Overseers view as either feasible or not. This would imply, in turn, that the Overseers remain completely trustworthy throughout their tenure. You go on to suggest that the Demosophy be either a religion or a self-sufficient community of like thinkers who’s driving motivation would be to think about what they’ve learned through past experience and tweak ideas around in order to preserve the original idea.
Your Demosophy apparently would depend on majority rulings which would force the minority to either accept the majority decisions or leave. How is this a philosophical democracy? In a democracy, even a minority vote has meaning–as we’ve seen.
A Demosophy is nothing more than an oligarchy. As such, it’s not at all a ‘new’ idea. At best, it’s an ironic reply to the op.
Great start.
“Voting” alone means serious trouble due to politicking being the natural means to persuade the votes toward a personal gain for the aristocracy. [fix it]
Limited by what concern? Who or what draws the line that says, “no more”? [fix it]
This gets back to the fact that the largest percentage of voting IS emotional (unless you intend to restrict voting from women, children, and the masses). How is the Moderator to assess reason verses emotional appeal? In blatant cases it might be easy, but I can foresee “creeping boundaries” being a serious issue. “Marginalizing” is the current persuasion method in the US today wherein one side of an issue is given only slightly greater advantage so as to slowly increase the preferred direction of all politics (“slowly boiling the frog”). Total dictatorship is the final result. [fix it]
“Idea true or false”??!??
“Better or worse”, perhaps. But then by what “reasoning” is anyone to assess better or worse other than personal preference (back to political corruptions)? [fix it]
How does that moderator get appointed? What is to stop him from hearing what benefits himself the most (or whoever has payed him the most) and merely declaring those ideas to be more enduring than others?
What does the time in authority have to do with how good the idea was at that moment or even how many people prefer it (regardless of time)? “I would have voted for that bill, but I’m sure many others were going to vote on it and I didn’t want it in effect when Lucus gets in office next year.” - disintegration of ingenuousness (forced conflict of interest). [fix it]
Invitation for immediate corruption (US Supreme Court as obvious real example). [fix it]
Authority to determine “heresy”? Totalitarianism in the make. Such power (similar to the House Charmin) opens the door for immediate silencing of ideas that might be un-preferred by the Charmin (and those pulling her strings). [fix it]
The US is already far too much like a technologically advanced third world country with all its political/manipulative/philosophical vagabonds. And you want to add a TEMPLE!?!?! [delete it]
Prison-yard politics - philosophical gangs form. To get along, you must go along. In the long run, threat of death decides all of their victories. “Accidental death” ensures a means to enforce the king’s preference. [fix it]
What happens when there is a true need for it to be up sooner than the last moderated wanted? [fix it]
The result of this would be that the largest grouping would be the dissenters and outcasts. Revolution against the prior formed dictatorship (which would be unquestionably a religion (defended belief) by then) would rise time and time again until they stopped doing things that way. “Burn the WITCHES!!” [fix it]
The ideal would become so corrupted within merely the first generation, it would be declared a oppressive dictatorship to be destroyed by WAR against the oppressors.
That shouldn’t be an “also”, but a first and prime concern above all else. Learning only occurs due to memory.
The most common sin of the altruist is to not realize how unique he is.
The natural human condition would obliterate your utopia within a single generation. Study a little political science and see for yourself. You have placed pathos politics in highest authority, not reason. If you want reason to have authority, you must take decision making out of the hands of pathos voting (except for when it directly applies).
You have merely described another means to propel human society into Gehenna. Not to overstate the obvious, but [size=150][fix it][/size]
If I were to organize the government, I’d operate from the principle that “all politics is local”. That means local elections that are open to the general public, so people elect representatives for their area (Either their district within a city, their town, or their township depending on the level of urbanization). Those elected officials elect the next tier up, who in turn elect the next tier up. Running parallel to that, you have popular elections for the head of a powerful executive branch which also carries a 5% vote in the legislative branch. The judicial branch would be organized through a series of civil service examinations. One of the principle duties of the judicial branch would be to coordinate and adjucate elections similar to the election branch of some countries.
At the local and national level, instant run-off voting is applied and rigorous campaign financing would be enforced with elections paid for by property taxes. These funds would initially be distributed to three recognized parties (roughly a left, right, and center party). After several cycles, they would still have to be distributed to those three but other co-equal parties could be added by local councils at their discretion.
How many selves do you have in there? Which one am I speaking to?
I’m thinking of holding elections every year, making the Overseers (plural, I think three Overseers should be elected, balance of power) more accountable. I see nothing disagreeable here.
It would have meaning. The bigger the minority, the less the Moderator/Judge would be able to impose the law/doctrine on the community. For example, if a close draw 39/61 in favour of the law/doctrine being passed, then the judge couldn’t impose a severe sentence for transgressing the law/doctrine and it would be avaliable for debate again, shortly (say, a year).
Demosophy - Wisdom of the majority, Oligarchy - Rule by a minority, how’re they at all similar?
Appreciate your constructive criticism, James. That which does not kill an idea, makes it stronger. This is your intent, no doubt.
Thanks.
Better than the system we have, where our elected and unelected officials vote in our place.(representative democracy).
Good point, there should be no limit.
From children, yes, from women, probably not. Well, that’s the price you pay for Demosophy. Ultimately, reason isn’t this thing that can be abstracted/extracted from human concerns and prejudices, someone has to make the call, better a balance between majority and wiser (but unaccountable) minority than wholly one or the other. Also, my Demosophers would be educated in philosophical discourse (just thought of that now).
I’ll have to think on this one.
I was thinking of replacing true/false with better/wosre myself.
The Overseers appoint him/her. The Overseers are appointed by the people.
Anyone could potentially be elected in my Demosophy. Say there’s 1000 members in a Demosophy and elections are coming up. Anyone who gets, say, 50 signatures beforehand will be a candidate.
I’ve changed it to 1 year.
There’s another possibility. The Demos could elect a Moderator, Assentor and Dissenter for every philosophical debate. I like a little representation, though, makes things run smoother.
Yes, a temple, or a church if you prefer.
Things of that nature are inevitable.
That will be for the Overseers to decide.
I think you’re being pessimistic. You don’t see Christians overthrowing their pastors, do you? And they have little or no say in how their church is run. Demosophy will give them plenty of say. If the Demos feels they’re being cheated, they leave, (reminder) this isn’t a political institution.
So why haven’t Buddhist temples been destroyed?
I told you, I’m an egoist/altruist. I’m well aware of how corrupt humans can be, I’ve been studying the secret societies for some time.
Well, you have your system and I have mind (however, this is just one of my many systems, I have others, I wouldn’t mind trying them all out).
Recommendation;
That which cannot go wrong will not go wrong, but that which can go wrong, certainly will.
Regardless of what you believe to be “right”, if a system is not designed to make the “wrong” impossible, that “right” will not last. That means that the system must be designed in such a way that it cannot go wrong and thus will not go wrong. Thus the “right” system is designed first around how to ensure that whatever it is can only get better - self-propagating (living).
First answer to yourself, “what is required of any system such that it cannot be invaded by corruption/entropy?” Secondly worry about how to make that system the most pleasant possible under the first constraint. First is survivability, then infusion of joy - seeking “eternal joy”. Anything else, is death and/or misery.
Remember, that which controls politics, controls belief. And that which controls belief, controls philosophy (and military and everything else). If they can corrupt your system, they will.
It isn’t impossible, merely very difficult for Man to see (and thus is “new”).
There are differant variations of each some my even be combined but I believe there are four forms of government.
Autocracy= Control by the one.
Oligarchy= Control by the few.
Democracy= Control by the majority.
Anarchy= No control.
I don’t believe there are any “new” forms of government just differant variations of each of these.
The CRH is a new type, none of the above.
What is CRH?
Constitution of Rational Harmony
It proposes a governance by virtue of demographic needs combined with formal, logic moderated, rational debate. In such a governance, a single individual can change a law literally over night merely by proving it to be logically addressing the goal better than the incumbent law. Yet at the same time, mere passion voting is not forbidden. The common passion voting process often is the more rational manner in which to make a decision, thus the more rational procedure is to simply vote on that particular item without need of debate, rational or political. But of course, it must first be rationally decided that such passion voting actually applies.
The end result is that it changes the very root of political processes toward a focus on rationality rather than on means for deceiving the population into compliance. Higher rationality rules, not power mongering people.