Ideas for a nearly ideal government

[troof]

The main rules should be: as long as you don't hurt yourself or hurt anybody else, as long as you don't take others' freedom or your own freedom, you can do whatever you want, without exception. Also, violence should only be used either to protect the innocent, or to fight the law if the law becomes intolerable (just as the American revolution happened because of "intolerable acts.")

The government should be a democracy just like America, with one difference: the representatives and the people voting for them should have great intellect and great compassion (both together, otherwise they cannot vote, and cannot run for office.) They need to have every relevant kind of intelligence: intra-personal, interpersonal, linguistic, and existential. To test for compassion, I came up with one idea: study the brain activity of mothers with their children, and compare it to the brain activity of strangers with strangers. The strangers who have similar brain activity to the mothers are the most compassionate.

I call this Free Democratic Meritocracy, FDM.

I found this on google on the topic of measuring these kinds of intelligence:

Assessment methods:
Observational techniques: Teachers and psychologists may observe behaviors indicative of these intelligences, like strong social skills (interpersonal), self-awareness (intrapersonal), deep questioning about life meaning (existential), and eloquent communication (linguistic). 
Qualitative assessments: Some assessments use open-ended questions, creative writing prompts, or personal reflection exercises to explore these areas of intelligence. 
Specific tests: Certain tests are designed to tap into specific aspects of these intelligences, but they may not be standardized or widely used.

I almost forgot: wild animals are balanced between good and evil, but humanity is split. For balance, we need to select people who are balanced between good and evil, between pro- and anti-establishment.

Oh, and: the voters/representatives have to be tested periodically to ensure they haven't lost their good qualities.

Edited December 7 by troof

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, troof said:

The main rules should be: as long as you don't hurt yourself or hurt anybody else, as long as you don't take others' freedom or your own freedom, you can do whatever you want, without exception.

So as long as your young daughter isn't aware (and thus won't be hurt) it is alright for anyone who wishes to watch her take a shower.

And as long as nobody sees and he doesn't get hurt, a caretaker can sexually assault the comatose patient in his care.

And as long as she doesn't know, I can break into a woman's apartment and sleep in her bed when she is out of town.

And a million others...

[KJW]

7 hours ago, troof said:

The government should be a democracy just like America, with one difference: the representatives and the people voting for them should have great intellect and great compassion (both together, otherwise they cannot vote, and cannot run for office.) They need to have every relevant kind of intelligence: intra-personal, interpersonal, linguistic, and existential.

How is this a fundamental improvement compared to requiring that representatives and the people voting for them be (for example) landowners, men, white, etc?
 

 

Edited December 8 by KJW

[J.C.MacSwell]

I think they have that in Russia. Putin feels he is the only one that meets your criteria, has only used violence to protect the innocent, and has compassionately added an extra election where most get to vote as long as the vast majority vote for him, just to allow everyone to feel good about the system.

[Peterkin]

In existing 'democracies', none of the candidates are representative of the people who vote for them. Elections take money and publicity; all elected officials are therefore beholden to the financial and other interests of their benefactors.

The only truly representative government would be drawn by lot from the eligible adult population, then screened for disabilities and conflicts of interests, as in jury selection. They would serve a limited term - say, two years, with another selection spelling off half the members each year, so that there would be equal numbers with and without experience. Their salary, across the board would be the standard starting pay for the lower house. Let the civil service continue to be professional, with experts in their various fields advising each department. Government is not a corporation; it's not a military operation; it's not the instrument of some divinity: it should be the mind, voice and hands of the all the citizens.

[troof]

Democracy means rule by the people, of the people, for the people, but the people are in general unintelligent and only some of them are compassionate. That's the purpose of only allowing great intellects/greatly compassionate people to vote/be in office.

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Let the civil service continue to be professional, with experts in their various fields advising each department.

I think expertise in the various civil services is an interesting point- it is somewhat independent of the democratic process as those folks are generally not elected, but competence can be a big factor in the success of these institutions. That being said, they are a vulnerable to what I call an administrative mindset, where the administrative process takes precedence over the actual mission. And oftentimes elected folks further undermine it by hiring folks that are ideologically aligned, which can contrast with the mission of the service. Trump is a current example, but clearly not the only one.

Intelligence and compassion is very intangible not a great criterion and arguably running for office and being in office requires more people skills than anything else. In the end, you are not working at the problems themselves, you are a decision-maker and if you are good in your job, you have assembled of team that bring all the right qualifications.

[troof]

Oh, I forgot to add: when someone makes more than say, 2 million dollars, they have to give the rest away to a public fund. The poor should receive this money in the form of tokens (not cash because with cash they can buy alcohol or drugs.) These tokens should be for food, clothes, shelter, entertainment... anything that a person needs to live a comfortable life. Corporations, on the other hand, should be allowed to have a lot of money because they need it to produce good products. People amassing vast sums of money is obscene. They have no need for it, they can live a perfectly luxurious life with 2 million dollars. And corporations should only be allowed to have what they need to produce excellent quality products. Of course, all this should be adjusted for inflation as time passes. Also, air is free, because there's enough air for everyone. If we use science to produce enough of everything for everyone, everything can be free. Ideally everyone should live the life of a billionaire, because everything is so abundant that it's free.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, troof said:

The poor should receive this money in the form of tokens (not cash because with cash they can buy alcohol or drugs.)

Because 1) they could not trade the tokens for cash and 2) only poor people abuse drugs and alcohol?

[TheVat]

Sorry to say your system sounds totalitarian and one in which only a small elite can vote - and only this elite determines specific metrics for vaguely defined qualities like intelligence or compassion.  Also, are you aware that a lot of innovation comes from people who earn more than 2 million dollars and then can invest their earnings in new startups and R&D?  Many of the tech devices we are using to have this chat come from entrepreneurs who could reinvest their profits.

BTW, if you start a thread you need to read and reply to all the feedback you are getting.  

[zapatos]

48 minutes ago, TheVat said:

BTW, if you start a thread you need to read and reply to all the feedback you are getting.  

Agreed. This is not a blog. Troof doesn't get to just ignore everyone's comments just because they don't agree with parts of his version of utopia.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, troof said:

Democracy means rule by the people, of the people, for the people, but the people are in general unintelligent and only some of them are compassionate. That's the purpose of only allowing great intellects/greatly compassionate people to vote/be in office.

How do you assess whether someone is sufficiently intelligent and/or compassionate in an unbiased way?

A reason why utopian systems fail is that they are idealized and never account for human failings. 

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

That being said, they are a vulnerable to what I call an administrative mindset, where the administrative process takes precedence over the actual mission.

Except that, in this model, the administration is ordinary citizens, with no vested interest in common. They're not up for re-election, don't owe anybody a favour, don't need funding or political support. They're in the job for two years: a very limited opportunity to do something for their family, their community and fellow citizens. 

[troof]

I'm sorry, I just wanted my ideas to be heard, I'm not here to debate people. It's up you guys if you agree or not. If you like I'll just stop posting threads. I don't really feel like replying to everyone, though. You can do whatever you feel is right, you can ban me if you feel it's right.

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, troof said:

I'm sorry, I just wanted my ideas to be heard, I'm not here to debate people

Well, this is a discussion forum. If you just want to pontificate, you can start a blog.