Essentials for political system

[Dak]

A little hypothetical here:

 

If you were desighning a new political system, what would you concider vital to include, without which the system either wouldnt work, or wouldnt be fulfiling what you concider the central duties of a political system.

 

eg, from what i understand of it, the american constitution seems to be saying that protection of certain freedoms (speach, religion etc) are central duties of the political system -- rights so inportant that the very political system of the country is desighned to maintain them

 

It also seems to be saying that a democratic system is vitally inportant, either for the same ideological/ethical reasons as the freedom of speach etc -- ie, the right to have your say is so inportant that the political system is desighned to maintain it -- or as a percieved vital mechanism of regulating the political system.

 

The above may not be an accurate interpretation of the constitution, but i was just trying to elaborate on my question: what would you concider unobmisable from a political system, either for ethical/ideological reasons, or for the-system-wont-work-without-it reasons

 

[edit]Also, justify why your choices are vital to include in a political system, and feel free to argue against anyone elses includes[/edit]

[bascule]

I would include:

 

1. An instant runoff voting system

 

2. A Markov process to analyze and rank voter credentials. Not everyone deserves an equal vote because some people are poor decision makers.

[Dak]

Why do you think that they are nessesary?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[Kylonicus]

I think the type of political system requirements are directly related to what your intent in making a political system are.

 

For instance, if your goal is to make yourself an absolute ruler, there is very little reason why you need to make rules to protect people's freedom, except perhaps to create an illusion of freedom, while in de facto a tyranny is maintained.

 

On the otherhand, if your trying to make the best quality of life for the greatest number, then you might want to emphasize political freedoms, and certainly ideological concepts that promote the well being of the masses, such as the superiority of the masses against the power of a minority. If it will save 1 million people, but 1 person needs to die to accomplish this feat, then generally the 1 person should die.

 

Anyway, if I were designing a political system, I would design a political system which emphasized creation versus control. Essentially, those governments, institutions, groups or entities that support control versus creation generally create a miserable way of life for it's members, as well as lose massive amounts of resources they could be gaining.

 

What I mean by creators is those people who create resources, manufacture goods, produce food, valuable real services,engineers, doctor, those who do research, innovate, educate and nuture, counselors, artist(non-destructive art, entepreneurs who create resources primarily and mainly don't take resources from others, and generally many other good things.

 

Controller's would be people such as stock market brokers, politicians, sales people, ruthless executives screwing other people to get to the top, lousy political managers, advertising agents, and many other bad things.

 

I believe that one reason why the U.S was/is so successful is it heavily rewards creators of resources, versus people who can use political sway, regulations, bullying, or other tactics to control the resources and take them from the creators. Unfortunately I think the U.S is stepping away from this way of life, which means it's probably going to step down as the number 1 power in this world. Everyone thinks that control, malice, power grabs, domination is the way to power, but they are trully deluded, creation is the true way to power, the true way to prosperity, given the right environment.

 

I would try and create an atomsphere where creators would end up getting more of the resources that they produced, presupposing that the majority of those resources went back into the process of creation. Those resources that didn't go back into creation would have heavier taxes on them, and the occupations such as advertising and what not that control resources from other people would be heavily taxed and regulated. I would try to take as much power away from controllers as possible. I would try and create as much protection as possible for creators, from powerful controllers, I would create a semi-socialist system that would allow creators to get funding more easily.

 

 

In the current system, this would be virtually impossible, as the controllers tend to be the most powerful in controlling politics and public image and policy, so I would only be able to do this in a new system.

 

It would require alot of work, and it has alot of bugs, but do you see where I am coming from?

 

The basic principle of this country is freedom, rights for people, the ability of the people to have a say in the government, rights of people from the government. Well to this system I'd like to add the property of trying to maximize the rewards for being a creator, maximize the resources allocated towards creation versus those who control, rules set in place to protect creators from controllers, and rules setup to try and allow the masses to enjoy the benefits of the creators as much as possible(such as releasing knowledge and deploying the use of technologies that benefit the people, but cut profits for corporations, or policies such as preventitive medicine).

 

A code of rules would have to be made, just like with the constitution, they'd be long and drawn out, and very complex, and in many cases difficult to impliment, but the overall government once implimented and once stabilized would produce a higher quality of life than the current government type, as more resources/technology/needed services, would be provided to the masses at a faster rate and a lower cost.

 

Once people got used to the higher standard of living they'd be more willing to protect it, and that would make the government more stable, even though the controllers would be trying to take control.

[Helix]

I would include:

 

1. An instant runoff voting system

 

2. A Markov process to analyze and rank voter credentials. Not everyone deserves an equal vote because some people are poor decision makers.

 

 

I really' date=' really disagree with #2. Really. What you are describing is a meritocracy, in which the ones with the most merit govern most strongly. Democracy is counter to this by saying that everyone's vote is equal. I agree with that. All people are equal and no matter what decisions they make, those decisions should be respected. Using an algorithm will but power in the hands of only those deemed suitable to make a choice. For that matter, how does the Markov system input all of the different aspects of a voter to decide if they are worthy to be respected? Putting freedom in the hands of an equation is a blow to equality. Why not bring back eugenics as well? We can make everyone the same perfect people, with "good" opinions and perfect genes....

 

Also, that system has [i']huge[/i] potiential to be abused. I doubt you can deny that. What if the reigning party decides that all dissidents are bad decision makers by manipulating the Markov system? Using the Markov system in such a central position would preclude the chances of having a fair political system.

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, which I respect, but if you ever make a country, I'm not living in it.

[Kylonicus]

Every man can dream.

[ecoli]

In theory, Meritocracies should work, but you run into trouble when deciding who gets to decide who deserves more merit. Such a system seems like it's easily corruptable. I suppose you could implement safeguards, but there are loopholes in the best systems, aren't there.

[Kylonicus]

Yes...

 

All governments have problems associated with them...

 

What would be needed is a strong meritocracy culture along to go with the government.

 

A culture that doesn't put up with a system that doesn't reward those who work for the good of the people.

 

Only then(or under a technocracy(other definition rule by machines)) could such a system work.

[Helix]

In theory, Meritocracies should work, but you run into trouble when deciding who gets to decide who deserves more merit. Such a system seems like it's easily corruptable. I suppose you could implement safeguards, but there are loopholes in the best systems, aren't there.

 

 

I wouldn't say "in theory" as much as "in a vacuum". In a vaccum, with nothing changing, a meritocracy could exist. However, it's even more prone to corruption than communism.

 

I actually have thought about this long and hard and it's pretty interesting to try to fit everything in one nice doctrine.

[entwined]

This discussion reminds me of a book I read once. I think it was called "Republic" or something like that, writtin by some old Greek.

[Helix]

Republic by Plato. Yeah that's a pretty good book.

[Sisyphus]

Republic by Plato. Yeah that's a pretty good book.

 

Though not intended to be taken literally...

[Rebiu]

Rule of Law and Balance of power.

[ecoli]

Rule of Law and Balance of power.

 

I'm not so sure that a balance of power is strictly essential... for example, decisions are made much more swiftly with a single dictator. Countries can mobilize for war or industry much quicker without all the beareaucratic bs that comes with balance of power. I would think that internal gov't spending would be a lot less too.