the government

[leugi]

The Government of any given country is there to establish law, but lets face it, a lot of the people in the government are not very bright, so if we were to replace the government by a board of scientists that decided laws in a totally un-bias way, do you think that that would be better and improve our quality of life?

[iNow]

The challenge is that even scientists can be biased. I do tend to favor more intelligent people making decisions based on information and evidence, but I am reluctant to think that just putting smarter people or scientists in positions of power will be enough to improve the world in which we live.

 

What WOULD help, IMO, is to better educate the public on critical thinking, and to try to move away from this distrust of science and intellectualism we're seeing propagated so broadly lately. Too many people think that their uninformed opinion is equivalent to a conclusion drawn from evidence, and that's just ludicrous and really not good for us as a society.

[John Cuthber]

Last time we had a scientist as prime minister I wasn't very impressed with the outcome.

Also I'm sure most of our government are actually quite bright- it's their motivation I question, rather than their ability.

[Phi for All]

In my opinion, it's not how bright the politicians are, it's how corrupt the system lets them be. The government is a tool, and it needs to be shaped properly so it does its job well no matter who wields it. It's not just about establishing laws, it's about protecting the common good.

 

I think there are too many conflicts of interest in most governments. In the US, we let the wrong people tally votes, people with a vested interest in one of the winners. We allow corporations to finance political agendas that benefit the corporations. We erode public trust every time we allow lobbyists to unfairly garner tax breaks or favors that no one else gets.

 

What we need more than anything is smart AND ethical people in government, but power like that often attracts the worst. I think the system needs an occasional overhaul to fix the problems and get rid of conflicts and what isn't working to protect the common good.

[kitbuoy]

Maybe, as we approach Artificial Intelligence, we could let a computer govern us, based on the most good for the most people for the least money

[Phi for All]

Maybe, as we approach Artificial Intelligence, we could let a computer govern us, based on the most good for the most people for the least money

A machinocracy?! I prefer We, the People, however flawed.

[leugi]

"What WOULD help, IMO, is to better educate the public on critical thinking, and to try to move away from this distrust of science and intellectualism we're seeing propagated so broadly lately. Too many people think that their uninformed opinion is equivalent to a conclusion drawn from evidence, and that's just ludicrous and really not good for us as a society. "

i used to think that way as well, but i believe now that some people are just reluctant to learning, and even with all the evidence in the world they prefer to believe in their fantasies.

"In my opinion, it's not how bright the politicians are, it's how corrupt the system lets them be. The government is a tool, and it needs to be shaped properly so it does its job well no matter who wields it."

but then you can argue that a gun is a tool as well but the person that is wielding it is responsible for using it well, therefore a tool that is given to a human to handle is always subject to error, and the accuracy of this tool can be increased by the person wielding it.

[Phi for All]

but then you can argue that a gun is a tool as well but the person that is wielding it is responsible for using it well, therefore a tool that is given to a human to handle is always subject to error, and the accuracy of this tool can be increased by the person wielding it.

Yes. Yes you can.

[rktpro]

The Government of any given country is there to establish law, but lets face it, a lot of the people in the government are not very bright, so if we were to replace the government by a board of scientists that decided laws in a totally un-bias way, do you think that that would be better and improve our quality of life?

 

Unbiased things exist only in Probability and other assumed events like an unbiased coin.

What you are proposing would never ever be democracy unless you make all people agree to your proposal, remove current political parties if the law in your country doesn't allow a change in main ideology.

Oops, I assume, even if you get scientist on work, they will have to work what the people demand. You can't change their demands.

And, it is not always quality/degree required in political life. Maybe your unbiased scientist might not connect to people. They might, though being unbiased, not able to see the regional demands.

Further, let us say we apply your system. Now, how many parties would be there. More than 2 parties will make it a democracy. Let us suppose we have 5 parties. Since all members are unbiased, they all will have same manifesto and same ideology. They wouldn't compete for healthy politics.

In politics, if you have more than one major party, it is clear indication that the other parrty has made certain people unhappy.

Edited March 7, 2012 by rktpro

[leugi]

Unbiased things exist only in Probability and other assumed events like an unbiased coin.

What you are proposing would never ever be democracy unless you make all people agree to your proposal, remove current political parties if the law in your country doesn't allow a change in main ideology.

Oops, I assume, even if you get scientist on work, they will have to work what the people demand. You can't change their demands.

And, it is not always quality/degree required in political life. Maybe your unbiased scientist might not connect to people. They might, though being unbiased, not able to see the regional demands.

Further, let us say we apply your system. Now, how many parties would be there. More than 2 parties will make it a democracy. Let us suppose we have 5 parties. Since all members are unbiased, they all will have same manifesto and same ideology. They wouldn't compete for healthy politics.

In politics, if you have more than one major party, it is clear indication that the other parrty has made certain people unhappy.

 

well, how about this, this new government that i am talking about consist of the board, which might be a couple of people that are extremely smart and make all the decisions, but they do not come up with the solutions themselves they have to be assisted by another part of the government, which consist of experts for all kinds of subjects, and this experts are actually the ones that come up with the solutions for the problems.

[rktpro]

well, how about this, this new government that i am talking about consist of the board, which might be a couple of people that are extremely smart and make all the decisions, but they do not come up with the solutions themselves they have to be assisted by another part of the government, which consist of experts for all kinds of subjects, and this experts are actually the ones that come up with the solutions for the problems.

 

Still, who will decide that who will be in that board?

[Santalum]

The Government of any given country is there to establish law, but lets face it, a lot of the people in the government are not very bright, so if we were to replace the government by a board of scientists that decided laws in a totally un-bias way, do you think that that would be better and improve our quality of life?

 

In my opinion large population size plays a role in governmental dysfunction.

 

With anything activity in life, the more people there are the harder it is to come to any decision in a reasonable time and the more likely those decisions will not be optimal for the particular scenario.

 

Governments are become more interested in appeasing the widely disparate and fickle masses than they are with taking the best decision.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Santalum

[rktpro]

In my opinion large population size plays a role in governmental dysfunction.

 

With anything activity in life, the more people there are the harder it is to come to any decision in a reasonable time and the more likely those decisions will not be optimal for the particular scenario.

 

Governments are become more interested in appeasing the widely disparate and fickle masses than they are with taking the best decision.

 

Not in a democracy and representative government along with coalition.

[Santalum]

Not in a democracy and representative government along with coalition.

 

In my opinion there is an optimal population size where democracy works well and is or can be highly responsive to problems.

 

However I believe that most or all countries have exceeded this optimal population size and now democracy is a hinderance to what clearly needs to be done.

 

There is no room for governments to 'breath'.

 

No matter what they do it upsets some segment of the population and hence governments tend to do little or nothing in response.

[rktpro]

In my opinion there is an optimal population size where democracy works well and is or can be highly responsive to problems.

 

However I believe that most or all countries have exceeded this optimal population size and now democracy is a hinderance to what clearly needs to be done.

 

There is no room for governments to 'breath'.

 

No matter what they do it upsets some segment of the population and hence governments tend to do little or nothing in response.

No doubt that democracy in not perfect, but it is ideal. And in every case, irrespective of population.

[Santalum]

No doubt that democracy in not perfect, but it is ideal. And in every case, irrespective of population.

 

 

We will have to agree to disagree. I think democracy is becoming increasingly problematic..........not that there is a better governmental system on the horizon.

 

Winston Churchill said the following things of democracy:

 

"Demeocracy is the worst form of government, except all those that have been tried before."

 

"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter."

 

I will also add that multiculturalism also adds other layers to the problems with democracy by increasing the discordance within societies.

It also brings benefits however.

 

If you could combine democracy with a stable and low population then I believe that we would be as close to govermental perfection as we are likely to get.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Santalum

[rktpro]

We will have to agree to disagree. I think democracy is becoming increasingly problematic..........not that there is a better governmental system on the horizon.

If you could combine democracy with a stable and low population then I believe that we would be as close to govermental perfection as we are likely to get.

 

What problems you feel would be there in a democracy due to large population?

[tomgwyther]

The Government of any given country is there to establish law

 

When did this happen? Did I miss a meeting?

It is effectively the people who establish the common law via individual cases, test cases, class actions and the like. Law is established via consent of the governed. 'Consensus facet legem'

The government is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will.

A well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking is all that would be needed for democracy to function properly.

 

It worries me that people assume that the power of their "leaders" can usurp the autonomy of the individual.

Unless - of course - that the said individual has breached the common law established by society; in which case he would be put before a court of his peers and judged an possibly punished.

[rktpro]

@tomgwyther,

Political parties which contest elections are now identical to social and political decisions. They sometimes put forward the opinions of people and sometimes they influence their decision-changing it the way they want. They mobilise people for a cause. True that people make law for themselves and parties execute that. But parties can and in many cases are just run on their own choice-which has been converted into wide opinion.

[iNow]

I think you are mistaken. It is controlled by the very few and the very powerful. We are not governed by consensus. The parties no longer represent the people.

[rktpro]

I think you are mistaken. It is controlled by the very few and the very powerful. We are not governed by consensus. The parties no longer represent the people.

 

That is what I intend to say. Parties, in the name of democracy, still contest elections with manifesto and organise rallies but just to influence the opinion of people. They occupy legislative body, they have pressure groups as their extensions and personal opinion of many members doesn't count and a party runs by the opinion of party leader.

Yes, I agree with you that the big-shots decide most of the policies/programs but I didn't put that point because I only understand the democratic politics of India. I thought it might be different in other countries.

And that parties are no longer representative of people can be wrong in many nations. Parties are growing and identified with social and political division, I repeat. They represent people in form of representative government in large democracies. Parties have their 'vote banks' in the form of partisans. And if we think in detail, power sharing/ 3 tier system has enabled local people to have power. If, a political party doesn't pay heed to people, it is likely to get changed. That's why when there are more than 2 parties-we call it democracy-a fair choice for people.

[iNow]

I didn't put that point because I only understand the democratic politics of India. I thought it might be different in other countries.

And that parties are no longer representative of people can be wrong in many nations. Parties are growing and identified with social and political division, I repeat. They represent people in form of representative government in large democracies. Parties have their 'vote banks' in the form of partisans.

 

I would say in the usa that's not correct either. Both parties we have are basically a duopoly that lean center-right, and really do not represent where the people are. There are many different political mindsets in the US, and our government represents only a tiny fraction of them... A small sliver on the spectrum. Perhaps things in India are better.

[rktpro]

I would say in the usa that's not correct either. Both parties we have are basically a duopoly that lean center-right, and really do not represent where the people are. There are many different political mindsets in the US, and our government represents only a tiny fraction of them... A small sliver on the spectrum. Perhaps things in India are better.

 

I read that in your nation parties along with the agreement of people, put their candidates for elections. In larger democracies like India, it is the top party leader who decides the contesting candidates.

It seems that your nation is better in that aspect.