Making a perfect Government

[Raider5678]

Hello guys, I wanted to try something.

 

Now this is going to seem a little odd, but I think it would be fun. I would like to try and create a "perfect" government. Now obviously it won't be PERFECT to everyone, but it would do the best to make everyone happy, while also presenting the best possible life for the people ruled under it. I.E. protection, education, good living conditions, etc. Now someone once told me that the best way for deciding on whats good is too come up with that desired outcome, and then create the path to that desired outcome. So to get started, I would like it if we came up with our thoughts of a perfect government, then create "laws" and stuff like that to get that desired outcome.

 

After we get the outcome, we will work on all the details to this "government" until we have a government we wouldn't mind living in if it was real. Once again, obviously it won't be your "perfect" government, but it should be good enough to like.

 

Now as a basic rule, if this topic ever does get started, your not going to get exactly what you want. Thats why we will decided on a compromise.DO NOT BE UNMOVABLE. An example would be gun control. While 1 person may be all guns blazing with few gun control laws, someone else may want NO guns whatsoever. We would try and come with a compromise, rather then simply stating what we want and nothing else. (as a note, public safety should be one of the outcomes we want. Meaning either no guns at all, or heavy safety laws IMO.)

 

So, anyone who wants to start, just start coming up with an idea on how you want the life people living in it would have, and we will start from there.

 

A draft of the government will be contained below:

Edited May 22, 2016 by Raider5678

[Raider5678]

Since nobody wants to start, I will......

No discrimination.

Religious freedom.

Public safety.

Guns allowed, though regulated.

Add some more guys.

[colemilne54]

Direct democracy, little politicians needed.

Well funded space program.

Universal health care

[Raider5678]

Direct democracy, little politicians needed.

Well funded space program.

Universal health care

How would you get a "Direct democracy" to work?

Also, what are your standards for universal heathcare?

Edited May 23, 2016 by Raider5678

[iNow]

For UHC, we could easily combine the best parts of what they do in UK, Canada, Taiwan, France, Australia, and Sweden.

 

To the thread: Instant Run-Off voting becomes required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

 

Truth in advertising laws.

No more gerrymandering.

Tight limits on time spent fund raising.

Required percentage of every dollar spent used to find ways to make system being legislated/implemented more efficient.

Make voting compulsory.

Make election days national paid holidays.

 

I've shared several ideas in other threads elsewhere. These are just a few off the top of my mind this morning.

Edited May 23, 2016 by iNow

[dimreepr]

There will never be a perfect governmental system while jealousy, greed and corruption persist.

[iNow]

There will never be a perfect governmental system while jealousy, greed and corruption persist.

In which case, it will never exist as long as humans are involved. Dilly of a pickle, that. Maybe AI can help.

[dimreepr]

Ya never know, evolution may get involved because ATM we're heading for a shit storm with a reluctance to swerve.

In almost every way possible.

[andrewcellini]

evolution may get involved

Did it ever stop being involved?

Since nobody wants to start, I will......

No discrimination.

Religious freedom.

Public safety.

Guns allowed, though regulated.

Add some more guys.

There needs to be more detail on what you mean and how you're going to carry this out.

What constitutes discrimination? How will you enforce laws against it? What kinds of punishments or rehabilitation will be available?

What does it mean to have religious freedom? How will you protect it?

What will you do to keep the public safe, and what do you mean by that?

How will you regulate guns? Which guns are allowed?

Edited May 23, 2016 by andrewcellini

[Raider5678]

For UHC, we could easily combine the best parts of what they do in UK, Canada, Taiwan, France, Australia, and Sweden.

 

To the thread: Instant Run-Off voting becomes required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

 

Truth in advertising laws.

No more gerrymandering.

Tight limits on time spent fund raising.

Required percentage of every dollar spent used to find ways to make system being legislated/implemented more efficient.

Make voting compulsory.

Make election days national paid holidays.

 

I've shared several ideas in other threads elsewhere. These are just a few off the top of my mind this morning.

I would agree win truth in advertising laws, not really sure what you mean by no gerrymandering. I know the definition, but I don't understand it very well. By tight limits on time spent fundraising, do you mean for already elected officials, or ones running for election? I would say a percentage of the budget rather than the dollar, but it's about the same thing. I would agree for compulsory voting, and election days national paid holidays.

 

Also, what would you consider the best parts of their health cares?

Did it ever stop being involved?

What constitutes discrimination? How will you enforce it? What kinds of punishments or rehabilitation will be available?

What does it mean to have religious freedom?

What will you do to keep the public safe?

How will you regulate guns?

Discrimination would be classified as "A different treatment of any sentient person, creature, or thing based solely on the differences between the discriminator and the discriminated, whether it be gender, color, size, or religion." I'm sure i'm missing some stuff, so feel free to modify until we all agree that it covers everything fairly.

Religious freedom would be "the freedom to practice religious practices anytime, anywhere, for any reason, as long as that religious practice doesn't break any laws, or is ruled disturbing by the court." I.E. RUnning in circles naked to pray to gods. That would be ruled disturbing. Satanic rituals are in my opinion disturbing. You? Also, if a religion constitutes human sacrifices, murder, torture, etc, I would say we make it illegal. We would have to refine that part, but you guys get the idea right?

Public safety would include police, hospitals, firefighters, etc.

For gun control, read the last few pages.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/

Edited May 23, 2016 by Raider5678

[Delta1212]

Brief explanation of gerrymandering:

 

States are broken into Congressional districts. Each district elects one of the state's representatives to Congress. Every 10 years there is a census, and the districts have to be redrawn so that roughly the same number of people fall within the boundaries of each district within a state.

 

The way that the districts are drawn can have a major impact on how elections play out and how many representatives from each party wind up being elected to Congress from that state.

 

 

For example, let's have a super simple example where we have a state that has a population of 100 people that need to be divided up among 5 districts.

 

Let's say that 50 belong to the Gerry party and 50 belong to the Mander party. Now, if the people are distributed randomly across the state and the map is drawn fairly, you'd expect that to have 5 districts that each have 10 Gs and 10 Ms in them. But people tend to cluster, and a gerry meandered map takes advantage of clusters and draws maps that lump people together in ways that are advantageous to one party or the other.

 

For example, you could have one district with 18 Ms and 2 Gs, and then divide up the other 4 districts so that they each have 12 Gs and 8 Ms. That's 20 people per district, and a total of 50 Ms and 50 Gs, but by clustering a lot of Ms all into one district, it dilutes the number that are in the other districts, and despite the ratio of Ms to Gs in the overall population being a perfect 50/50 split, the Gs have 4 districts that they will win and the Ms have one.

 

You can see an example of an over gerrymandered map here:

 

 

Note the odd borders and elongated shapes of some of the districts as the people who drew the map attempted to group people from different areas into a single district. Also note that the thin blue area between districts 8 and 9 is an actual district and not a lake.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Delta1212

[dimreepr]

Did it ever stop being involved?

 

 

No, indeed, I just meant it in a positive way.

[Ten oz]

If we are to start with desired outcomes first I think no war, poverty, or discrimination are the main goals. Lets not kill people, lets ensure everyone has basic needs, and we accomplish this without discriminating against any specific group(s).

 

How do we accomplish that desired goal? @ Raider5678, from where are we starting from scratch or from present day present world?

[andrewcellini]

RUnning in circles naked to pray to gods. That would be ruled disturbing.

I'm not sure who is being harmed by the nudity in that hypothetical.

 

Also, if a religion constitutes human sacrifices, murder, torture, etc, I would say we make it illegal.

Why would you need to make another law barring acts which are probably already going to be illegal under your government ie murder, torture, etc? That seems redundant. And so long as the followers of the religion do not perform rituals which would be considered illegal why couldn't they be allowed the freedom to practice?

Edited May 23, 2016 by andrewcellini

[Delta1212]

I would agree win truth in advertising laws, not really sure what you mean by no gerrymandering. I know the definition, but I don't understand it very well. By tight limits on time spent fundraising, do you mean for already elected officials, or ones running for election? I would say a percentage of the budget rather than the dollar, but it's about the same thing. I would agree for compulsory voting, and election days national paid holidays.

 

Also, what would you consider the best parts of their health cares?

 

Discrimination would be classified as "A different treatment of any sentient person, creature, or thing based solely on the differences between the discriminator and the discriminated, whether it be gender, color, size, or religion." I'm sure i'm missing some stuff, so feel free to modify until we all agree that it covers everything fairly.

Religious freedom would be "the freedom to practice religious practices anytime, anywhere, for any reason, as long as that religious practice doesn't break any laws, or is ruled disturbing by the court." I.E. RUnning in circles naked to pray to gods. That would be ruled disturbing. Satanic rituals are in my opinion disturbing. You? Also, if a religion constitutes human sacrifices, murder, torture, etc, I would say we make it illegal. We would have to refine that part, but you guys get the idea right?

Public safety would include police, hospitals, firefighters, etc.

For gun control, read the last few pages.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/

What if someone decides worshipping a god or gods is disturbing? Where does the line of "disturbing" get drawn? How is "disturbing" defined? Is it just "things I don't like?" Because that is going to vary wildly from person to person and be subject to rather extreme abuse if the court decides to just ban all religions that the people on it decide they don't personally like.

[Phi for All]

What if someone decides worshipping a god or gods is disturbing?

 

Given that other laws would probably cover most anything wrong a religion could do, why is there any need to treat religion any differently than stamp-collecting, or business/lodge meetups, or bowling leagues?

[iNow]

not really sure what you mean by no gerrymandering.

Voters should be the ones picking their elected officials, not the other way around as is happening today.

 

do you mean for already elected officials, or ones running for election?

Anyone running for election, whether or not they're incumbent.

 

Also, what would you consider the best parts of their health cares?

The parts that cover everyone, maximize health outcomes, minimize costs, and maximize efficiency.

.

 

.

[Raider5678]

If we are to start with desired outcomes first I think no war, poverty, or discrimination are the main goals. Lets not kill people, lets ensure everyone has basic needs, and we accomplish this without discriminating against any specific group(s).

 

How do we accomplish that desired goal? @ Raider5678, from where are we starting from scratch or from present day present world?

Well, I would agree with not starting a war with someone for no reason, but I think should it be a matter of destruction or survival of us or an ally, we intervene to prevent the worst. Eliminating poverty is going to be hard. Giving people jobs would work better then welfare, but we'll cover that later. No poverty has been added to the list.

I'm not sure who is being harmed by the nudity in that hypothetical.

 

Why would you need to make another law barring acts which are probably already going to be illegal under your government ie murder, torture, etc? That seems redundant. And so long as the followers of the religion do not perform rituals which would be considered illegal why couldn't they be allowed the freedom to practice?

I thought about that. The problem is that if a religion's main purpose is to do stuff like that, I would say not. Take Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, they would be fine. I think if a religion is dangerous, it shouldn't be hard to tell. The problem with that religion is that even though satanic rituals are not allowed in the united states, the satanic religion is. And when people become so endorsed in the simple teaching "If you don't do as stated in the holy book, you will spend all of eternity in hell." That motivates people to do those things. Obviously only with insane people, but it's still motivating you to do them.

 

What if someone decides worshipping a god or gods is disturbing? Where does the line of "disturbing" get drawn? How is "disturbing" defined? Is it just "things I don't like?" Because that is going to vary wildly from person to person and be subject to rather extreme abuse if the court decides to just ban all religions that the people on it decide they don't personally like.

Now where would you draw the line of disturbing? I would say the court can say its "disturbing" if it involves things most people would find horrifying, deadly, inappropriate.... Yeah, let's kick this one out. Bad idea.

 

 

Given that other laws would probably cover most anything wrong a religion could do, why is there any need to treat religion any differently than stamp-collecting, or business/lodge meetups, or bowling leagues?

See my other post.

 

 

 

 

 

Below are the desired outcomes so far.

Since nobody wants to start, I will......

No discrimination.

Religious freedom.

Public safety.

Guns allowed, though regulated.

Add some more guys.

 

 

Direct democracy, little politicians needed.

Well funded space program.

Universal health care

 

 

For UHC, we could easily combine the best parts of what they do in UK, Canada, Taiwan, France, Australia, and Sweden.

 

To the thread: Instant Run-Off voting becomes required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

 

Truth in advertising laws.

No more gerrymandering.

Tight limits on time spent fund raising.

Required percentage of every dollar spent used to find ways to make system being legislated/implemented more efficient.

Make voting compulsory.

Make election days national paid holidays.

 

I've shared several ideas in other threads elsewhere. These are just a few off the top of my mind this morning.

 

 

If we are to start with desired outcomes first I think no war, poverty, or discrimination are the main goals. Lets not kill people, lets ensure everyone has basic needs, and we accomplish this without discriminating against any specific group(s).

 

How do we accomplish that desired goal? @ Raider5678, from where are we starting from scratch or from present day present world?

Heres a list of the desired outcomes so far. Let's just come up with them first, and once we have a large list, we will go over each one and decide it ifs a good one or not, and specific details.

Here's the list:

 

No discrimination.

Religious Freedom.

Public Safety.

Guns allowed.

Direct Democracy.

Funded Space Program. (I would love this)

Universal Health Care.

Truth in advertising laws.

No more gerrymandering.

Tight limits on time spent fundraising.

Required percentage of every dollar spent used to find ways to make system being legislated/implemented more efficient.

Make voting compulsory.

Make election days national paid holidays.

No war.

No poverty.

 

That IS the list so far. Add some more. Remember, we are ONLY coming up with them first, then we will go over them 2 or 3 at a time, discussing specifics. Also, if you object to a current outcome, we will discuss it later, and you can state your objections. After we do this, I'm not sure what we do then. Maybe come up with some laws. Also, while thinking about some laws, I think we should have a document that CAN NOT be changed, edited, or over ruled. Like, murder is illegal, etc. Simple stuff. Just to get that out of the way.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Raider5678

[Delta1212]

Not to jump ahead, but you have to keep in mind that you need a definition for what qualifies at murder. And because definitions can often be somewhat blurry and subject to unforeseen circumstances, having a completely immutable and unchangeable under any circumstances set of rules is rarely a good idea when establishing a government.

 

(I had to get that in on behalf of an old friend of mine. I was involved with an online political sim for quite a few years and wrote several documents outlining government structures that were used to organize players and had a friend I'd bounce ideas off of whose big thing was amendment processes).

[Raider5678]

Not to jump ahead, but you have to keep in mind that you need a definition for what qualifies at murder. And because definitions can often be somewhat blurry and subject to unforeseen circumstances, having a completely immutable and unchangeable under any circumstances set of rules is rarely a good idea when establishing a government.

 

(I had to get that in on behalf of an old friend of mine. I was involved with an online political sim for quite a few years and wrote several documents outlining government structures that were used to organize players and had a friend I'd bounce ideas off of whose big thing was amendment processes).

I did take that into account. I figured only basic law that we today think should never be broken should be added, and the definitions could change. I rarely do things without a back door, as I'm a person whose ideas rarely work, but I also don't really like pointing out the backdoors. THough in this case, Maybe we could come up with a perfect definition, I'm still not sure.

[Elite Engineer]

ehhh I was just assume an egalitarian democracy with a mixed economy....

[Ken Fabian]

Apart from the obvious, that if we really want a perfect government we wouldn't start from here, it does look difficult to get sufficient agreement on what such a government should be. Dodging the politicians with direct representation sounds good - ought to be popular until it leads to populist votes for policies the public won't vote the funds for or directly contradicts the other thing they just voted for, or leads to unfair persecution of unpopular minorities or for wars without regard for the complications and costs or wars that the declared enemy democratically voted not to have. Or perhaps they would vote for a massive space program, or more likely (in my case) vote down a massive space program. Bills of Rights and statutory limitations, like a lot of rights, are only as good as the ability to fight effectively for them and bigotry is undeniably popular, but popular and well thought through policy, such as requires expertise to develop can be very different things.

 

I think there is something to be said for minimum professional standards and personal accountability for politicians and office holders. Can we ever agree on such standards? Given the importance of being well informed, minimum standards for media reporting seems necessary. How would that work? Having minimum standards for voter eligibility may be worth considering; if you don't understand an issue should you be allowed to have a say? When pushing people's buttons gets them to suspend careful, rational thought and entice them vote against their own interests is that a failure of individuals, media or political machine? But depriving anyone of the right to a say comes with it's own ethical problems.

 

I think we are pretty much stuck with the governing systems we have and any changes will be incremental; the embedded wealth=power dynamic will probably keep changes happening that entrench rather than limit corporate influence over government but revolution, especially in an age of widely available effective weaponry, will almost certainly take an enormous toll with little likelihood of a more perfect government being the outcome. How bad does a government have to be for armed insurrection, with all the destructive fallout, to actually be preferable?

Edited May 24, 2016 by Ken Fabian

[Raider5678]

Apart from the obvious, that if we really want a perfect government we wouldn't start from here, it does look difficult to get sufficient agreement on what such a government should be. Dodging the politicians with direct representation sounds good - ought to be popular until it leads to populist votes for policies the public won't vote the funds for or directly contradicts the other thing they just voted for, or leads to unfair persecution of unpopular minorities or for wars without regard for the complications and costs or wars that the declared enemy democratically voted not to have.

Mmmm. Where would you start? I also considered the populist problem, and I believe that we could find ways to prevent that kind of stuff. Like not giving the public the decision to start a nuclear war or not. I mean, that's just a minor opinion but....... Also, maybe it WOULD be a bad idea, but we'll discuss that when we get to it eh?

Also, instead of simply saying it could never work, try and do stuff to figure out how it might work, and while doing that figure out the problems.

 

 

I would like to add:

Limited Regulations

Harsher Punishments to Rape of a minor.

Harsher Punishments to Drunk Driving

Harsher Punishments to Drugs.

 

to the list. Any objections? We can decided on the punishments when we get there, and what regulations we would need and stuff like that.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Raider5678

[Delta1212]

What about drugs would be punished more harshly? Producing, selling, taking? And especially in the last case, why harsher punishment?

 

Also, why is punishment a goal in and of itself? I would view punishment as a means to an end: That is, reducing the instances of behaviors that we don't want to see prevalent in society. But there may be other means that work better than punishment for some things.

 

It's like building a house and saying that one of the things you want for your house is to use at least 1,000 nails in its construction. That's kind of an odd goal to have as a foundational goal.

[Ten oz]

Mmmm. Where would you start? I also considered the populist problem, and I believe that we could find ways to prevent that kind of stuff. Like not giving the public the decision to start a nuclear war or not. I mean, that's just a minor opinion but....... Also, maybe it WOULD be a bad idea, but we'll discuss that when we get to it eh?

Also, instead of simply saying it could never work, try and do stuff to figure out how it might work, and while doing that figure out the problems.

 

 

I would like to add:

Limited Regulations

Harsher Punishments to Rape of a minor.

Harsher Punishments to Drunk Driving

Harsher Punishments to Drugs.

 

to the list. Any objections? We can decided on the punishments when we get there, and what regulations we would need and stuff like that.

Why is punishment even being discussed? How to referee a game isn't something figured out before a game exists.