It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like:Chrome,Firefox,Internet Explorer orOpera

×
arrow-down2arrowcart2close4fat-arrow-leftfat-arrow-rightfeedbackfriends2happy-facelogo-gognotificationnotifications-emptyownedremove-menusad-facesearch2wishlist-menuwishlisted2own_thingsheartstartick
What about checks and balances? What would stop these ubermenschen from using their seats of power for their own purposes? After all, look at the current situation in our country where it feels like we are being robbed by the government.
Yes. But what about the MINIMUM state? Everything is kept in private hands , and only military, police ETC are kept in government hands?

People knows best what's the best from them, right? That includes health care, roads, schools, all kept in private hands.

Aristocracy would be the one who decides over military, logistics and everything than cannot be held by individuals.

I know it's just pure wishes, but I would like to live free, without all this NANNY state bullshit...
avatar
JudasIscariot: Well, there's always meritocracy....
Exactly.
And if you could choose between meritocracy and mediocracy, what would it be?
avatar
keeveek: I know it's just pure wishes, but I would like to live free, without all this NANNY state bullshit...
The Nanny State is a symptom of the disease.
Post edited May 15, 2011 by Osama_bin_Laden
What about checks and balances? What would stop these ubermenschen from using their seats of power for their own purposes? After all, look at the current situation in our country where it feels like we are being robbed by the government.
avatar
keeveek: Yes. But what about the MINIMUM state? Everything is kept in private hands , and only military, police ETC are kept in government hands?

People knows best what's the best from them, right? That includes health care, roads, schools, all kept in private hands.

Aristocracy would be the one who decides over military, logistics and everything than cannot be held by individuals.

I know it's just pure wishes, but I would like to live free, without all this NANNY state bullshit...
Concerning health care and privatization I suggest you read up on some of the HMO horror stories from the USA. Want to see people get screwed over on health care because of a "pre-existing condition" or better yet how about we decide not to treat those who happen to have a condition that is genetic in nature and not lifestyle-based like lung cancer or emphysema? Or how about trying to file a claim with an HMO? It's like going to our government offices here in PL. You are more likely to die of whatever is ailing you before you get anywhere with an HMO. Don't get me started on what happens if a private hospital accepts HMO A and C but not B.

"Prywaciarze" (private owners in English for non-Poles) are even worse than the government as far as roads go. Why? Because they like to cut costs down to the lowest common denominator. You think our roads are bad now? Just see what happens when private companies get into the action. Also, doesn't our government sublet road construction to private companies anyways? I seem to recall some time ago an article about a Chinese company coming here to build some expressways because they had the lowest bid.

We already have private schools here, don't we?

The United States is your place to be if you don't like the nanny state :P.
avatar
JudasIscariot: Well, there's always meritocracy....
avatar
Osama_bin_Laden: Exactly.
And if you could choose between meritocracy and mediocracy, what would it be?
avatar
keeveek: I know it's just pure wishes, but I would like to live free, without all this NANNY state bullshit...
avatar
Osama_bin_Laden: The Nanny State is a symptom of the disease.
It would have to depend on how you would apply the meritocratic state. How would you apply a meritocratic state in reality?
Post edited May 15, 2011 by JudasIscariot
avatar
JudasIscariot: It would have to depend on how you would apply the meritocratic state. How would you apply a meritocratic state in reality?
I wrote an unfinished draft for a system which was a mix between a democracy and a meritocracy earlier. I don't want to take the time to write everything that is needed for such a system to work. My point is that if we allow ourselves to leave behind the idea that democracies are the only good systems of government we can find systems that work better.
People in the west have left behind more and more of the morality of old and have replaced them with a faith in democracy and equality. I think it is time to rethink this.


avatar
Osama_bin_Laden: Everybody that has proven themselves able by some criteria gets the power of a vote. (Some of the criteria could be: Manager of a business or organization with more than 20 employees. A scientist that have published more than four papers to a peer-reviewed publication.)

These people would then vote for 50 - 300 people that would form some sort of council. All of these would come from the original group of voters but would have to undergo many tests of skills, intelligence and knowledge before they are given a total score that is the sum of all these tests. If you get a score number above a certain threshold you can run for election to the council. (There should after every election be a review and some research done on the results of these tests to see if the threshold should be raised or lowered or if the tests should be changed.)
These men and women that get elected to this council will then after a further election process among them, choose a leader and 5 - 20 other people (a fixed number) that will form the executive branch of government. Prior to this, everybody that want to run for leader or minister will have to be subjected to many further tests that will be public and debate each other like politicians in democracy do before an election. The common public should be able to watch these debates if they want to, but since they will not partake in the election it is not so important to give them a wide coverage of the process.

This is just a rough draft. This system need many checks and balances like democratic systems do, but if democratic systems can have it there is no reason for this system not to have it.
The main problem will be the anger that the populace will feel for not being able to partake. There are many things that could be done about this. One of them could be to create a criteria that would give you the power of voting that could be possible to get for anyone but would still be so difficult that only the most determined would get it.
avatar
JudasIscariot: It would have to depend on how you would apply the meritocratic state. How would you apply a meritocratic state in reality?
avatar
Osama_bin_Laden: I wrote an unfinished draft for a system which was a mix between a democracy and a meritocracy earlier. I don't want to take the time to write everything that is needed for such a system to work. My point is that if we allow ourselves to leave behind the idea that democracies are the only good systems of government we can find systems that work better.
People in the west have left behind more and more of the morality of old and have replaced them with a faith in democracy and equality. I think it is time to rethink this.
Not everyone can be managers of companies, paper publishing scientists, and titans of industry. Otherwise there would be no one to do any of the practical stuff required. Isn't there a better way of measuring merit in a meritocracy? I was thinking of income = voting power but we would still be faced with the rich and super rich being able to decide on everything and I don't think that a "tyranny of the minority" is a better alternative than the "tyranny of the majority". Another negative point is that when evaluating someone's merit you have a lot of subjectivity being used instead of a clean objective system of measurement. What gives you (in the general sense not specifically YOU) the power and the authority to decide whether an individual has any merit whatsoever? how do you measure it?
Your points are valid, but a system without faults does not exist and never will.

avatar
JudasIscariot: Not everyone can be managers of companies, paper publishing scientists, and titans of industry. Otherwise there would be no one to do any of the practical stuff required. Isn't there a better way of measuring merit in a meritocracy?
Yes, most certainly. There should be many other merits that should qualify, especially for to get a better selection of good people and good ideas.

But much less than everyone should be included, sure, there may be some taxi drivers out there that would actually do a very good job as a minister but the percentage of taxi drivers capable of that are much lower than among successful entrepreneurs .

The people that sweep our floors and dig roads has very important jobs that we are dependent on, but even though they do a a good job it does not mean that they are fit for making big decisions. Most people are not interested in those things that they should be required to have knowledge in for to make such decisions.

avatar
JudasIscariot: I was thinking of income = voting power but we would still be faced with the rich and super rich being able to decide on everything
Far from everyone that are rich are fit to vote or rule. It would be a better selection than anyone over 18 but it would be much better to select those that have shown some merit by falling into a certain criteria and then measure their skills and knowledge before they pass.

avatar
JudasIscariot: and I don't think that a "tyranny of the minority" is a better alternative than the "tyranny of the majority".
I disagree.

avatar
JudasIscariot: Another negative point is that when evaluating someone's merit you have a lot of subjectivity being used instead of a clean objective system of measurement. What gives you (in the general sense not specifically YOU) the power and the authority to decide whether an individual has any merit whatsoever? how do you measure it?
The rules for evaluating merits must be written down as rules but should be open to smaller modifications in the future. These rules should be planned well in advance of course.

This system would not be totally fair for everyone or without corruption but neither is the democracies of today.
@Osama_bin_Laden because I don't feel like mucking about with the quote system

Far from everyone that are rich are fit to vote or rule. It would be a better selection than anyone over 18 but it would be much better to select those that have shown some merit by falling into a certain criteria and then measure their skills and knowledge before they pass.

What are these skills and how would you measure their usefulness? What about knowledge? Will the potential voter have to take an exam before voting? Would this be a one time thing or would they have to take a different test for different referendums?

Why do you disagree on the "tyrannies of the majority/minority" ?

he rules for evaluating merits must be written down as rules but should be open to smaller modifications in the future. These rules should be planned well in advance of course.

This system would not be totally fair for everyone or without corruption but neither is the democracies of today.


How would the modifications work? Who would decide when, what, and how to modify these rules?

About unfairness: As long as a given system of government has the least amount of unfairness for the least amount of people, we can safely say that it is the best system.
avatar
JudasIscariot: What are these skills and how would you measure their usefulness? What about knowledge? Will the potential voter have to take an exam before voting? Would this be a one time thing or would they have to take a different test for different referendums?
I won't speculate on this now but I'm convinced we could come up with some that would give a good result.

avatar
JudasIscariot: Why do you disagree on the "tyrannies of the majority/minority" ?
Simply because I think that a "tyranny of the minority" is a better alternative than the "tyranny of the majority"

avatar
JudasIscariot: How would the modifications work? Who would decide when, what, and how to modify these rules?
I won't speculate on this now but I'm convinced we could come up with some that would give a good result.


avatar
JudasIscariot: About unfairness: As long as a given system of government has the least amount of unfairness for the least amount of people, we can safely say that it is the best system.
I see. Some kind of communism that actually does work would be the ideal system for you then?

Example:

Good Green Country before the Ali Baba Communism revolution:
Best Healthcare quality: 450
Worst Healthcare quality: 140

Good Green Country after the Ali Baba Communism revolution:
Best Healthcare quality: 250
Worst Healthcare quality: 200


Carpathian Confederacy before the "musical chairs" communism revolution:
Best Healthcare quality: 360
Worst Healthcare quality: 120

Carpathian Confederacy after the "musical chairs" communism revolution:
Best Healthcare quality: 105
Worst Healthcare quality: 100


Even the last example where the new system lowered the quality for everybody would be a better system since it is has a higher degree of fairness for everybody.
Having fairness as the only measurement of how good a system is would be rather insane don't you think?

And even giving it a very high importance would be bad, for it is much easier to create equality by lowering something for everybody than raising something for everybody.

Another example is the song "The Trees" by the rock band Rush:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXeUvDOMgGY
Post edited May 15, 2011 by Osama_bin_Laden