an idea government,

Post Reply New Topic

An idea government is one that combines the good aspects, and none of the bad aspects, of both democracy and comunism. Such a system would be relegated to small communities, rather than large big brother governments. Hince, it would be easier for the people to filter out corruption. Such a system would be free to the point that there wouldn't be a "public opinion" on most issues, unless it was something that was horrendously evil (like rape or murder). Yet, it would rely on a trade system instead of currency, and like communism, would not be so structured on class levels and capitolism. Everyone would be equal. Education and both individual and community self improvement would be incouraged, not discouraged. Television would be done away with, since TV is responsible for segmenting and making igorant and stupid many members of society, as it is designed by former USSR to be a propaganda machine.
The people ultimately would come together in the villiage square to vote, by individual strengths and weaknesses, who would be their doctors, lawyers, policemen, fireman, school teachers, construction workers, soldiers, etc... And delegated officials, but not elected, delegated. In other words, he/she is subject to the authority of his people, his/her job is merely an organizer.

I'm a die-hard card-carrying member of the Libertarian party (and NRA member) Even I think this is a load of horsecrap.

This is one of the worst ideas in the history of ideas.

I think that this idea means well but just isn't well implemented.

For one thing, getting rid of TV would just piss people off. Too many of us are simply too used to the comforts and pleasures that the media provides. Plus, people are going to remain ignorant and foolish and biased with or without TV. It's most definately not the only source of misinformation, and any source of information that came in to replace it would have similar corruption and misinformation.

I also really don't like the idea of people choosing your job for you. What if you get voted as city plumber or city garbage collector, or city "cubical guy" when you'd rather be an artist? I can imagine making enemies within the community, who then decide to vote you into a really crappy job because they don't like you.

I like small communities, though, and the emphesis on education and individuals' self-improvement.

My ideal government would be one that is socialist and will nationalise all the major industries both for profit from other countries, and for the good of the people. The nation in general would be put before money. The leader would be an elected dictator with many powers, but a general election would be held every 5 years, or whenever 3/4 of the population campaign for it. There would be an authority monitoring corruption and the leader's actions, with the power to broadcast the truth, and hold a new election. The leader would have to make their aims clear, and advertising would be banned. Only unbiased information booklets/ public information broadcasts would tell people about the leaders, along with their published argument, which must be unbiased holding only the objectives of the leader, why and how it will be achieved.

The leader must work only for the benefit of the people and prove that they are doing so. Their principles would have to be made clear, and they would be bound to them.

In essence, a hybrid democracy-dictatorship, with many safeguards.

EDIT- DOUBLE POST

I didn't work out all the bugs, the people should be able to pick their own jobs... Honestly I'm under the impression that robots should take over our work force (aside from robots technicians and scientists, and authoritive positions). It would break man from the chains of manual labor... I'm in support of a new trade system too, in order to replace money for a non-capitolist system, non-status system. I think they just need to realise that not every concievable item under the sun can be up for trade, just neccessities... And if they establish an official chart for lets say, how many ears of corn are worth how many sheep, etc, it can solve alot of disputes in the trade system.
I used to know a punk rock squat out in the mountains where they rarely ever used money, they always traded things. They rarely ever had arguments, unless someone was drunk and feeling alittle froggy.

Are you a technocrat in hiding?

I wouldn't trust putting too much power in robotics because they'll always be some very talented hackers, many of whom lack a sense of morality and could undoubtedly crash the entire economy given the chance, just for the laugh and bragging rights. "I was the guy who crashed the Starbucks factory and caused the entire US economy to go bonkers." (Not ALL hackers are like this, no, but most of the prepubescent ones are, and most hackers are either prepubescent or act like they are.) Plus, there'll always be bugs.

I dunno, Snake, what I've found is that no system works the way it should, and that in the end it depends on the execution more than anything.

I think things could work if the general populace weren't a bunch of imbuciles.

my ideal government would be runned by individual states, instead of 50 states that make up one country. that will illiminate alot of problems right there

The territorial-based nation state is history. Soon it will go the same way as the ancient states or the medieval kingdoms. The state is not something to take for granted, but a specific way to administrate security. I actually do believe in the federation - formed on voluntarily based local and regional units - of an anarchist model today could administrate our safety better. As for resource management, we do actually have the technocratic alternative.

That's what I was trying to formulate in my mind, a form of technocratic anarchy. However, I think only intelligent people should be able to have voices that influence decisions. So I also agree a bit with geniocracy.

No one with a two number IQ should have the right to vote.

Hell, nobody who knows nothing about anything should vote. I don't care if they have an IQ of 300 or that of 30, if they do not know about history, politics, and economics and maybe even the candidates to a satisfactory extent then they shouldn't be voting. The only problem is that such tests for such things have been abused in the past.

There has been two kinds of non-democratic systems with voting rights during the 19th century, namely property-based voting and wealth-based voting. People could maybe not vote about who is going to be their brain-surgeon, but maybe to what extent surgery should be tax-financed.