[phillip1882]

i really like to OP's idea for testing for intelligence. i also found the election bee an interesting idea.
a few further tips.
allow the alternative vote. when it's clear the candidate you desire isn't going to win, your vote goes to the second most desired candidate.
if we are going to have districts, which we currently do, allow mathematics to determine the districting. one approach is the split line method. place the shortest line that cuts a population in half, and continue doing so until you have the right number of districts.

[Qfwfq]

Folks, what it comes down to is that we like it to all depend on the people, let them choose which poison they prefer to swallow.

If you don't want them to swallow any poison the answer is excellent education. In many modern countries it is considered a fundamental while there are some (and increasingly) where it appears to be the greatest of priviledges. Most people are able to judge good and bad if a bit of sense is knocked into them and if only the take the care to follow matters public. These things are what make the difference between good and bad democracy.

As for Ratiocracy, who decides about who decides ... about which the criteria for eligibility ought to be?

Chaz, on 07 February 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

Why should those who are incapable of making good decisions be allowed to vote? You can come up with any 'equal rights' babble you want but the truth of the matter is allowing everybody to have a say in something ESPECIALLY when the majority have no idea what they are voting on, submit to peer pressure, or just fell for a expensive political campaign that brought about the illusion of competency is just irrational.

It seems like your Government Class is lengthy but, for whenever you get back from it:

Well, universal suffrage is not formally an essential feature of democracy and it was uncommon before quite recent times. However, there are arguments for it and not only against it. The main argument of those who oppose it is for the right of vote to follow from paople having interests to defend. The argument for it is that the lack of these can depend on not having any say in politics. So it goes round and round and universal suffrage is so that all can fight for their opportunities.

lawcat, on 10 September 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

Finally, as Qfwfq pointed out, there is already a fourth branch of government--the administrative branch.

Law, you twisted my words, that's not what I said. Neither would I call it accurate.

lawcat, on 10 September 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

Yes, they are under the executive branch for appointments, and sometimes under legislative, but they have discretion to administer the state matters, to interpret law, and judge.

I don't know all details of how it works in your country, but usually administration is a large part of the executive power. What discretion bureaucrats have descends from the politically elected power (including law, in a great part). Over here it definitely isn't the way you say it and I doubt it quite like that in hte U. S.

[kvraghavaiah]

I have updated the post. Added just 4 points in the last part to make the complete 'ideal government' model.

[MacPhee]

Governments make us pay taxes, and get killed in wars.

No-one actually wants to pay taxes, or get killed. So it's strange that we have "governments" who make us do these things.

Can't we see governments for what they are, and throw them off, like a horse shaking off flies?

[kvraghavaiah]

MacPhee, on 01 April 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Governments make us pay taxes, and get killed in wars.

No-one actually wants to pay taxes, or get killed. So it's strange that we have "governments" who make us do these things.

Can't we see governments for what they are, and throw them off, like a horse shaking off flies?

The model(guide) given above is for that purpose.

[Buffy]

MacPhee, on 01 April 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Governments make us pay taxes, and get killed in wars.

No-one actually wants to pay taxes, or get killed. So it's strange that we have "governments" who make us do these things.

Not really, because we all seem to want what we get from the wars and taxes, like not being subjugated by funny looking people we don't like, and having roads and a fire department and such.

MacPhee, on 01 April 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Can't we see governments for what they are, and throw them off, like a horse shaking off flies?

Well you could. Be careful what you wish for though, dude.


Well, unless someone makes a claim for it, I figure it's lost property,
Buffy

[Rade]

kvraghavaiah, on 29 August 2010 - 10:36 PM, said:

Ideal GovernmentThe primary requisite of government of a country is that it should wish and work for the well being of its people effectively.

I disagree with your basic premise of the primary requisite of government.

You are looking for the 'ideal government', so we must begin with the concept ideal, what does it mean ? Ideal = perfect, which is defined in context of government as precise or faultless. Thus the question we must ask: is it precise and faultless to say that the primary requisite of an ideal government is that it 'should wish and work for the well being of its people effectively" ? The answer is clearly no.

The first defect is that no ideal government should 'wish' for anything ! So, we remove wishing operation and we have: ideal government should work for the well being of its people effectively. Is this perfect and faultless ? No. The term "well being" is much too general. For example it would require that the perfect government work effectively to make sure my family has a car to drive, since all will agree that having a car in USA contributes to the well being of families. But, does the USA Constitution grant a car to all families ? Of course not, and the reason is because the USA Constitution does not have as a primary requisite to "work for the well being of its people". Now, yes, the USA Constitution is not ideal, but a reason is not because it does not work for the well being of citizens to grant each family a car.

So, given that an ideal government (1) does not wish for anything and (2) ought not work for well being of its people, what is the function of the ideal government ?

Try this:

The ideal government is an institution that holds exclusive power to effectively enforce rules and laws of social conduct of its people. So the question then becomes, in an ideal government what rules and laws of social conduct should exist ? Perhaps we can discuss this ?

[Buffy]

Rade, on 03 April 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

The ideal government is an institution that holds exclusive power to effectively enforce rules and laws of social conduct of its people. So the question then becomes, in an ideal government what rules and laws of social conduct should exist ? Perhaps we can discuss this ?

The natural order of any social grouping is that there are conflicts between individuals. A key purpose of government is to fairly mediate these conflicting positions using rules everyone agrees to.

I think there is some "good" that a government can provide *at the behest of it's citizens*, but the most effective of these uses the common "insurance model" whereby society collectively understands that it is cheaper to insure all members against various broad calamities than to reduce society into "every man for himself"; thus we have disaster relief, social security, medicare, the Department of Defense, etc. all of which "pay claims" to individuals based on their "losses" from some "risk".


Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism,
Buffy

[MacPhee]

Doesn't the existence of the word "government", show that most people yearn to be governed. We want to be told what to to. What rules to obey. The rules and regulations give us pleasure. We like to comply with them. Complying with them gives us a good feeling. It satisfies us.

We are the sheep, who enjoy following the shepherd who guides us. The shepherd leads us to pastures new, and protects us from the wolves, and we are grateful for the governance. We are passive followers, and that is our place in life.

Isn't this why we have governments?

[kvraghavaiah]

MacPhee, on 04 April 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

Doesn't the existence of the word "government", show that most people yearn to be governed. We want to be told what to to. What rules to obey. The rules and regulations give us pleasure. We like to comply with them. Complying with them gives us a good feeling. It satisfies us.

We are the sheep, who enjoy following the shepherd who guides us. The shepherd leads us to pastures new, and protects us from the wolves, and we are grateful for the governance. We are passive followers, and that is our place in life.

Isn't this why we have governments?

Yes. Good shepherd, not butcher shepherd.

[kvraghavaiah]

Rade, on 03 April 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

The ideal government is an institution that holds exclusive power to effectively enforce rules and laws of social conduct of its people. So the question then becomes, in an ideal government what rules and laws of social conduct should exist ? Perhaps we can discuss this ?

The ideal government is an institution that holds exclusive power to effectively enforce sustainable rules and laws of social conduct of its people
=
The primary requisite of government of a country is that it should wish and work for the well being of its people effectively.

You can know what is sustainability of Rules/laws here..

http://theknowledgeo...cuments/law.htm

[Buffy]

MacPhee, on 04 April 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

Doesn't the existence of the word "government", show that most people yearn to be governed. We want to be told what to to. What rules to obey. The rules and regulations give us pleasure. We like to comply with them. Complying with them gives us a good feeling. It satisfies us.

We are the sheep, who enjoy following the shepherd who guides us. The shepherd leads us to pastures new, and protects us from the wolves, and we are grateful for the governance. We are passive followers, and that is our place in life.

Isn't this why we have governments?

That's silly! People want the government to *serve* them: take care of the details of enforcement of laws that we all agree to. As long as the government does that, we pat them on the head and reelect them.

If the government starts doing things the people don't like, they get angry and punish the government (unless the government manages to subjugate the people, which is just a more extreme and time-consuming-and-expensive-to-rectify case).

Calling the people "sheep" for being happy with what their government does is kind of like saying if you like to eat tomatoes, then you're addicted to them.

That's a wee bit of overstatement, no?

Great set up for a straw-man though! Good try!


Even sheep should have brains enough not to follow the wolf,
Buffy

[MacPhee]

Buffy, on 04 April 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

People want the government to *serve* them: take care of the details of enforcement of laws that we all agree to. As long as the government does that, we pat them on the head and reelect them.

No Buffy, they don't want that. That might be how it's supposed to work. And it probably does, at a local level. Like electing town councils. They serve us by providing local amenities, collecting rubbish, not closing the library, and so on. But this is all small stuff.

When we get to a bigger scale, like the whole nation, we want a strong leader.

Think about leaders of the recent past: Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, Mao. These people were absolute pillocks, judged objectively, and ought to have been shot.

The thing is though: they were powerful. They had grandiose, inspiring, world-transforming ideas. And above all - they told us what to do. And we enjoyed that. It made life clear and simple! Like in WWII: Rosie the Riveter, Digging for Victory, Spitfires from Saucepans, Dad's Army, ARP, Fire Watching, Potato Pie, Whale Meat, Ration Coupons, and so on. These things thought up by our wartime leaders inspired us. They made us feel we had a common purpose.

So I think most people are happier with strong leaders. The so-called democratic process only causes bad feelings. Doesn't it create a kind of perpetual angst?

[Buffy]

MacPhee, on 05 April 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

No Buffy, they don't want that. That might be how it's supposed to work. And it probably does, at a local level. Like electing town councils. They serve us by providing local amenities, collecting rubbish, not closing the library, and so on. But this is all small stuff.

Sounds like you're projecting.

MacPhee, on 05 April 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

When we get to a bigger scale, like the whole nation, we want a strong leader.

Well, we don't want a wimp or a do-nothing. We want results.

But your oversimplification is laughable:

MacPhee, on 05 April 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Think about leaders of the recent past: Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, Mao. These people were absolute pillocks, judged objectively, and ought to have been shot.

I'm sure there are lots of Anarchists who agree with you.

That's not "objective" though.

Saying that people really want to completely abdicate all influence and just trust anyone ONLY AT A NATIONAL LEVEL, absolutely defies logic.

Again, nice try at a straw man, but it really doesn't even pass the smell test.

Seriously saying Churchill == Hitler is really kinda, uh, out there dude.


You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do,
Buffy