Hi gebyatt. Couple of points:

Hi gebyatt. Couple of points:

I think Alan is correct in pointing out that one glaring weakness in your sysetm is in deciding who is qualified to be an expert. Your web site suggests that government experts would be term limited, but nothing is specified about who picks the experts who will be appointed. And they will be appointed, not voted in, apparently. Which leads to the conclusion that there will be some kind of panel – or several panels – with the power to determine expertise and the power to make appointments. How will the panel(s) be constituted? How will the panelists be chosen? Is there any democracy left in this system, where regular people -- read non-experts --  actually have a voice in who will run government?

I also found this interesting:

 “Expert Government is a single entity with no politicians or parties, just experts and some administrative staff to help them.”

 “Some administrative staff” is another way of saying “bureaucracy.” In present forms of government -- all of them -- they are the real power, the ones who know how to get things done – or not, as they so choose. I suspect your new government will be the same. The “experts” might make decisions, but it will be up to the “administrative staff” – the REAL experts – to get things done.

You should also keep in mind that, in a very real sense, we already have the form of government you describe. In our democracies, elected legislators and agency heads (or in Britain’s case, members of parliament and ministers) rely on smaller committees of members and their staffers who have (or quickly acquire) expertise in their specific spheres of responsibility. Whether Senate or House committees or subcommittees in the U.S. or select committees in the U.K., these panels provide the expertise – or seek expert testimony or contract for expert services and advice – in matters having to do with their areas of governing.

This way, we get the expertise I think we all agree is necessary as well as representative government, which, I’ll  agree with Alan, is vital for the protection of the rights of individual citizens. Under your proposal, “expert” can all too easily be read as, or become, “elites,” who, with no seeming accountability under your system to those they make decisions for, would almost certainly come to abuse that power.

Checks and balances are vital to keeping any government doing its job with a minimum of corruption and absolutism. Who checks your experts? Who do they answer to, if not to voters? What’s to stop a “chief expert” from taking power?

Reply

  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <br> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.