Thank you Henry My project is

Thank you Henry

My project is not complete, it is a big undertaking. A large amount of complexity exists that is not fully worked out, although more material exists than is on my web site. I added some detailed material in the past and subsequently removed it because incomplete it raises more questions than it answers. Nonetheless, I feel it is important to get feedback on what I have so far to minimise the chance that I have missed something significant. Sadly, when I seek views on forums some seem to prefer to immediately criticise the effort rather than look for value in it.

Experts are appointed in a similar way to a job. The existing experts in the relevant specialism, i.e. the potential colleagues, along with appointments experts (effectively a sub-role of the typical human resources role) review the candidates and employ the one they feel is best suited. This works well enough outside of government. It just needs a little adjustment. Your “regular people” comments make me suspect you are conflating two concepts here. This is quite common. I use the term expert as normally defined. I am not implying an elite or privileged member of society, which for example UK politicians typically are. Civilisation exists because almost everyone is collaborating as a specialist in some field. For example, cleaners are just as much specialists as particle physicists. An expert is simply a specialist who is good in their field. They need not be the best in the world, just good. Almost everyone is a specialist in something, and many are experts. What I am suggesting is that as civilisation based on specialisation works so well, why not use it for government. Indeed, if one were creating a system of government without the knowledge of any existing forms of government, why would anyone do anything differently than copy that very successful model? One might argue for Specialist Government if one wanted to lower the entrance requirements used in Expert Government. Specialist Government would be more egalitarian as it would not exclude anyone. However, I feel that government is important because of its far reaching effects, so asking for good over random ability seems wise. I may be over optimistic about how much difference this would make.

Although Expert Government contains some elements of democracy, so far I have avoided calling it a form of democracy. There are three principle democratic elements. Firstly, people need not join a political party to get into government. As being in government is a job, everyone has the opportunity, and there are very many jobs. Thus more people have direct influence on government policy. As distributing power to many non-elite people is the foundation of democracy, in a sense Expert Government is more democratic than representative democracy. Obviously this is at the cost of losing a vote for a representative. I think what is lost in one vote is miniscule influence over government policy relative to what is gained in wider distribution of power. This combined with a quick turnover of experts brings useful influence to more of the people over time. Secondly, one of the detailed elements not mentioned yet on my web site is a citizen-government contract. This is notionally similar to a constitution/charter/bill of rights. It is not immutable but changes to it may be proposed by government, individuals, and groups. However, due to its importance, proposed changes are voted on by all people. This is designed to make it difficult to change, but prevent inflexibility that would cause it to become anachronistic. Thirdly, another element that is not yet on my web site is an independent organisation that allows people and groups to challenge government if they feel that it has acted against the citizen-government contract. That organisation exists outside of government and the legal system and use of it is free. It only considers matters of conformance to the citizen-government contract. The people who assess the matters are drawn for the populace in a similar way to jurors appointed for court cases.

Your comments on “bureaucracy” are a fair observation. For me at this point I think how day-to-day influence is managed is a detail. I see no reason to believe the balance of power between experts and administrators would be worse under Expert Government than any other form of government. Indeed, as there are many more experts than elected representatives there should be relatively less administration staff and overall the administrators would wield less power.

I partially agree with your point about there being something similar in place in the form of special committees etc. This is a tacit recognition of the value of experts. However, while these experts have influence they do not have authority. Their advice can be ignored by politicians with other agendas. In addition, I would also suggest that some of the advisors you are talking about have their own agendas. They are very different from someone selected from the general public with an egalitarian agenda.

How can you tell that experts would abuse power any more than the politicians? Many people are suspicious about the motives of politicians. I certainly believe that many are motivated by power and wealth. The experts in Expert Government have less power to abuse and for a limited time, further they are actively policed. People have an independent organisation to use to correct abuse, and open access to all information created in the course of government activity. A very important feature for limiting misuse of power is not having hierarchical power structures, which concentrates power in the hands of few and inevitably leads to abuse. Expert government is specialism structured. Influence is limited to one’s specialism and no expert has more influence than another. The importance of not having hierarchical power structures was recognised in the commune movement that was so popular in the US in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Unfortunately, while they had no hierarchical power structures they also had nothing to prevent abuse of personal influence. In specialism structured government members of a specialism may ask a policing unit to moderate an expert that they feel is exercising undue influence. Policing is also proactive, visiting specialisms even when not invited.

This is not about demolishing democracy. It is a rational re-examination of the design of government. Having looked at civilisation for examples of successful paradigms I found an idea that is worthy of consideration, simply because it is so successful.

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.