I am seeking constructive comments on a theoretical new form of government I have been developing called Expert Government.
Its principal feature is that all policy is devised by experts that act only within their specialisations. Expert Government is a single entity with no politicians or parties, just experts and some administrative staff to help them. Otherwise it is dogma free to enable it to adapt to changing needs and circumstances. Structurally its experts are grouped according to their respective specialisations, and all experts have equal influence within their specialism, but none outside of it. Influence is not organised into hierarchies.
The web site has a more information at http://expertgovernment.org.uk/.
There are two significant observations that influenced the principal feature of Expert Government. Firstly, most problems that befall us seem to be within our ability to prevent, because they arise from our own actions. Take for example recent sovereign debt problems. Secondly, humans have constructed very sophisticated and necessarily complex systems that enable advanced civilisation. Those systems are based on the principle of collaboration between many experts acting in their own specialisms. Indeed, it is hard to see how else such sophisticated systems could be organised. Now it is my opinion that a country is also a sophisticated system. I believe that the problems that befall us are because we do not use an organisation of experts for government. Instead the administrators are making decisions. These administrators are not sufficiently aware of all the sophistication and complexity in the system, so problems appear to them to come out of nowhere.
Thanks for reading, and any useful thoughts you may have.
@ geybyattYou said : To
@ geybyatt
You said : To Anonymous
“You ignore my premise about increasingly complex civilisation requiring increasingly sophisticated authority structures. To make progress in this discussion I will have to assume that you are making a tacit admission that it is correct, because you did not criticise it.”
In Joseph Tainter’s 1988 The Collapse of Complex Societies
Tainter writes, the "number of challenges with which the Universe can confront a society is, for practical purposes, infinite," complex societies need to keep on increasing their level of complexity in order to survive new challenges. Tainter's thesis is that these "investments in aditional complexity" produce fewer and fewer returns with time, until eventually society cannot muster enough energy to fuel complexity. At this point, society collapses.
Tainter would disagree with you that increasingly sophisticated authority structures are the solution to increasingly complex civilisation. His view is that the increasing energy input into increasingly sophisticated structures, produce diminishing returns to the point of ultimate collapse.
Many consider Joseph Tainter to be an expert.
Do you consider Tainter to be an expert?
DavidB Thank you for the
DavidB
Thank you for the reference to Joseph Tainter. I was not aware of it, but it sounds like the kind of material I will find interesting. Does he prophesy a date for this collapse, or better yet give some metric(s) to monitor our progress toward it? Obviously I cannot argue with conviction about your interpretation of his text. Nonetheless, the first point I would make is that in your first quote of his text he attends to challenges that he maintains are infinite for practical purposes. In the real-world the probability of unmanageable challenges occurring at any instant is I think increasing due to increasing complexity that is not well managed. I believe those challenges are still manageable. Certainly most of humanity is surviving them, just. That there are an infinite number of challenges is of no real-world relevance. It is their difficulty and distribution through time that is significant. As many of those challenges are some function of the way in which humanity impinges on the universe and itself, clearly my proposal for government designed to manage complexity will improve the lives of people and at least delay a collapse, if one is inevitable. At this point I will have to assume (because it sounds plausible) that he has evidenced diminishing returns on complexity. If he has it is not clear why collapse is inevitable rather than stasis – does he enlighten us on why that is? My immediate concern is that the systems of government in place today are not designed to address increasing complexity.
Another interesting notion to consider is that humanity has been contributing to its own problems and attendant solutions in a similar measure, but that they are becoming more significant overall. So for example it may be that human induced climate change is or will soon be a more significant problem than malaria. Such a pari passu creation of problems and solutions could imply humanity will always be at the point of collapse. Even in this scenario it would seem wise to redistribute some resources to minimising the problems of increasing complexity – to shift the balance away for the brink. A good case in point would be the effect of wars and financial debacles. If by improving government we could reduce them it would have a massive positive impact on humanity.
From the quotes you give I contend that Tainter would not disagree with me. More energy would be diverted into government under my scheme than current schemes. It would not use more. People and technology, and so complexity, are redistributed, not created. This must have a slowing effect on development, but in return would reduce the chance for significant problems.
As I do not know anything about Joseph Tainter I cannot say at this point if he is an expert or if other people are correct to think of him as such. I no doubt will be able to offer a view in the future. The fact that he has published and has at least one reader willing to quote him seems to indicate he probably knows something about the subject, although that does not necessarily denote the most refined and current understanding of the subject.
From what you have said so far Tainter does not account for advances that will be made in the future, nor can he, other than to note they may arrive. They may be the most important factor in this debate. I like to think that Expert Government is one such factor.
Thank you gebyatt for your
Thank you gebyatt for your response.
I don’t think Tainter is saying that collapse is inevitable, or that there is a point that can be identified as the time of collapse.
(From my perspective), It would seem that if a society pursued sustainability (true sustainability!), then the problems of collapse due to the pursuit of complexity could be avoided.
Therein is the problem, because we have (as a society) decided that growth, and the pursuit of ever complex systems and processes, is the way forward.
Tainter suggests (and I think rightly), that complexity requires energy inputs that provide less and less benefit until it becomes clear that NO new benefit will occur.
You say:
“In the real-world the probability of unmanageable challenges occurring at any instant is I think increasing due to increasing complexity that is not well managed. I believe those challenges are still manageable”.
I think that Tainter would argue that the ‘extra (even expert) management’ contributes to the energy inputs that will eventually prove worthless (due to diminishing returns).
You say:
“At this point I will have to assume (because it sounds plausible) that he has evidenced diminishing returns on complexity. If he has it is not clear why collapse is inevitable rather than stasis – does he enlighten us on why that is?”
You mention stasis.
This is crucial. Because it would appear that nature does not like stasis.
We are delving into cybernetics here and the notion of negative / positive feedback. But, it would appear that nature does not like stasis. Things are either in the ascendant, or descendant.
It’s just how it is.
How does this connect to your theory of an expert government?
You are trying to assert that experts would be better placed that ‘amateurs’, in running government, which seems on one level to be reasonable.
I apologise for the rambling reply, but the only analogy I can think of right now is in brewing beer or wine.
Yeast grows by feeding on the natural sugars in beer wort. The population of yeast grows very well until two things happen. First, the availability of sugar becomes ‘thin’. Secondly, in their consumption of the sugars, the yeast produces alcohol, which is a pollutant (to them) and will eventually kill them.
I accept that the above is a very poor analogy. But the point I’m making is that it doesn’t matter if the yeast are ‘amateurs or experts’. The outcome is the same for the ‘society of yeast’. The yeast (expert or otherwise) will consume sugar until they create an environment that they cannot thrive in.
Going back to Tainter, it doesn’t matter on the expertise. It’s the act of adding complexity that is the downfall. Complexity would grow to the point that no matter how much ‘expert management – energy’ you threw at it, it would stall, and descend into a collapse.
Tainter is well worth a read.
Take care
DavidB Thank you for your
DavidB
Thank you for your thoughts.
If you look carefully at what I say I make no value judgements about complexity. I do find that subject interesting, but it is difficult to talk about it with confidence because of the unknowns I refer to. If civilisation becomes more sophisticated and so more complex forever, Tainter may be correct, because the problems he highlights seem unassailable for the understanding we have currently. On the other hand people may choose a sustainable future. I believe this will require a sea change in human nature and so is also difficult to envisage. Instead I am concerned with the pragmatics of managing the complexity we do have, and note that it is currently increasing, if not accelerating. It is evident that humanity manages that complexity badly. I believe we can do better. However, I think that no small group of people can manage it. The system is already too complex. We must have a self-organising system of many specialists managing society. These specialists (or ideally experts) need to be concerned only with their specialism. There is no grand scheme, and no architects. A set of rules constrain the system that will be self-organising and respond to challenges.
I know that the current view in cybernetics is that equilibrium is not the norm in nature. Instead systems are in a constant state of change. What I have in mind is a set of many specialisms that initiate new specialisms, another that removes them, another that merges them, another that polices them, and of course the concern specialisms themselves. A key design feature is a set of rules that define how every specialism behaves in a generic sense, but they are not prescriptive about policy. This design would be compatible with the current view of cybernetics. It allows for continual evolution in response to changing needs, challenges, and understanding. This is why I am keen to exclude dogma which prevents that adaptability.
It may be that Tainter is correct about complexity ultimately being the undoing of humanity. However, it is not certain so we should not reject growth on that basis. More importantly, even if it were certain we need time to prepare another solution such a true sustainability. What I propose is a step. Think of my idea as an expediency for a better solution yet to be devised. I am certainly not fool enough to suggest that it will be the last form of government, but it may be the next. I am sure that many people throughout history have said that what they had was the best or last form of government. They were all wrong. With the benefit of that knowledge anyone who says it today is a fool. The question is: what will the next form of government look like?
To those that point out the discontinuity of these ideas I draw your attention to the earlier commune and Technocracy movements. Some of their ideas are rolled into my own ideas. Also Prof Graham’s ideas seem to circumscribe schemes like mine. This idea is not isolated. It is clear that many others have developed ideas along the same lines. Right up until representative democracy took hold people probably thought that that the old regime would never be replaced. The only thing that is required is that enough people see the wisdom of the new idea. They need to see that it is now impossible for any small group of people such as politicians to effectively manage the complexity of civilisation. I think the only viable way to manage such complexity is something like what I propose. Authority devolved to many self-organising independent groups of specialists.
My idea is mirrored in the extremely effective way commerce is organised. I doubt that anyone here can tell me of a more successful scheme to organise commerce, or why it should not work equally well for managing society as a whole. The matter of gaining the assent of the people is a matter of education, not a fundamental problem of the concept.
I am not intrinsically against voting, it simply is not relevant any more. As I said to Anonymous, to insist on it is to prioritise the means of obtaining effective government over the objective. Effective government is the objective and it is no longer compatible with voting for representatives, nor has it been for some time.
You said:"My idea is mirrored
You said:
"My idea is mirrored in the extremely effective way commerce is organised. I doubt that anyone here can tell me of a more successful scheme to organise commerce,"
There are numerous instances where commerce is corrupt, anti free trade, etc.
I'm afraid that you are missing the ultimate problem, which is that technical progress leaves only one problem unsolved: the frailty of human nature. Unfortunately that problem is insoluble
I agree that there are
I agree that there are problems with commerce based on a self-organising set of independent specialisms, but it is still the best scheme we have to manage a complex system, which is my point.
No scheme can correct for human nature. If I was to claim that mine could, then you would know I am nuts. I do the best I can to minimise the opportunities for human nature to game the system. In the end the system should not be so distorted by those efforts that it seriously compromises its objective to make government more effective.
Everything is a matter of balance. Whatever balance I choose I know there will be people who disagree with it. There is no perfect system, just systems that are more or less well suited to their time and the culture they manage. At this time in highly developed societies the dominant problem is ineffective government because it does not manage complexity well.
People have prioritised the vote, which is the means, over effective government, which is the objective. If we revisit the objective with a fresh perspective we can see the dominant problem of our time is ineffective management of complex civilisation. If we look around for the best way of managing a complex system it is a system of self-organising independent specialisms. I have taken that as the basis of my form of government and added features designed to diminish the negative effects of human nature. It is the best balance I can achieve that focuses on the dominant problem while recognising selfish human traits.
Many experiments have demonstrated that there is a fairly constant rate of freeloading in every system, and that tends to diminish slightly with age. Freeloading is only significantly reduced by the threat of punitive action against deviant individuals. In the real-world the equal application of the rule of law is that threat, but even then it will not stop every selfish act. If anyone knows of another significant way to reduce freeloading I am keen to hear it.
You say:Freeloading is only
You say:
Freeloading is only significantly reduced by the threat of punitive action against deviant individuals.
Whilst you may be correct on this point, Freeloading is not the only 'drag' on a system.
Any complex machine with many moving parts like (say) a car engine, has a lot of drag on its energy due to friction losses between the components. Such friction is not deviant but natural.
The same applies to societys 'machines' like government. Friction losses on government include beauracracy, healthcare, intrerest paid on capital, lawsuits, etc. These are not deviant frictions but 'part of the machine of government.
Whilst some could be modified, improved, 'lubricated', there will always be friction in the system.
Going back to a Tainter esq., point. The more complexity, the more moving parts, the more friction, until all the energy inputs are engaged in just turning the engine over with nothing (of any worth), produced at the output.
Please study something called the 'Seneca cliff' or 'Seneca effect', for a better understanding of the above.
Thanks for highlighting the
Thanks for highlighting the 'Seneca effect'. I will take a look at it.
I agree about the ‘frictional’ effects of the state. Ideologically my personal preference has always been for a small state to reduce friction. Unfortunately practicalities rarely coincide with ideologies. Expert Government does not dictate the size of the state; it is concerned with skilful government. It is true that for a given number of areas of concern it will be larger, and so in a simple sense more complex. However, independent specialisms in Expert Government have reduced complexity and so friction relative to a hierarchical system of parts which are by their nature not independent. Hence, it is not clear that Expert Government would be more complex.
I have always had a very strong belief in fairness, which is an abstract concept. Some behavioural geneticists believe that a sense of fairness evolved because of its collective advantages. To some extent a state can correct for the effects of chance and so affect fairness. Many studies have shown a strong correlation between life patterns and factors mostly or wholly beyond one’s control, i.e. chance; factors such as country and region of birth, intelligence, educational opportunities, associations with others, family members, and wealth. How much the state should correct for these factors is a matter for the people as a whole, not the state. To affect fairness requires a larger state, but if those behavioural geneticists are correct it should improve fairness and lead to enhanced collective advantage. Naturally this has to be weighed against its frictional costs.
At this stage I don’t think that it is certain that complexity will become the limiting factor that Tainter suggests, although I agree that it sounds plausible. If it is the limiting factor we do not know how soon that will be. By contrast I am certain that ineffective government is the burning issue now. I often think to myself – if something looks simple, you don’t understand it. Everything well understood is complex, and to impinge on it effectively it must become well understood, that requires many specialists or ideally experts.
I will give more thought to minimising complexity. I don’t think it is as big an issue as ineffective government is at this moment, but if I can mitigate complexity now so much the better. Certainly we have plenty of people who are not utilised in society now and are a cost. It is worth considering that so long as all people are engaged in activity that is perceived as a benefit to society, then that complexity is not a drag on an economy. Economists refer to this as fulfilling needs and wants. This not the same a ‘digging holes and filling them in again’.
Having read through the
Having read through the majority of this thread, I just add a few of observations.
Many of us come up with good ideas, but when we follow the core of the idea into a practical implementation, we often find stumbling blocks.
As we approach those stumbling blocks, we have to decide if there is a ‘work around’ solution, or whether we are confronting something that is telling us that we have pursued something down a’ blind alley’.
I notice in several of your comments that you admit that the idea requires more work. Other commenter’s who, you feel, are insulting you or just ‘not listening’, are in fact trying to suggest, NOT that you are stupid, but that you have gone down a blind alley, with no logical ‘work around’ to the flaws.
If you are convinced that the idea has merit, you need to put the work in on the parts that you acknowledge need more work, and then bring back a revised version for discussion.
It is unfortunate that someone has mentioned the Dunning–Kruger effect, which denotes someone who is unwilling or unable to see that they are making erroneous conclusions. That said, even before I had got to that part of the thread mentioning the Dunning–Kruger effect, I had already started to read your comments with consternation. As I read your comments I couldn’t help but visualise HAL 9000, from 2001 Space Odyssey.
I apologise, and I realise that this will seem to you, as yet another insult from someone who just doesn’t ‘get it’ or is simply ‘not listening’ to your logic.
Whether it is the Dunning-Kruger effect, I could not say, but like HAL, I suspect, (and it is worrying), that you are unable to comprehend the possibility that your thinking ‘might’ be wrong.
Good luck with the idea in a revised form.
DavidB I am well aware that I
DavidB
I am well aware that I am not immune from poor ideas. It has been remarked about me in the past that I can be very belligerent when I address a problem. This is sometimes necessary to conquer difficult problems. However, that is not the same as the Dunning–Kruger effect. If everyone dropped an idea when they met a little resistance we would all be living in caves. I certainly have not seen much in the way of compelling counter arguments so far, just plenty of rants and abuse. These are characteristic of people who get frustrated that their arguments are weak, but refuse to accept something they attach a lot of significance to is faulty.
You are right to apologise. Being compared to HAL 9000 is an insult. As it is not necessary to post a stream of consciousness I have to assume you just could not resist the temptation to get in a jibe. Do you enjoy insulting people who cannot attack you? Does it make you feel powerful? Would you have done it if you knew I was 7 feet tall and live around the corner from you? Before you get a panic attack I aren’t 7 feet tall, I have no idea where you live, and even if I did there are vastly more important things to do in my life. Oh, and I abhor violence, which is a little ironic as I do have a natural rugby player build.
As I have indicated in some of my responses, and my last response to Anonymous, I am not alone in these ideas; at least two even belong to professors. I fully realise that I am not clever enough to clean for those people, but I mention them because it indicates the field is open, and their ideas are not that dissimilar to mine.
“This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it”, so I ask you Dave, since you clearly feel that you have a superior grip on reality, what is wrong with the basis of my idea? Being HAL for a moment is so predictable, like the computer. I bet it gave you some pleasure to predict that Dave. It is easy to make sweeping unsubstantiated statements. Be specific. I am keen for you to explain how I have a weak grasp of reality.
@ gebyattI too am of rugby
@ gebyatt
I too am of rugby build, so no worries there.
Another HAL statement:
“Let me put it this way, Mr. Amer. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
“I am well aware that I am not immune from poor ideas.”
Good!
The problems with your idea, are NOT the issues you have addressed, it is the issues you have not addressed.
On your website you have a section on FAQ’s Could you please add these questions (and your answers), to your FAQ’s
~Who decides that an expert has the sufficient level of proficiency in his/her field?
~Who decides which expert is the most suitable candidate for a job in government?
Also on your website you say:
Ideas that require no justification are dangerous. They lead to inflexibility in response to evolving needs, circumstances, and understanding. To ensure adaptability Expert Government does not use dogmas. Citizens retain strategic authority via the Covenant that specialists must work within and be measured by. Any citizen can propose changes to the Covenant, but the Covenant may only be changed by referendum.
Again, please add to your FAQ’s
~How does a citizen propose changes to the Covenant?
~How is a referendum for changes to the Covenant decided upon?
You say:
“If everyone dropped an idea when they met a little resistance we would all be living in caves.”
I’m suggesting that you listen to valid criticism and (if you are able), put ‘meat on the bones’.
A man of your intelligence should not obsess about something that is a blank end.
If my project has merit then
If my project has merit then it is much nearer to its start than its end, if not, then the converse is true.
Nobody pays me to do this, I am not trained in it, and I work alone, so progress is not as fast as it could be. Nonetheless, I now have what I feel confident are well reasoned foundation ideas for something that can evolve into a useful form of government. I am primarily posting here to test those foundation ideas, not details. If those foundation ideas can be shown to be faulty then I will abandon this project, but I will not abandon it lightly because I have already committed a fair amount of my time to this project. It is not that I cannot or will not see an error in my thinking; I have to strike a balance between not abandoning too lightly a non-trivial amount of work, and not committing more time to something that can never be successful. Unsurprisingly, other people posting about my ideas have a different perspective as they have committed relatively very little time to considering them. To them my ideas are just entertainment, so they find it easy to be dismissive. In spite of the expected criticism from people who mostly seem not to consider this differential commitment of effort I have been buoyed by the sweep of the responses so far. This may sound strange, but it is because of the lack of cogent arguments against my foundation ideas. I expect to change details as my understanding deepens, and to some extent dialogue on this site helps me to see what concerns people and adjust my thinking on those details.
Naturally I will be improving the content on my web site to reflect my detailed thinking, but it takes time to create and integrate that material in a way that presents a coherent picture. I will add your suggested FAQs to my web site when I have time.
I have been buoyed by the
I appeciate you are flattered to receive any response at all to your verbiage. Your utterances are so inane as to be unarguable. What is being pointed out to you is that you cannot provide answers when you don't know what the questions are. In order to deal with questions of government, you have to know how government works and have some knowledge of the issues it faces. Since you are clueless, as your remarks about the current financial crises demonstrate, you cannot begin to have anything meaningful to say.
You're kinda a meanie, aren't
Tough love, Henry. If I met
Tough love, Henry. If I met the poor sod in 'real life' I would be polite and he would go away 'buoyed up'. In cyberspace, I can tell him like it is. Mind you, he's still 'buoyed up' about getting any attention at all. What can you do with such innocent crackpots? And he's a Brit, unaware that the USA rules the world, our time being long gone.
@ eric_5“And he's a Brit,
@ eric_5
“And he's a Brit, unaware that the USA rules the world, our time being long gone.”
I’m not sure what that has got to do with an attempt to improve the process of government?
But seeing as you brought it up, I too am a Brit.
And, I know it’s a bit off topic from this thread, but I’m afraid the USA is in its final death throes of ‘ruling the world’. Just like we Brits were, a century ago.
The USA is in debt to the tune of $14.5 trillion. China has reserves of $2.5 trillion.
By lending the West money, the East keeps the West in beer and Doritos, and supports the delusion that the USA rules the world.
With the debt we have incurred in the West, and Oil (the lifeblood of growth) sitting at $100 per barrel, I suspect we are 2 to 3 years of realising who ‘is the new boss’.
I’m not sure what that has
That's in reference to the parochialism of not understanding that the current financial crises originated in the United States and spread through the international banking system. Granted economic power is moving east , the hub of international finance, for the present, is in the USA and based on the US dollar.
@ eric_5I’m just pointing
@ eric_5
I’m just pointing out that you were the one to drift off topic.
Before your sojourn into “the USA rules the world”
You earlier, began with an extraordinary rant about ‘ L Ron Hubbard, the inventor of Scientology’ and his interest in ‘young girls dressed in hot pants and halter tops’
WHAT ??
I think Henry_Hart_1 was trying to point something out to you when he said:
“You're kinda a meanie, aren't you?”
I think you should consider:
1. Whether your anger is proportional to the discussion in hand.
2. Whether you are even on the right thread.
Well, eric and I know each
Well, eric and I know each other of old, and truth be told, we're both kinda meanies.
But I was willing to give gebyatt'ss concepts a look-see. Seems to me any new ideas about how we can improve things might be worth taking a look at. Of course, I do kind of agree with eric that, taken all in all, his idea seems to quite rough around the edges and squishy in the middle. But I give him props for at least trying.
At this point, though, I must say I still hew to old Winston, and like what we have: The worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
@ HenryI agree with much you
@ Henry
I agree with much you say about democracy. What we presently call democracy is laughable at times, but it at least functions reasonable well for our needs.
I suppose I don’t like to see people crushed, for well intentioned ideas.
Even well known business people get it wrong sometimes. Alan Sugar (Amstrad) hasn’t always had a success with all of his products. Clive Sinclair. ? I remember buying one of the first ZX81 computers. It was a brilliant introduction to computing, and basic programming. But remember the Sinclair C5 car? What was he thinking?
And I suppose that’s the point. Just because gebyatt doesn’t get there this time, doesn’t mean he won’t next time.
Some of the greatest inventions, literature and art, has originated in the minds of troubled people, who were different from the crowd.
I sit here with a laptop, fully charged on 240 volts AC.
Alan Turing (father of computing), died of cyanide poisoning after being persecuted for his homosexuality.
Nikola Tesla (AC electricity, amongst many other inventions), died shunned and almost penniless in a cheap New York hotel.
I don’t know about you Henry, but I am very grateful for the richness, that ‘mad’ people have given us.
Maybe this is the right
Maybe this is the right thread. Sri Aurobindo's Radical Social Vision: the Possibility of Telepathic Utopia
“If I met the poor sod in
“If I met the poor sod in 'real life' I would be polite and he would go away 'buoyed up'. In cyberspace, I can tell him like it is.”
There’s a difference between “telling him like it is” and being a jackass. Hopefully when you get past puberty you’ll learn the difference. I’m assuming you’re an adolescent. A grown-up with your communication style would just be embarrassing.
It is unfortunate that
It's not a matter of wrong conclusions but of senseless premises, based on ignorance of the issues involved. The sub-prime mortgage crisis, as a case in point, was not caused by lack of expertise but an excess of it in the financial world. It was not aided by the 'incompetence' of politicians because it falls within the competence of the experts at the Federal Reserve to deal with such issues in the first instance.
@ eric_5I agree with the
@ eric_5
I agree with the points you make.
My comment was aimed at geybyatt,who was the originator of the idea on expert government.
My intent was to create some kind of introspection, or analysis of his idea from first principles.
Geybyatt clearly feels very strongly that he has the answer to our political and economic problems. Even to the point of purchasing a domain name and setting up a website, to showcase his idea.
The development of an idea requires constant feedback to make sure that it will still work in the light of new evidence.
Many commenters’ have pointed out flaws to his idea. Many of those flaws, (which are quite fundamental), geybyatt simply sees as, as yet unresolved ‘blips’. He thinks that these will be ironed out over time as the idea develops.
I think the idea is fatally flawed. I suspect you think the same.
The object is to get geybyatt to do the work on the ‘blips’ and either resolve them, or come to the same conclusion as many here, in that the idea is fatally flawed.
We need people of his intelligence to work on ideas that have a chance of working.
DavidB You earlier, began
@ Eric_5As you pointed out
@ Eric_5
As you pointed out earlier, with regard to cyberspace:
If I met you in real life, I could be polite and say, “This has been really interesting eric but I need to get home and rearrange my sock drawer”.
But here in cyber space I can tell you like it is. In that, “You are a pompous bully, who can’t even structure your arguments without an absurd rant, and really needs to ‘up’ his Prozac and sort out his own failings.”
Tough Love Eric_5
Thanks David, You're telling
Thanks David,
You're telling me like it is not. Did you check out the seasteading notion to which the reference to the Seaorg applied? My point was that attempting to go outside terrestrial law by going onto the high seas to set up a private 'kingdom' was no guarantee of the benevolent intentions of the would-be 'king', even of a 'philosopher king' .
Some of the greatest
Do you think being 'troubled' is an asset in political theory or practice? I would have thought a grasp of reality and some knowledge of the facts would be more to the point.
Eric,While I can appreciate
Eric,
While I can appreciate your zeal in the defense of sanity and practical reality, I don't see any reason to get too worked up over this thread. Lots of people have lots of stupid ideas. In the vast, vast majority of these cases, the stupid ideas are stillborn because few, if any, are dumb enough to support them. Once in a great while, some stupid ideas limp along on life support. (There are still a few hippie communes in existance. Not much chance the lifestyle will ever become widespread.) The absolute fatal flaw in this silly idea is: The whole thing rests on the premise that some society, or nation, somewhere, is going to have a citizenry that willingly hands power to "board-certified-and-selected "experts" and trusts them to proclaim decisions as the law of the land. What a load of hooey.
There might be enough idiots who would go along with the program to populate a lifeboat, or a small island, but that's about as far as this one's gonna get.
I don't see any reason to get
No problemo. I'm just interested how somebody thinks they can come from nowhere with an idea that is going to stun the Kennedy School of Government and outdo all the classics of political theory, from The Republic onwards. It's a question that applies to anyone with no known credentials, training, understanding of the facts or track record in a discipline who claims to have come up with something the experts never thought of, and on such a grand scale, the complete solution to everything.
Eric,Agreed. I guess I just
Eric,
Agreed. I guess I just find too much humor in the foolishness to worry about it.
I will give Gebyatt credit
I will give Gebyatt credit for one thing... At least he/she proposes his/her own thoughts and commentary, rather than just posting a link to some stupid weirdo website, without making any effort to think, or taking the effort to express a personal thought. Even though I think his attempts to convince the world to radically change the way people grant governments authority are wholesale junk, I admire the guts it takes to speak his/her mind. That does, at least, take a little more effort than linking to some mush-brained moron's garbage.
I will give Gebyatt credit
Hear, hear.
There are apparently enough of them to make this freakin' thing an increasingly popular event.
A recent article by Peter
A recent article by Peter Orszag brought this thread back to mind because it is quite consistent in philosophy.
Too Much of a Good Thing--Why we need less democracy
My concern with Orszag's solution is the same as with "expert government". It is a dangerous slippery slope where the abdication of governance to an elite group of administrators is the inevitable first step into Fascism. It often starts quite liberal and progressive, and ends in tyranny.
Thanks for thinking about
Thanks for thinking about this project of mine again Mike.
Thanks also for the quote, it again shows that others are concerned about ineffective government. However, I think it contains some faulty thinking. Specifically, that to get more effective government one must have a less democratic government. It is faulty because it clings to the notion of citizens voting for representatives as the only a means of vesting authority in the people, i.e. democracy. I believe that my form of government is more democratic and still addresses the problem of ineffective government.
In a representative democracy each citizen has no authority to impact government policy and a negligible effect on who is in government. Citizens collectively get a choice between a few candidates at infrequent intervals. This is an extremely limited notion of authority in the people and so barely registers as democracy. My form of government devolves authority to many individuals who must be changed often, rather than a few politicians who may be changed occasionally. I trade the negligible authority in individual citizen votes, for authority vested in many more of the people than is the case with political representatives. By that measure it is certainly more democratic.
Fascism may be defined as ‘authoritarian and extreme nationalist and/or militaristic government’. My form of government is not nationalistic or militaristic. Authoritarianism may be defined as ‘strict obedience to hierarchical authority, especially as it limits personal freedom’. My form of government expressly has no hierarchical authority; every specialist/expert has equal authority and that is limited to creating policy in their specialism. It also has no more requirement of obedience to authority than representative democracy does. Authoritarianism is at its acme with dictators who can obviate the rule by law applied uniformly. My form of government has no dictator and applies the rule of law uniformly. The members of government may be described as elite, but they have no greater privileges than any other citizen. In terms of authority they intentionally have much less than politicians do, but much more than exists in a vote.
Until you give substance to
Until you give substance to your proposals with concrete examples they remain verbiage. First of all, a government is a government of somewhere. How would 'expert government' work? In the Isle of Man, for example, or anywhere? How would it be set up, given current political, economic and demographic reality? Assuming it were set up, how would the new Isle of Man, or any, government tackle climate change, for example, and how effective would it be in your estimation?
Give us your own scenario for any country of your choice and any important issue. Perhaps you can solve the euro crisis, the question of Palestinian statehood, food insecurity in Somalia, nuclear proliferation, bring down the number of homicides in the United States, improve educational attainment in the UK or what. You need to show that solutions require the dismantling of existing structures and their replacement by the one you are proposing, how this would be done and how solutions would be implemented.
No need for a detailed roadmap. Just a rough outline. In particular, your view of how much violence would be involved in setting up your system would help to clarify your intentions.
Fascism may be defined as
Of course, when you define Fascism so narrowly, it's easy to ensure your expert government is not similar. But within the accepted definition of Fascism, yours bears striking similarities, especially in the government control of the private means of production.
Your government relies on the public deferral to the authority of an elite expert or committee of experts. It is the very essence of authoritarianism whereby your "authority" is the faceless elite bureaucracy of experts and accountable to no one.
Expert Government makes no
Expert Government makes no statement on, as you say, “the private means of production”. It is entirely and exclusively concerned with how the state should be organised. You seem to be projecting your own fears onto my scheme. You need to read what I write, not complain about things that are not there.
I have pointed out on multiple occasions that Expert government very much follows the pattern shown to be effective by private enterprise. In fact it champions that pattern. If you are a capitalist then your affinity would be much better aligned with Expert Government than with representative democracy. The former is basically a self-organising system of many independent specialisms, much like businesses in private enterprise. The latter is based on people granting authority to a political elite organised into an authority hierarchy. Expert Government lacks an authority hierarchy, having instead very many specialists each with equal very limited authority. Authoritarianism is rooted in abuse of hierarchical authority, so representative democracy is intrinsically more likely to descend into authoritarianism. Some countries like the Ukraine are experiencing this problem now.
You say Expert Government “relies on the public deferral to the authority of an elite expert or committee of experts”. When citizens vote for representatives they are deferring authority to a political elite. The recent ‘direct democracy’ movement tries to correct this by using technology to reinstate authority in the people. While I have sympathy with this, I believe that distributed authority is not the only concern. In fact the first concern must be effective government. That can only be provided by specialists. No matter how many votes one gets from people who do not understand a matter their votes will not be as good as those of specialists. A political elite is small, and requires membership of a special interest group – a political party. By contrast, Expert Government has many specialists and accepts anyone applying as an individual. In fact it tries to prevent special interest groups gaining influence as they may act together to game the system. Also provision is made for them to be accountable directly to the people in special courts.
What definition of fascism would you like?
The shorter Oxford English Dictionary: “The principles and organization of the Italian Fascists, the Italian Fascist movement; a similar nationalist and authoritarian movement in another country; loosely right-wing authoritarianism”.
Chambers: “The authoritarian form of government in Italy from 1922 to 1943, characterized by extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and restrictions on individual freedom”.
Dictionary.com: “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”
Now what part of those definitions of any other you choose to quote is characterised by Expert Government but not representative democracy?
Expert government very much
Ferocious competition, huge salaries for those at the top and eventual bankruptcy or assimilation into a larger company.
Like it or not, the most
Like it or not, the most developed countries of the world are so because they use the principle I describe to organise industry. The authoritarian principle of organisation, as used in most forms of government, has been tried but found not to be successful for organising industry. I contend that it is manifestly not successful at organising anything else that is complex either. People like to believe that they can manage a complex system such a country with simple principles, but they are deluded, and demonstrate this frequently.
Old Russia, current North Korea, old GDR, and old China all used or use the authoritarian principle of organisation through every aspect of civilisation, and their people suffered as a result. New Russia, current South Korea, unified Germany, and new China have by contrast allowed industry to organise itself to a greater extent, along the lines I describe, and their people have benefited as a result.
However, I am not advocating free markets as they evidently also have problems, as demonstrated by recent financial debacles and social problems arising from huge wealth disparity. Human nature combined with the luck inherent in complex unpredictable systems need to be corrected for. This is where the specialists need to create policies that tend to encourage moderation and collaboration.
It has become clear to me
It has become clear to me that one of the big impediments to discourse on my form of government is its name. People seem to look very little past the name and conclude that it is authoritarian and elitist. This is perverse given that these are two of the things it is clearly designed to improve on relative to representative democracy. I have been thinking for a while now that it needs a more fitting name to circumvent this trivial treatment. I am considering ‘distributed government’ or ‘decentralised government’, or the obvious ‘-ism’ variants. It is difficult to find a name that encapsulates it, but they seem reasonable. I am interested to hear some thoughts on the matter.
As a reminder, it could be summarised as: A self-organising system of many independent specialisms with non-hierarchical specialism constrained authority vested only in many specialists, or ideally experts.
If the juvenile among you could resist the temptation to suggest silly names, it would prevent the inevitable conclusion.
Personally, I encourage the
Personally, I encourage the juvenile and juvenile-at-heart to suggest as many silly names as possible because most of us find it hugely entertaining.
But that aside, I agree that you have a "marketing problem" and one that is tough to get past. And if it's a tough sell here among those interested in government, it will be worse trying to sell it to the average Joe just trying to earn a paycheck and feed his family.
My suggestion is a variation, "Distributive Government". But the problem you still face, is that even when you get people past the name and they look at the concept, there will be an inherent distrust in so-called "experts" and their lack of accountability to the people. It fundamentally changes the social contract in ways that makes me very wary of a slippery slope to Fascism.
True, it is difficult to take
True, it is difficult to take back a right once granted, regardless of how well the case is made. You are also correct that it does involve a significant change to the contract between state and individual. It is important to stress how this is for the benefit of the people as a whole.
A large fraction of people in the UK don’t care enough to vote, so perhaps it is not as hard a sell here as it first seems. Also there may come a time when people are more receptive; perhaps when enough damage has been done by the existing system. Certainly our current system is not covering itself in glory at the moment. Many people are beginning to talk about the need for change. It will be interesting to see what other ideas emerge.
I quite like your name idea; for some reason it seems slightly less associated with geographical distribution. We will see what others turn up. Naturally it has occurred to me that it should be a meaningless name to escape the problems I have had so far. That would also enable different features of it to be assigned different weights for specific audiences without incongruity.
there may come a time when
You may have missed the boat. In the UK, the answer, in the wreckage of WW2, was Socialism. The current financial crisis is causing some tremors of dissatisfaction. Those who gloated over the huge unearned increase in the value of their houses through the mortgage system, are gloating in a minor key. The Tottenham riots show that there is a belief in the right to have a flat screen tv and the most expensive trainers, even if you can't pay for them. Neither this, nor anything else, indicates any appetite to be ruled by retired civil servants, academics and scientists with a high opinion of themselves.
Unusually I agree with most
Unusually I agree with most of what you just said eric. Except the irrationally pejorative terms you use to describe my well-reasoned ideas, and the implication that unrest does not lead to change. It sometimes does. Change is about the confluence of ideas and opportunity. I am developing the former, and anticipating the latter. Change is inevitable. If my scheme does not prevail it will be some other. It is better that it be a well thought out scheme like mine than a mob of angry young men on a revolution path.
Change is not only inevitable
Change is not only inevitable but is constantly occurring. The well-thought idea which has been politically most influential was Communism. Other ideas tend to be more piecemeal rather than Grand Designs. The economic ideas of Milton Friedman, for example.
Communism is/was more
Communism is/was more politically influential than capitalism, huh? I'd be interested to see you try to justify that.
It is important to stress how
Exactly! How often have we heard that rationalization for damn near every abuse of government? How many tyrants have uttered those words to justify genocide? Our Lockean concept of social contract does not include abdication of the rights of the individual for a transitory "good of the people." Thanks, but I won't tolerate my government telling me to shut up and eat my vegetables like a good citizen.
Mike, you seem to have an
Mike, you seem to have an irrational fixation on equating my ideas with authoritarianism or fascism. Others have equated them with communism. I suspect that people that do this are simply equating my ideas with any scheme they know and consider degenerate, because of the absence of the vote, which is their real interest. I suspect that because they never explain their leap of understanding, probably because they have no well thought out reasons to make that connection. I think that people who do this have long since reduced any debate in their mind to ‘vote is good, no vote is bad’ – a nice simple comfortable conclusion. It is tragic to see these ossified minds. They make a token gesture to demonstrate that they are open-minded, but they soon get angry and frustrated because their nice simple comfortable conclusion is challenged. Good governance is more complex than ‘vote is good, no vote is bad’. That is such an over-simplification that it even loses sight of the prime objective, which is effective government. There is no axiom that says effective government must include universal suffrage. Challenge yourself. Let go of the old ideas for a while. They are not the final answer. There is no final answer. There will always be a need for change. Now the need is caused by increasingly complex civilisation. The old schemes demonstrate on a daily basis how they cannot manage increasingly complex civilisation. Surely this much at least is glaringly obvious to you.
I have long since realised that debate with the ossified minds is doomed never to convince them of the value of my ideas. Like old communists, they cling to their familiar ideas. The rest of the world will move on with my ideas or others, but it will move on. The value in my dialogue here is in refining my arguments. Convincing the ossified minds is not important. The younger dissatisfied generation are more ready to make a break with old ideas they have less invested in. They may be convinced. When the time is right I will explain to them and I am sure that at least they will consider it. By then I will have the ideas and arguments nailed. You will probably rail against the change when it happens. The younger people will think you are an old nutter stuck in the past. Change is inevitable. Accept it or be one of the old nutters.
There seems to be some
There seems to be some consensus on this site that government is not working as it should. Even if you do not accept my understanding of how things should be changed, some of you must have ideas that don’t simply resolve to get this party or that party in power, or be more left or more right. Come on people, where are the ideas?
Post new comment