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.
gybyatt, The big ideas are
gybyatt,
The big ideas are right in front of you; The European Union and the United Nations for a start.
The EU is a complete
The EU is a complete shambles and could implode soon. At the very least it needs substantial development in fiscal union if it is to survive, never mind prosper. The UN is an immovable object that can barely do anything because it cannot reach consensus. If these are the best we have then we are buggered.
Yes, that sums it up nicely.
Yes, that sums it up nicely.
You take far too narrow, and
You take far too narrow, and uninfomed, a view of international organizations. For a start, the UN did reach a consensus on the question of Libya, for example. Secondly, the EU affects many aspects of the lives of its citizens, including its British citizens. For one thing, the complete transformation of the UK into a multicultural society owes much to its membership of the EU. As much, or even more admittedly, to another, and even wider, international community, the British Empire.
There are many more despotic
There are many more despotic and otherwise degenerate states that are never tackled by the UN. What, for example, are they doing in Syria? Yes, we know, the same old lack of accord prevents action. The US as one of the most bellicose members of the UN has commented on how ineffective it is. Indeed John Bolton as a previous US ambassador to the UN was antagonistic as well as disparaging about it. How can it be effective when its most militarily powerful member undermines it? I am not saying it never did any good. I am saying it is not a great example.
Your last point was right. The empire was largely the driver of the un-anglicised people that have fractured a once more coherent culture. I think most of us realise that multi-culturalism is just a faux jingoistic device to justify lax immigration policy.
gbyatt, The UN has no army.
gbyatt,
The UN has no army. If you're turning your mind to reform of the UN, this is an issue you can consider.
That wouldn't be a "reform".
That wouldn't be a "reform". It would be applying existing rules.
The UN suffers the same
The UN suffers the same fundamental problem as the EU; both are formed of disparate states with different objectives. Whether they share a common vision or not, in practice when they meet they put their own interests first, not those of the common good of people regardless of where they live. The track record for reaching accord is not good so far.
It seems to me that an independent UN military will make no difference if it has no mandate to act.
Gebyatt, As you correctly
Gebyatt,
As you correctly point out, the UN and the EU are composed of sovereign states. Both organizations provide mechanisms for their members to act together, as they do every day, on a vast number of issues. Their failures are a reason for seeking to improve co-operation, not for turning to some fanciful, non-existent intergovernmental political system.
A permanent UN army would, arguably, give an additional option for effective UN intervention.
I understand your point eric,
I understand your point eric, but you do not explain how with the best will in the world such a diverse range of objectives can ever be accommodated. Surely to make progress one must first have a route plan.
The UN is a fanciful existing intergovernmental political system.
For one thing, the complete
Really? You say that like it's a good thing. Why does London get tagged with the perjorative "Londanistan" if the UK is such a multicultural paradise? The reality is multiculturalism is a failure as much as the economic policies of the EU.
Eurozone Rescue's Moment of Truth
gebyatt, Some encouragement
gebyatt,
Some encouragement for the notion of 'expert government' from Greece and Italy. It seems that governments of 'technocrats' are to be appointed in both countries, to deal with the mess that politicians have made.
Third Way to the future.A
Third Way to the future.
Does it still sound like a
Does it still sound like a crazy idea now something like my scheme is in place in two countries?
It seems like Nicholas Popov also understands.
Thank you Nicholas, I will be looking at your site soon and hopefully we can exchange ideas.
Howdy gebyatt,I hope for a
Howdy gebyatt,
I hope for a useful exchange also. Forgive for weak English on a website. It is a matter of time. Joint ideas are more important.
True sense of a 5-pointed star:
http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/the-self-balancing-model-of-government.html
Hi NicholasYour English is
Hi Nicholas
Your English is better than my Russian, so I have no complaints.
Ideas can change anything. I will read your material and get in touch by your site soon.
Thanks for the link.
I see technocratic
I see technocratic governments being used in Greece and Italy as an improvement, and clearly others do too. With a technocracy the people deliberating on important issues are there at least partly because they know what they are talking about. This is in contrast to the evidently silly scheme of people who don’t understand the issues giving authority to other people who don’t understand the issues but want the job i.e. citizens voting for politicians. However did I guess that silly scheme would work out badly?
Nonetheless, technocracy suffers from many problems and is a long way from ideal, so I envisage some problems with it. For example, (unlike my system) it still has a hierarchical authority structure – which as is well known tends to corrupt. So I don’t expect it will do anything to reduce the infamous Italian and Greek corruption problems. Also it is not democratic system (like mine) in which authority is widely distributed. Consequently the ordinary citizens will tend to resent it because their country is run by a small elite, rather than many ordinary people. So unrest will grow until the benefits of a technocracy emerge. Latterly when the economies stabilise they will probably unwisely revert to politics. Further, centralised orchestration of society is inherently less adaptable to changing needs than a system (like mine) of independent specialisms. So while the technocrats may make better decisions than politicians, I suspect they will no more responsive to emerging problems and special situations, especially in arcane sectors of the economy. This will be evident as more acute problems for specific sectors of the economy.
Events in Italy and Greece
Events in Italy and Greece have resulted in a shift from systems of government based on authority granted to representatives by citizen voters, to quasi technocratic systems of experts not elected by citizen voters. This is a tacit admission that their voter-representative systems of government have failed. While the immediate causes are financial, the situation is consistent with my conjecture that the problem is rooted in increasingly complex civilisation that cannot be effectively managed by governments based on voter-representative schemes. Other countries with such systems of government are in less extreme but nonetheless difficult positions, which is also consistent with my conjecture. Further, it is also clear that there is a collective lack of ability to resolve this crisis. This is perhaps the strongest indication that my conjecture is correct. Elected politicians cannot resolve the crisis because at a fundamental level they lack the ability. While they may be advised by a range of experts, the solution evades them because they have the authority to exercise their poor judgement over the best technical advice.
Now while some of you could argue that my case is not proven, I think it looks extremely strong. If we wait until conclusive evidence is in it will be a disaster. How else could these events be interpreted but as a failure of voter-representative systems of government to manage countries effectively in increasingly complex civilisation?
The events in Greece and
The events in Greece and Italy are profoundly worrying. These changes in Government were 'Coups' in all but name. While the new governments in Greece and Italy have come about by constitutional means I would remind you that so did Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. You might not set much store by elections and 'voter-representative systems of government' but we should be wary of those who would set such things aside so lightly.
I think enough evidence is
I think enough evidence is in; voter-representative systems of government are demonstrably not effective. As you indicate, they have a very poor track record. There are plenty of examples that politicians quickly disregard what the voter thinks as it suites them. It is delusional to think that citizen voting has much influence over government policy.
In the UK the politicians have been out of step with public opinion on a number of matters like Europe and capital punishment for a very long time. We cannot change their policies. Nobody in the UK voted for the current government or its combination of policies. So as a system it even fails on its own terms.
We must set aside voting for representatives as an interesting but not wholly successful experiment, and find a form of government that is effective. It was useful to move us away from authoritarianism, but it has served that purpose and we should move on. Effective government is the prime concern, not the vote. If we continue to make effective government subservient to having a vote we will continue with the endless stream of mismanagement and flirt with disaster.
I am not advocating an ill-conceived experimental replacement system. I analysed the problems and found schemes that are proven to address them effectively, then combined them. If not what I propose then what? To continue on our present course is ridiculous.
In the UK the politicians
The governments are voted in by the electorate and so, presumably, Europe and capital punishment are either not of great concern to voters or they broadly agree with government policy. In any case, opinion polls show only about 50% in favour of some form of capital punishment. In the case of Europe, there are a variety of issues and government policy, or government rhetoric at least, is in tune with the Eurosceptic line that is popular in the UK.
Since governments have no shortage of expert advice, there's no reason to think a non-political government would act any differently.
SO you'll be infavour of a
SO you'll be infavour of a Referendum on the return of Capital Punishment for the crime of Murder ? After all you say that the voters 'broadly agree with government policy' so would reject restoration.
owly, About 50% of the UK
owly,
About 50% of the UK public said 'yes' to a recent opinion poll on restoring the death penalty for murder. That's a very simple question and the issue is a complex one, completely unsuited to a simple Yes/No answer. I notice the appetite for single issue referendums come from those who think they can't lose. They win on a yes vote and a no vote leaves the situation no worse (from your point of view).
If we are going to bypass parliamentary democracy, let it be on a range of issues and not just those selected by the conservative-minded who wish to turn the clock back.
Eric,You are a typical
Eric,
You are a typical example of the arrogant leftie who has nothing but contempt for the views of the people, save if they correspond with your own views of course. If a referendum was held to restore Capital Punishment for Murder it would in all probability be carried. It is not a complex issue as you say: it is a comparatively simple one. The people would turn back the clock to the position we had in the early 1950s.
What we need in our democracy is that Parliament better reflects the views of the people on a whole range of issues, and that requires less career politicians. And that applies across the house but is probably more marked on the Labour benches.
contempt for the views of the
Distrust of the influence of demagogues on a referendum vote when our elected representatives can call on the expertise to study complex issues and when Parliamentary bills go through a lengthy process of scrutiny and debate where amendments can be made to produce impartial legislation on issues which transcend party politics , such as the death penalty.
You obviously belong to a dwindling band of ancients who are nostalgic for the excitement of those far-off happy days when 'we' hanged a handful of our fellow citizens.
Eric,You are such an idiot at
Eric,
You are such an idiot at times. Where have I expressed a desire for the restoration of Capital Punishment ? I never have. Do you know why ? Because I had a friend (now dead) who had been an Under Sheriff. Do you know what one of his duties had been ? To arrange and attend executions. I would not myself wish to do such a task, so I do not believe in restoration. I do believe that those who commit murder should pay a heavy price and that means they spend a huge amount of time in prison. I have explained this once before to you. Pity you are too stupid to listen to views other than your own.
You are so typical of many 'metropolitan' Lefties who have such a smug, arrogant and condescending attitude to their fellow citizens. You fail to see - because it does not mirror your own bigoted views - that on many issues Parliament is divorced from the views and opinions of those they are supposed to represent. Capital Punishment is one issue, and the relationship of the UK with the EU is yet another.
on many issues Parliament is
You are a proponent by proxy of bringing back hanging.
EricThere are many reasons
Eric
There are many reasons why people vote the way they do. They do not vote on a single issue, so you cannot conflate voting for a party that does not advocate leaving the EU with wanting to remain in the EU. This is one of the many flaws of that system; specifically that one cannot vote on individual issues, but must instead pick one of a few menus of policies. In the case of the current government, as I noted, nobody selected that menu, so the system is defective even on its own terms. Both of the last two governments have prevented a referendum on Europe because they know that there is a strong probability that the citizens would vote to exit Europe. They don’t care what the people want; they will continue to do what they want. This is just one example for my observation that it is delusional to think that voters have much influence over government policy.
You continue to ignore the very important difference between political decisions and expert decisions. Political decisions are based on any number of factors, some of them concern the politicians own preoccupations, some their party’s agenda, and perhaps lastly their constituent’s interests. By contrast, experts employed the way I propose have no re-election or party agenda, and no constituent’s to satisfy. They are free to exercise their best judgement on the issues they are expert in. This is as it should be, and there is every reason to think they will come to different conclusions than politicians. Ultimately politicians have the authority, not the experts. That difference is critical. Experts by definition can find a better answer than anyone else, including politicians. I do not know why, but you seem convinced that a vote for somebody that wants to be a politician somehow magically imbues them with superhuman abilities greater than any combinations of experts. Perhaps you can edify us on how that magic works. I suspect that you simply cling to the notion of a vote as in some way important, regardless of all that I have shown about how valueless it is, and that you will now fail to explain how being elected magically transforms one into a superhuman greater than all experts combined.
gebyatt, You seem to think
gebyatt,
You seem to think that 'experts' would decide to end Britain's membership of the EU. Surely, they would be much more likely to strengthen Britain's ties with the EU. In any case, according to your non-democratic system, the 'expert government' doesn't have to pay any attention to public opinion, so there would certainly be no referendum on the subject.
If you look back I was using
If you look back I was using the issue of Europe to show that the vote has very little influence on government policy, even on important issues. Blair and Cameron went out of their way to prevent referenda on that issue so as to preserve policy in accord with their views. They clearly do not care what the majority of people think on the issue.
We cannot know what the experts would conclude, so it is pointless to try.
Although I want government to be more effective, the whole point of government is not changed, i.e. to create a society in which people want to live. If for example our culture changed to favour stronger wealth redistribution, then the government should respond to provide it. They would be obliged to say what expert opinion considers would be best for us, where that is possible, but they must pursue what we want. I make various provisions for discovering what society wants, which may include referenda, and for correcting policy that is out of step with society.
I would say that EU membership is a big enough issue that it must be the choice of the people. The experts would advise us but would ultimately be instructed by us.
So you contend that 'experts'
So you contend that 'experts' make better decisions. Look at the Euro. This mad scheme had plenty of 'experts' cheering it on, and just look at the result. In Greece you have a Prime Minister who is an 'expert', but consider this. Lucas Papademos was an economist at the Central Bank of Greece and then became its Governor in 1994. When Greece joined the Euro it was on false statistics. Are you seriously tell me that Papademos did not know the figures were false ?
Some of what you say has a bit of merit. The old House of Lords was the finest revising chamber because it was full of people who had huge expertise in various fields and also because they did not have to panda to electorates. But politically it was 'difficult'.
The Euro is a political
The Euro is a political dream. I suspect that as many experts thought it was folly as thought it good. Regardless, membership of such a thing is too big for government to choose. It should be decided by the people who are informed by expert advice.
Your observation about Mr Papademos being a kind of expert and knowing the accounts were crooked may be correct. However, it is certain that he did what he was told to do at the time, by politicians. We return to the critical issue of who has authority. In these defective systems it rests with the politicians, not the experts. He was only one man working within a defective system. The failure is due to that defective system. I point you to another of the other important features of my system; that every expert has equal influence and many are required to reach consensus for a policy to be enacted. This is crucial to preventing damage by powerful misguided players. It seems that you imply that is what Mr Papademos was.
I concede that many experts could still make an error, but I am sure that government by fewer politicians is much more likely to make an error. By definition, experts know more about their area of expertise than non-experts. Many experts deliberating on a matter is as good as we can do.
In describing the balance of power between the two houses as ‘difficult’, you betray the fact that the current system is not coherent or cohesive. It evolved out of practices that were out of date before anyone alive today was born. A system of government should be built on sound reasoning, not accommodations for old practices.
Normal 0 false
Hello. I’ve read this entire thread as well as your website. From what I understand, you are advocating a technocratic government with multiple independent bodies of experts who decide policy on matters relating to their specialized area of expertise. These individuals or panels are hired based on their merit, serve a limited term, and are checked by a police agency. This police agency responds to inquiries by citizens, and is checked by other police agencies. The police agency holds experts accountable to a covenant outlining the responsibilities government has for its citizens. This covenant is decided by citizens and can only be changed by citizens.
You also mention a citizen jury, but I’m not sure what they do or how the jury is selected. It sounds like they have the same role as the police agency.
Please explain anything I may have misunderstood, and clarify the responsibilities and selection process of the citizen jury.
Hello again Anonymous Thanks
Hello again Anonymous
Thanks for taking enough of an interest to read all that material.
Your understanding is good. However, an important point that does not come across strongly enough in your description is that there is no authority hierarchy, although for specialist bodies that is a corollary of independence. Independence of specialists (i.e. the individuals) is an important freedom that provides for diversity of opinion and reduces the opportunity for corruption. Another point that needs stressing is the self-organising nature of this system based on rules, which is unlike typical systems that are orchestrated by an elite. For concision, rather than go through its merits I will simply point out it has been demonstrated as useful factor in managing complex dynamic systems. Also I would like a complete summary to mention the avoidance of dogma. Every understanding used is expected to be the best available at the time, and further the expectation is that the best understanding will change. So no dogma except that there is no dogma. Consequently everything in this form of government can evolve, but I think the principle ideas are well formed now and hard to refute as correct for our time.
A minor point you omit is that the specialists/experts serve a single limited term, not just a limited term. This ensures that more people get the chance to influence government policy. The single limited term increases the frequency of understanding and ideas that pass through government, potentially making it more current and responsive. It also reduces the opportunity for corruption. Higher rates of government membership will also help the people ‘buy into’ its policies as more of them will at some point in their careers have been in it or know someone that will have. Otherwise stated it becomes more government by the people.
Citizen jurors are one of the more recent additions to my scheme. As such it is perhaps the least well explored and documented idea. It is important to state the objective here and note that the citizen juror scheme may be subject to future developments. The objective is to provide decisive control of government by the citizens to ensure government meets its obligations under the covenant. Any citizen can challenge any government policy as not conforming to the covenant. This policy court is independent and empowered to cancel errant policies, remove errant individuals from office, and require government to create policy where it does not exist. I do not see it as a traditional court. It is a large number of citizens who are expert in the relevant matters but who are not already in government, have not been in government, were not rejected for membership of government, do not have extreme views, and are not members of any organisation that may modulate their judgment on the issue at hand. Otherwise they should be selected at random. There is no authority hierarchy and so no judge. The jury is the ultimate authority on matters brought before the policy court. However, there are administrators that ensure the policy court operates within its parameters and help the jurors understand the processes. There are many details that need to be worked out about juror selection, but I have set out the main principles.
The government police do not have the same function. They exist to prevent and find corruption in government. There are empowered to bring it to the notice of another independent court that deals just with those matters. Naturally if they suspect in the course of their investigation that policy is non-conformant to the covenant they are also obliged to inform the policy court. They are required to respond to concerns about corruption noted by any citizen. As with all specialisms their remit is very limited so as to improve specialisation and reduce the opportunity for corruption. The government police have no rights to investigate anyone outside of government, except in their dealings with government. They are also not empowered to investigate anything that is not related to activity in government, except where there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is related to corruption – inside or outside of government. If the corruption is wholly outside of government then it is passed on to the civil police. The government police are distinct and independent from civil policy. Multiple independent government police bodies exist and may investigate each other. While they may interact this must be limited to a matter they are investigating. Other interaction is forbidden between the policing bodies and between individuals in the bodies. This should go some way to further reducing corruption. Ultimately I envisage that as complexity increases there will be a need for specialist policing bodies that only deal with certain areas of government.
I am interested to hear if you see current economic events as I do, as a strong example that civilisation is too complex to be managed by the old schemes of government, that in fact we must look for new schemes to manage that complexity and produce more effective government. I think there are plenty of examples of ineffective government, but this one is hard to ignore or explain away otherwise.
Lastly, do you have any constructive suggestions?
Normal 0 false
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Hello. Thank you for your quick response. From what I understand, the citizen jury is a random sample of the nation that levies verdicts on policies and office holders accused of not conforming to the covenant. The process begins with a citizen inquiry about a policy or office holder that is believed to be violating the covenant. This inquiry goes to a policy court which, I’m assuming, presents evidence to a citizen jury who then levies a verdict based on the evidence. I’m also assuming there are many citizen juries to handle the many inquiries by citizens. I’m also assuming that verdicts are decided by either a simple majority or supermajority vote, since consensus will be unlikely given the size of the jury.
Please correct any errors in my understanding or assumptions.
To answer your questions, I’m not properly informed on the European economic crisis, so I have no comment.
I do have constructive suggestions; however, I believe it is important to understand your system before attempting to improve it.
Also I’m a new Anonymous. This is our first dialogue.
Ah. Welcome new Anonymous. I
Ah. Welcome new Anonymous. I did note a change in tone and wondered why Anonymous had changed. It was too much to expect it was the force of well-made arguments. They don’t count for much here. When I make a very strong or unassailable point it is usually ignored as not needing a response. I think that most of the people on this forum are simply here to air their views, rather than participate in an exchange of ideas. This forum allows me to develop my arguments, but little else.
All your assumptions are reasonable and along the lines of what I have in mind. I prefer a supermajority, important things should be unequivocal. As I say I have not set out these details yet for this recent addition to the scheme and it is open to further analysis. The details are important and worthy of some work, but my time is limited.
Normal 0 false
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
An interesting conundrum can be inferred from your description of the citizen jury. In your system for example, if a citizen believes a particular foreign policy violates the covenant, then the inquiry is brought to a policy court where a jury of non foreign policy experts, who don’t understand the subtle complexities of foreign policy, are expected to render an intelligent decision regarding a subject they have little to no understanding of. This sounds a lot like the current system where non expert politicians, who don’t understand the subtle complexities of foreign policy, are expected to render an intelligent decision regarding a subject they have little to no understanding of.
If citizens lack the intellectual capital to deal with complex problems, then even the most theoretically perfect form of government will fail to consistently produce appropriate solutions. Perhaps the true solution to complex problems is simply a better education system.
Thanks for your observation
Thanks for your observation Anonymous.
In my first December 2 post I said we should aspire to find jurors that are “citizens who are expert in the relevant matters”. Naturally the more arcane the subject the more difficult this is to achieve. However, I suspect that anything that is a matter for government is unlikely to employ all the countries experts. Compromises if necessary could be made in exceptional circumstances to accept as jurors people who have previously worked in government on that specialism. The critical point is to preserve the core principal of equal authority in the hands of many specialists.
I suspect this is a highly theoretical problem that might never arise, but nonetheless should be addressed in detailed plans. Do you have some thoughts on addressing such a problem? Ultimately it is impossible to create a perfect system, but it would be unwise to throw out the whole scheme on the basis that some situations may arise where very well informed jurors are difficult to find.
Normal 0 false
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Thank you for your response. I must have missed the "relevant experts" part. I withdraw my previous analysis.
HI Gebyatt, Its been a long
HI Gebyatt,
Its been a long time.
In order to make the elitists happy on this forum (which is damn near everyone) How about you add a law that states the only people who can make decisions about foreign policy must have their heads completely up their ass?
The question is will we vote on who we believe has achieved this ultimate state of awareness or will we have experts make that decision for us?
Hello again Candace Thank
Hello again Candace
Thank you, you raise the critical issue in a way I think is helpful for me to dispel a common misconception about my scheme.
I suggest the use of specialists or ideally experts, so most people leap immediately to the conclusion that I have an elitist scheme. They are wrong. They are not looking carefully enough at what I say. They get stuck on their prejudices about experts.
I believe that civilisation is too complex to be effectively managed by current forms of government. They fail principally because authority exists in a small hierarchy of non-specialists. There are no people clever enough for government arranged in this way to be effective. So my solution is to share authority equally between many specialists. We should aspire to using experts as they are simply better specialists, but this is not essential. The main power of my scheme does not come from the cleverness of its people; it comes from distributing authority equally among many specialists. Otherwise said, spread the authority wide among the people, but only ask them about what they know a lot about.
We have to accept that people who have achieved the “ultimate state of awareness” do not exist. We must not continue to place so much authority in the hands of an elite. Instead we give very small but equal amounts of authority to many people to act only within their specialism.
I am here to help ;-) I do
I am here to help ;-) I do however, have the same opinion of your government idea as I did when we last spoke. So rather than repeat myself I'll mention that in my opinion, there's been what looked like a few interesting conversations almost get off the ground here. If possible and if the mood hits: why not discuss/explore the conceptual disagreements instead of all things leading back to getting the difficult customer to buy your plan?
I know the quality of a conversation isnt dependent on one person and maybe a change would be a bad idea because your thread here has been the only one in recent memory able to bring new people in, but since I'm here I thought I'd mention it anyhow.
Thank you Candace I believe
Thank you Candace
I believe if you look back at my protestations you can see that I continually try to get people to discuss the important concepts rather than the details of popular approbation. However, from my perspective it seems like few people want that discussion. They seem to be fixated on voter endorsement, ignoring the critical issue of the growing complexity of civilisation not being adequately addressed by existing models of government.
I am sorry to be critical after your encouragement, but by highlighting that problem and acknowledging that it is not entirely of my making you have found yet another way of avoiding the critical discussion and diluting the important content of this topic.
I will continue to do my best to focus this discussion on the critical issue. As I have said before, I find some consolation in a lack of reasoned arguments on the matter, but I would much rather face some tough lines of reasoning.
You've been given various and
You've been given various and logical "tough lines of reasoning," all of which you've managed to ignore. Your continuing disparagement of the need for "voter endorsement" effectively shuts down any further discourse on the topic. While some of your ideas may have merit, your refusal to recognize the need for voter participation in any kind of democratic government displays the weakness of your proposal rather than that of your detractors' arguments.
Henry I have recently
Henry I have recently provided Anonymous with a short history of my reasoning that started with trying to ‘save’ citizen voting. I did not set out to destroy it. Why don’t you take a careful look at that reasoning and find some holes in it if you can. You clearly have a passion for voting. Let us see if your reasoning ability is at the same level.
If you look again at what I propose you will see that citizens do have a role to play in directing and correcting government through controlling a covenant and through courts. The fact that it is not using a voting scheme is not relevant if it provides what is required – the feedback element referred to by Anonymous.
I address this point to Candace also. We have a difference of opinion on a partly subjective matter, specifically concerning tough lines of reasoning being ignored. From my perspective I have made many strong points that were reacted to with silence. I always respond and with reason not a rant. It would be helpful if everyone else here did the same. In the future if you feel I have not answered a point simply say so.
I restate that my form of government places more authority to change policy in the hands of more people than voter-representative systems of government. This is I believe the foundation of democracy as it was conceived. Therefore, by that measure my scheme is more democratic. I suspect you are still stuck on the voter-representative model as synonymous with democracy. From what I have read this is a modern corruption of the truth, although I am no expert on democracy and not a historian. Perhaps some historian reading this can correct my/our understanding. I read that some people have taken to referring to ‘pure democracy’ and ‘direct democracy’ to refer to the original concept because of that corruption. American did not invent democracy and does not own the right to deny it as a label that can be attached to other forms of government that do not precisely correspond with its own scheme. Regardless, I am not fixated on belonging to that democracy club, and would not much care if my scheme could not be counted as democratic. The critical factor is that it is the most effective at delivering the strategic direction set out by the people in the covenant.
No, you want people to ignore
No, you want people to ignore the gaping holes in your idea for a new government and acknowledge the righteouness of your sentiments about civilization and government today as a solid ground for changing government and society to what you suggest here.
Discussing conceptual disagreements means you have to actually allow for disagreement in a discussion. You have to make some effort to defend your ideas, preferably beyond sharing your irritation with the reception you've gotten for them so far.
You also should explain why you disagree with the opposing idea. You dont do that. Your sentiments about government today are supposed to be enough.
Avoiding critical discussion and diluting important content is exactly what you have been doing regardless of how long your posts are. You have a pleasant enough way of drawing new people into the discussion (everyone was horrible except for you..) but then you inevitably shut it down when you realize you dont have a convert.
If you view this post as an attempt to derail your thread hopefully you try to understand that when you complain about contributions people have made on your thread, you are creating an invitation for opinions about your posts that may not be focused on flattery. If you see that as an attempt to avoid critical issues then stop complaining.
Have fun.
Candace. Be specific. Start
Candace. Be specific. Start with the largest of these gaping holes and let me see if I can plug it. The sentiments I express are no more self-righteous than those used to venerate the old forms of government.
I have never ask people to simply accept anything I say. I always seek dialogue and there is clear evidence that my scheme has evolved as a result, so I must be listening. I even explicitly ask for opinions. I don’t expect anyone to change anything as a result of what I say. I develop my ideas out of interest. If the dialogue sometimes gets rancorous then it is on both sides, not just mine.
Honestly, I don’t understand how you can say I need to make some effort to defend my ideas. I use reason and dialogue to develop my ideas and defend them. That is all I do here. We must have very different ways of understanding the same written words. Also I never knowingly avoided a single post on this topic; at least that is the ones directed at me which are exploring some pertinent point. I cannot shut down a line of debate. I have no control over what is asked of me and I almost always am the last respondent. I even respond to most of the abusive ones, hopefully in an amusing and caustic way, which is my intent. You should hopefully have realised by now I have a dark, dry and caustic sense of humour.
In the future I will declare posts as ‘off topic’ to avoid the trap you describe.
This thread is now ‘off topic’. So if you feel like describing the largest “gaping hole” start at the root.
We went over this already.
We went over this already. If you need to refresh your memory, its all there.
As far as the other stuff, take my criticism however you like, Gebyatt. I know you are obsessing over your plans to overthrow democracy and I am passing through commenting on the discussion so far. You can call it off topic or pea soup for all I care. :)
Normal 0 false
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Hello. Now that I understand the basics of your system, I will give you some feedback. I apologize beforehand if some of my statements seem harsh. I’m simply trying to be as direct as possible.
I applaud those who are willing to question the conventional wisdom that what we have is the best we can do. Our founders (I’m American) didn’t think that way. If they did, the United States of America wouldn’t exist. Those who are crazy enough to believe they can change the world are the ones that do. And while not all change is progress, you can’t have progress without change.
The US was founded by people who rejected the idea that the government they had was the best that was possible. The founders were children of the enlightenment, and sought to incorporate their enlightened ideals into their government. While many of them could be categorized as idealists, they were not naïve to the limitations of mankind. The bulk of the US constitution fit on just four pages, but it took 85 essays totaling several hundred pages to convince the state leaders to ratify it. Known as the Federalist Papers, these 85 essays explained in great detail the constitution’s purpose, how the constitution would work, its potential weaknesses, and most importantly how it accounted for the lesser sides of human nature. Complex ideas take a long time to explain. It took the founders of America hundreds of pages to explain how the US constitution would work. You have a small website. Obviously you’re not done fine tuning your system.
Very few people reject the basic premise of your government; that experts are in a greater intellectual position to solve specific complex problems than politicians alone. Most people here have expressed concerns regarding accountability to citizens, and that is where I will begin in my next comment.
I apologize if this comment read like a history lesson, but I think history can be a useful guide when attempting to improve the welfare of humanity.
Hello again Anonymous Sorry
Hello again Anonymous
Sorry for the delay in replying.
I am not worried about harsh statements, and I prefer you to be direct, so long as there is some evidence of reason in your statements, and preferably some research. You seem to have the mind for it so far.
I like your statement about the willingness to challenge prevailing views. I stated something similar but not so eloquently earlier in this topic. I would add that it is better if there is a strong reason to make a challenge. Hopefully most people can now see there are serious problems with contemporary government, even if they are confused about what exactly is at the root of them. I have yet to experience a compelling alternative for my finding of that root cause. A convincing rebuttal of it would be the quickest way to demolish my line of research. I have left some hints in this topic of interesting arguments that may be explored to do this.
I appreciate your tolerance for the development of my ideas. I have tried to make it clear in discussions here that if my research has any value then it is much nearer its inception than a conclusion. Some issues that are raised affect my reasoning and I respond by making changes. That process of revision and finding the correct language is very time consuming. I have written that website many times over. This is a complex problem, and finding an improvement is a matter of hard work, like cutting a new path through a jungle. I have a decreasing concern of faults in my macro scale thinking, but I will not feel completely comfortable until I have repelled a serious challenge to my foundational ideas and some other critical thinker agrees that there is some merit in this line of thinking.
As most human problems are of our own making I have to agree that human nature is at the heart of it. Unfortunately we cannot easily change that, so we must develop systems that make the best of it. The move away from authoritarianism was very important and has taken a few routes, each with its own champion. Unfortunately I think the voter-representative based forms of government have taken us far, but to a dead end. We need to think again and find new ways of getting more effective government in an increasingly complex civilisation, while not allowing the less impressive side of human nature a chance to flourish again. I hope my research is one such possibility.
I need to correct your statement about the basic premise of my form of government. I prefer to say that: to address the root cause of the observed problems, the foundation of my form of government is the division of authority between many self-organising independent specialisations, each employing many equally influential specialists or ideally experts. Its efficacy comes from that arrangement more than it does from the level of expertise of individuals. I think it is axiomatic that experts are more useful than average specialists, but they would be encumbered without the correct systems. To simplify the basis of my form of government to just a requirement to empower experts because of that axiom is to simplify so far as to remove what is essential. A couple of other basic ideas are vying for membership of the irreducible essence of this form of government, but as I have not settled on that membership yet I will reserve the matter for a later discussion.
No need to apologize for the history lesson, it was interesting.
It is now very late here. So I will have to address your other two comments tomorrow.
Post new comment