Sileetris
30-08-2005, 05:45
I'd like to propose a system of government I've been thinking up to the people here and see a response..... My basic goal is to try and come up with a pretty fair, workable system, with what I hope would be less abusable than current systems. Also, its a pretty weird idea so yeah...
The problem I see with democracy is the people that come to power owe favors to the people that got them there, which can lead to unfair treatment of the losers. The idea of giving all the ideas a chance is good though...
Dictatorships, have a similar problem. The Despot that comes to power owes his position to his party. In theory, though, an enlightened dictator could rule a country very well.
Monarchs may or may not owe power to others (depends on if we're talking about ones with barons and all that), meaning they could in theory be fair rulers, if they weren't biased towards say their family agenda.
In every system, problems arise because the leaders owe their constituents something, prompting me to wonder if its possible to design a system where the constituents can't gain anything from political appointments; in theory if they have nothing to gain they will make decisions based on their idea of what makes a good leader, rather than how they can manipulate the system to favor them.
What if you have a small class of people with fixed incomes (monitored) and no particular affiliation to vote for a leader of the same qualities? The leader can't give special favors to them once empowered, and they can't recieve benefits from outside sources, so they should elect a leader on his qualities as a leader.
Before I award this person utter control of the country, I think there should be a popularly elected governing body to insure the people recieve official representation, and if this parliament totally disagrees with the leader they can veto him. This is under the assumption that if he makes a really unpopular decision, something can stop him.
Anyway, imagine a political school that teaches extremely gifted students from a fairly early age in how to govern. They'll read the classic works and get an appreciation for the nature of mankind. They'd tour the country (and the world) learning about people and how to interact with them, different beliefs, etc. By the end of their time in the school, they'll be the pinnacles of political knowledge, and we'll have them vote for who among them they feel would be the best leader. There might be secondary elections for district heads and whatnot... Anyone that doesn't get elected to a position by their peers I guess will either go on with the rest of their lives, maybe to the popular parliament, maybe to another country, whatever (if its determined they would somehow hinder the fair operation of the system, I guess they get sent off on a lifetime paid vacation).
There are two glaring problems I can see with the acadamy idea; parents and teachers. The students will probably follow their parent's beliefs somewhat, leading to some bias (I'm looking at fundamentalist religions here...), my counter to this being the extremist views will probably constitute a small percentage of the school vote. As for the teachers, the problem lies in determining what is taught; who draws the guidelines for what will become the basis for a ruler's mentality? Who has the right to do that? Quick answer; me. The only reason anyone has the right to do anything is by others consent, and if I draw a line and enough people agree with it, well there you go.
Right, anyway, sorry for the rantish and disconnected nature, if you followed it up till here good for you, now poke holes in it until its dead!
The problem I see with democracy is the people that come to power owe favors to the people that got them there, which can lead to unfair treatment of the losers. The idea of giving all the ideas a chance is good though...
Dictatorships, have a similar problem. The Despot that comes to power owes his position to his party. In theory, though, an enlightened dictator could rule a country very well.
Monarchs may or may not owe power to others (depends on if we're talking about ones with barons and all that), meaning they could in theory be fair rulers, if they weren't biased towards say their family agenda.
In every system, problems arise because the leaders owe their constituents something, prompting me to wonder if its possible to design a system where the constituents can't gain anything from political appointments; in theory if they have nothing to gain they will make decisions based on their idea of what makes a good leader, rather than how they can manipulate the system to favor them.
What if you have a small class of people with fixed incomes (monitored) and no particular affiliation to vote for a leader of the same qualities? The leader can't give special favors to them once empowered, and they can't recieve benefits from outside sources, so they should elect a leader on his qualities as a leader.
Before I award this person utter control of the country, I think there should be a popularly elected governing body to insure the people recieve official representation, and if this parliament totally disagrees with the leader they can veto him. This is under the assumption that if he makes a really unpopular decision, something can stop him.
Anyway, imagine a political school that teaches extremely gifted students from a fairly early age in how to govern. They'll read the classic works and get an appreciation for the nature of mankind. They'd tour the country (and the world) learning about people and how to interact with them, different beliefs, etc. By the end of their time in the school, they'll be the pinnacles of political knowledge, and we'll have them vote for who among them they feel would be the best leader. There might be secondary elections for district heads and whatnot... Anyone that doesn't get elected to a position by their peers I guess will either go on with the rest of their lives, maybe to the popular parliament, maybe to another country, whatever (if its determined they would somehow hinder the fair operation of the system, I guess they get sent off on a lifetime paid vacation).
There are two glaring problems I can see with the acadamy idea; parents and teachers. The students will probably follow their parent's beliefs somewhat, leading to some bias (I'm looking at fundamentalist religions here...), my counter to this being the extremist views will probably constitute a small percentage of the school vote. As for the teachers, the problem lies in determining what is taught; who draws the guidelines for what will become the basis for a ruler's mentality? Who has the right to do that? Quick answer; me. The only reason anyone has the right to do anything is by others consent, and if I draw a line and enough people agree with it, well there you go.
Right, anyway, sorry for the rantish and disconnected nature, if you followed it up till here good for you, now poke holes in it until its dead!