NationStates Jolt Archive

Part of the major problem with democracy is that while it produces what the people want (supposedly) it does not nessecarly produce the best woman/man for the job of head of government. What would people say to a system which had a codified constitution, giving all the checks and balances of the current system, but instead of people being voted in they got to power on the basis of an extremely strict series of tests. Thus actually giving the job of head of government to someone who was actually good at their job.

Have you checked out the Technocrat Manifesto? We have a system much like that.

Part of the major problem with democracy is that while it produces what the people want (supposedly) it does not nessecarly produce the best woman/man for the job of head of government. What would people say to a system which had a codified constitution, giving all the checks and balances of the current system, but instead of people being voted in they got to power on the basis of an extremely strict series of tests. Thus actually giving the job of head of government to someone who was actually good at their job.

So how do you determine who takes the test? Who determines that they are good at the job? Do those people have to pass a series of extremely strict tests? Who writes the tests? Who's testing them? Define extremely strict test...

Personally, I'd rather try and breed a group of humans specifically for the qualities I'd want in a ruler. Then I'd lock the offspring in a huge ornate cage called a 'palace' and train them all their life to serve their people. I'd force them to attend boring functions and perform apparently meaningless acts of tradition, all to emphasise the importance of fulfilling ones duties and of being a good servant to the masses. Hell, I'd even make them head of a religion where a king like teacher figure whom some might consider a deity does humble and demeaning things because it is right to do so.

I'd make them the people's slaves for life, never owning anything save what the people give them, never creating, always acting their part, knowing that they are going to be unpopular, knowing that your children will have to clear up your messes. You don't get to leave after a four year term, so all your policies will affect you all your life. Maybe you'll ask the people to appoint advisers so you get a handle on the vox populi, but you'll be the one blamed when things go wrong.

Oh wait, shit, we had a system like that and threw it all away. No, we have power-hungry bankers and lawyers funding nobodies to represent anybody. We have every racial, sexual or gender group fighting for their special priviliges with no thought to the whole. Our governments are ephemereal, their policies mere fads of the moment to try and maintain the personal power of the guy who won because he wasn't quite as much of a scumbag as the other guy.

Thats better, surely.

You might as well go with the societal example in Brave New World, with this line of thinking. Everyone is bred for a specific purpose, everyone is happy because they are 'programmed' to love their lot in life and receive regular government drug samples. It 'worked' after all...

Wouldn't the testmakers just be in charge then?

Personally, I'd rather try and breed a group of humans specifically for the qualities I'd want in a ruler. Then I'd lock the offspring in a huge ornate cage called a 'palace' and train them all their life to serve their people. I'd force them to attend boring functions and perform apparently meaningless acts of tradition, all to emphasise the importance of fulfilling ones duties and of being a good servant to the masses. Hell, I'd even make them head of a religion where a king like teacher figure whom some might consider a deity does humble and demeaning things because it is right to do so.

I'd make them the people's slaves for life, never owning anything save what the people give them, never creating, always acting their part, knowing that they are going to be unpopular, knowing that your children will have to clear up your messes. You don't get to leave after a four year term, so all your policies will affect you all your life. Maybe you'll ask the people to appoint advisers so you get a handle on the vox populi, but you'll be the one blamed when things go wrong.

Oh wait, shit, we had a system like that and threw it all away. No, we have power-hungry bankers and lawyers funding nobodies to represent anybody. We have every racial, sexual or gender group fighting for their special priviliges with no thought to the whole. Our governments are ephemereal, their policies mere fads of the moment to try and maintain the personal power of the guy who won because he wasn't quite as much of a scumbag as the other guy.

Thats better, surely.

When did we ever have a system where the rulers served the people?

The big problem I had with Brave New World was the lack of progress. The entire system was designed to get rid of progress and that sickened me. The manufactured inefficiency really sickened me, I think most of my problems with that world stemmed from the anti-progress anti-efficiency aspects of that book.

When did we ever have a system where the rulers served the people?
parts of it sound like the present british/european royal family(s)

The big problem I had with Brave New World was the lack of progress. The entire system was designed to get rid of progress and that sickened me. The manufactured inefficiency really sickened me, I think most of my problems with that world stemmed from the anti-progress anti-efficiency aspects of that book.

Really, what should sicken you, is the lack of 'humanity' in their system. It was completely efficient, and was based on the Ford Assembly line. Humanity didn't need to 'progress', because it had (supposedly) achieved perfect contentness (with the exception of the few Alphas who thought too much, and the 'savages' in the reserves.)

When did we ever have a system where the rulers served the people?
Uh.... probably never. Except maybe the occasional idealist emperor but even then he probably served his idealism and his ego more than anything and probably also screwed up more things than he fixed but even the existence of this idealistic being is an unknown.

why should we be ruled by people who are the most competent, i rather be ruled by the corrupt and stupid if i have to be ruled at all. it makes the flaws in the very ideal of government in general far more obvious. what would be more blandly oppressive than the rule of the best bureaucrats society could create?

Really, what should sicken you, is the lack of 'humanity' in their system. It was completely efficient, and was based on the Ford Assembly line. Humanity didn't need to 'progress', because it had (supposedly) achieved perfect contentness (with the exception of the few Alphas who thought too much, and the 'savages' in the reserves.)
Efficient? It was intentionally wasteful. They may have wasted material efficiently but still it was wasteful. Also, they stopped at that technological point because they were afraid of going further, "perfect contentment" is not something I care too much about they needed to go further and push humanity to new heights. They could have probably done that too if they changed the percentages of people in the lower castes. Technology could have reduced the numbers of lower caste people and increased the humanity somewhat too. After all, the alphas seemed pretty human and did have needs greater than soma and sex.

Efficient? It was intentionally wasteful. They may have wasted material efficiently but still it was wasteful. Also, they stopped at that technological point because they were afraid of going further, "perfect contentment" is not something I care too much about they needed to go further and push humanity to new heights. They could have probably done that too if they changed the percentages of people in the lower castes. Technology could have reduced the numbers of lower caste people and increased the humanity somewhat too. After all, the alphas seemed pretty human and did have needs greater than soma and sex.

I guess that depends on your take on what Utopian society is (or in this case, a Dystopian one). This society achieved it's 'goal', and realized its 'perfect formula', much like Orwell's 1984 (a much creepier Dystopia in my opinion.) What new heights would the powers need, if their goal is to create contented masses and a perpetual assembly line dedicated to perpetuating itself?

I guess that depends on your take on what Utopian society is (or in this case, a Dystopian one). This society achieved it's 'goal', and realized its 'perfect formula', much like Orwell's 1984 (a much creepier Dystopia in my opinion.) What new heights would the powers need, if their goal is to create contented masses and a perpetual assembly line dedicated to perpetuating itself?
Well, I believe in progress. Both 1984 and Brave New World lacked progress, therefore they were both dystopias. The goal of creating a contented masses and perpetual assembly line is rather meaningless, it has to end and when it does it leaves people with nothing. Even backwards spiritualism is a step forward but I would consider continual focus on progress to be better in the long run.

Well, I believe in progress. Both 1984 and Brave New World lacked progress, therefore they were both dystopias. The goal of creating a contented masses and perpetual assembly line is rather meaningless, it has to end and when it does it leaves people with nothing. Even backwards spiritualism is a step forward but I would consider continual focus on progress to be better in the long run.

Naturally, I believe in progress too. But I view the nature of the Dystopia to be the general lack of humanity in the systems; Brave New World's genetic recreation of it to the point we can barely recognize it as being humanity, and 1984's complete disregard for it.

The definition of progress is debatable too. When we think of the idea of progress, surely we think of something that would be for the benefit of humanity, and not simply for the sake of 'continually progressing'. At what point, in the name of progress, are we degressing?

At any rate, as much fun as this sophistry is, it gets past the point of my general disdain of the idea of a 'meritocracy' as a form of government, at least in the sense proposed by the OP, since in a democracy (at least in a proportionately representative sense), the 'person best suited for the job', is ratified with the consent of the electorate. In this supposed meritocracy, how exactly would you define that someone is best suited, if not by the will of the electorate? The person who scores highest in a test? How often would that person (or persons) rule before another test is required? It just seems completely unworkable...

Meh, continually progressing sounds good to me. Humanity would receive the most benefit by killing themselves to be honest. By killing ourselves we would end all pain, save the environment, and possibly even find out the answer to all philosophical questions, or at least find a solution. Massive suicide for mankind would be the best thing for the good of mankind. However, it is rather stupid.

Meritocracy is sort of a hard thing to do anyway. It would tend to greater corrupition anyway. Besides, a representative democracy has enough oligarchic and democratic tendencies to be a relatively good system. People are idiots and all powerful groups tend to be corrupt.

Democracy is just another word for mob rule.

Many people lack a basic understanding of the issues at hand, much less an educated view on a candidate’s nuanced position of the issues. Most people vote based on meaningless sound bites and flawed misconceptions about what is going on.

Democracy can only work given an alert and knowledgeable citizenry. When a majority of the voters are poorly informed on the issues and lack the education to understand many of them, we get what blatant corruption we see know. How many of you believe politicians are honest and honorable? We elect leaders who tell people what they want to hear in simple sound bites rather than someone who is even honest about their position because most of the voters are too ignorant or shortsighted to think with any complexity.

The right and sometimes necessary thing to do is not always popular, but our system promotes those that do what is necessary to win votes or campaign contributions, rather than what is best for the nation.

While there is always the possibility of corruption, I think it far more likely to have a rational debate were voters required to pass a short test on the pertinent issues before an election.

I have spent a lot of time pondering a superior form of government. There are many issues that cause difficulty – corruption being one of them. No form of government can eliminate it; all that can be done is to reduce the incidence thereof.

We need to develop a mobile class system. There should be a differentiation between common residents and those who are allowed to vote. Were there an aristocracy, membership within being fairly fluid, which controlled the government, there would be far less of a problem. Education and ability should be requirements of membership, and while heredity will of course play some part, it is by no means necessary. The son of an intelligent, well educated, and industrious man is far more likely to be an asset to society than some street thug who grew up on welfare, but by no means does this imply that all men are destined by birth.

Perhaps we should reexamine the Roman Republic’s constitution for some ideas. That fell into empire largely due to some ambitious men using armed gangs to threaten the senate. With a semblance of a police force this would not have been a problem. Secondly corruption and bribery would be far easier to ferret out in the modern world, thus greatly reducing another problem with the roman system.

Additionally, read Starship Troopers (rather dissimilar to the movie). It provides a few ideas that give plausible alternative to universal suffrage democracy. People do not gain the right to vote unless they have performed some form of government service.

Everyone cries that it is difficult, and rife with the possibility of corruption, to require some form of test to gain the ability to vote. I propose that it is not only possible to have a fair system, but is necessary for government to reduce the waste and corruption currently embodied in the American system. (I would add many other systems, but I am less familiar with them while I am intimately knowledgeable with the American model of government).

We need not restrict this to a tiny elite, but a rather broad base of perhaps half of the population may be a sufficient restriction. We could require some form of testing when registering to vote – one where you are required to show an understanding of basic economics, political systems, etc.

This would greatly restrict the use of some pandering to ignorance that politicians exploit. You would quickly see some irrelevant, yet popular with the ignorant masses, issues drop away (such as the recent brouhaha over the ports deal) in favor of issues that actually matter (like reforming the tax code or restrictions on congressional earmarks) which are not sexy enough for the ignorant masses to pay attention to.

Democracy is just another word for mob rule.

*snip*

I can do no less than agree entirely.

Incidentally, I was talking about the monarchy, or at least the ideal of monarchy.

But since we're on the subject of the Utopian Brave New World, we musn't forget about the Islands. At the end of the book, the Leader (I forget the name) says that he acknowledges that certain sacrifices in terms of conventional humanity and indeed progress have to be made. He recognises the flaws in the system.

But then comes the bit that convinces me of the perfection of the system. The Leader explains how dissidents and free thinkers are exiled to certain Islands where they can interact with others like them. Why? He gives two reasons. One, this is going to be an environment in which the dissidents are much happier, but secondly and more importantly these facilities allow the maintenance of inventive talent that would otherwise be lost. A pool of inpsiration in case a situation arises which the otherwise perfectly stable society is unable to face.

Progress is not lost - it is put on hold until a situation arises that requires it.

The society described guaranteed happiness, purpose, justice and equality. For those that desire greater freedoms, there are alternatives. Those who wish greater freedoms BUT also want the benefits of the society, there are provisions. And should the system experience problems, the society remains capable of applying innovative minds to the subject.