Could you run your country better?

[Hawk eye1466]

First, death penalty. If you take a life and there is overwhelming evidence - not just beyond doubt - that you did it, you will die, that week, by hanging.

Second, change the prison system to make it a place of therapy, education and corrections for the first offense. Helping people talk about why they commit their crime, and how they can re-enter society and not offend again.
But for the second offense, a hideous screaming nightmare world from which there is no waking, where a man is constantly bombarded by his darkest shadows and sent to the point of clinical insanity. I wouldn't even feed them real food - just dump a truck of scraps in the courtyard every second evening. Whatever happens, happens. Cells that are totally bare, and through the night have zero light or sound. Fights between inmates not broken up. Real "How could you do this to a human being?" shit. Rapists especially, generally lose their rights as people, given generally a cell as a bare concrete room with a stool and noose already set up, and are fed and tended to 'when we get around to it'.
I call it the 'You Had Your Chance' system.
I'd have to do a lot to ensure fair trials and uncorrupted police, but I'm sure I could make it work and horrify some other countries with my soulless brutality.

But outside the scum of society, I would be a benevolent leader, ensuring as many of my people are as happy as possible. Total legalization of gay marriage - not civil fucking unions, MARRIAGE. Gay people have as much right to be miserable as anyone else.
Welfare for the truly deserving - sometimes shit happens and you can't survive on your own for a little while. Pour as much money as I can into education so people CAN better themselves, along with hospitals and clinics, ensuring people can always get the treatment they need.

I want my people to be as safe and happy as possible, and I believe the key to this is rehabilitating, or torturing those who would threaten it.

I would vote for you!

 

[Esotera]

Easy - just put the scientists/engineers in charge, or anyway who can look at a large amount of data and actually interpret it. It wouldn't work entirely, but it'd be better than the current system.

This. Absolutely. We have far too many accountants, economists and lawyers in government, as well as a lot of people who have entirely been career politicians without ever having had to experience the real world since leaving school. Getting a bunch of engineers and scientists into government would improve this country immeasurably. These are people who have spent their lives solving practical problems and working with complex data sets. They also are inclined to come to conclusions based on real, quantifiable data rather than wishful thinking, ideology and manipulation.

Taking this further, I reckon that as technology gets exponentially better, it'd be possible to delegate a lot of decisions to advanced computer models such as IBM's Watson. This would remove any further bias. But this approach does make Fox News considerably less interesting to watch...

 

[Treblaine]

Easy - just put the scientists/engineers in charge, or anyway who can look at a large amount of data and actually interpret it. It wouldn't work entirely, but it'd be better than the current system.

Uhh, they ARE in charge already!

This is what Bill Clinton's "New Economy" is, all controlled by a vast network of computerised checks, balances and subsidies. You think George W bush was running the show for 8 years? No. He just let a load of other people that his advisers told him were the best at the job and they left if almost entirely automated or "Laizze Faire".

It's really hard to get into but Adam Curtis did a documentary series about how the economy of the world is under the control of a technocratic elite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5jImWRREc

Science is a means to an end, it can't by itself determine what that end is or what is the best one.

Science can make a nuclear bomb, but it cannot tell you if you should ever use it.

It is fundamentally amoral, not anti-moral, there is simply no morality to it. It will do good or bad and not make and distinction between them, only do whatever people use it for. And science for all its power is utterly weak to the selfish illogical whims of those who wield it.

A person's scientific capability is no indication at all that he will use that power appropriately.

The most poignant example is the 2008 crash, this was the scientists running the world economy, they could look at all the data and interpret it, they were the BEST and it was a DISASTER!

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Yes. Almost any1 could do better than those 2 clowns... except Ed Milliband.... which is the problem.

 

[Hagi]

No.

And 99,9% of people who think they do are even less suited then whoever is in power right now.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Running any country is much harder than most people give it credit for.

Wrong. Lots of people won Civ on the harder difficulties.

 

[andrew201292]

Agreed, its pathetic

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

Acctually admitting I have next to knowlage on how to run a country puts me above the Irish government already. I think I could, I'd make my government extremely accessible, posting everything I'm doing on twitter and talk about it on the tv and ask the people what they think we should do.

 

[Hagi]

The most poignant example is the 2008 crash, this was the scientists running the world economy, they could look at all the data and interpret it, they were the BEST and it was a DISASTER!

This was a group of bankers running the world economy and raking in TONS of cash. They could look at all the data and interpret it, they were the BEST and they made a KILLING.

The world got exactly what it bargained for. The world economy was run by economists who's goal is to maximise profits. Profits were maximised. Those economists are freaking rich now. (Do not mistake this for all economists having the goal of maximising profits, merely a lot of the ones that were running things).

If you want science to take charge of things you have to let a few more then just one discipline in. If you only let economists run things then yeah, you'll get trouble. What you need is psychologists who understand human empathy and compassion, working with biologists who understand who understand what humanity and the world require, working with physicists who understand how to make that happen, working with economists who understand how to get the resources for it etc. etc. etc.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm going to say "Yes" on this one.

I'm then going to insult the majority of people by saying that the root cause of all these problems is democracy. Seriously. Who thought it was a good idea to give all the power to every knucklehead that can drag their sorry ass down to the polling booths. And in the UK, we now have postal voting, so you don't even need to do that! WTF!

The average man on the street is an idiot. As long as his life only gets better, he doesn't care what you're doing, or what problems you're saving up for the future. And when those problems come back to bite, the poor shmuck that says "No, enough's enough, it's time for cut-backs" gets lambasted as an elitist pawn or whatever.

And as a direct result of democracy, we have politicians that are so interested in being popular (and thereby boosting their chances of re-election) that they will choose bad, short-termist policies deliberately, even knowing the problems that it will cause later, in an effort to get re-elected.

So yeah. I can't see how I could do any worse. I at least couldn't care less about getting re-elected, so I'm already one up on the majority of our politicians.

As churchill put it:

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Basically, Democracy ain't perfect, but there isn't anything better.

Because without democracy, the danger of tyranny and chaos as people assume power and are forcibly removed from power.

Those "knuckle-heads" are going to be filling the government's coffers with taxes, working for the economy, fight for their country in time of war, and most of all: be subject to the governments LAWS! People should be able to decide who rules and sets the laws so that some psychopath doesn't seize power.

But i'll agree, there are LOTS of improvements than need to be made with democracy.

My main problem is that arguments over democracy devolve into three main things:
-The system is perfect and shouldn't be changed at all
-The system is utterly broken and we should have some implausible "benevolent dictatorship"
-The system needs to be made hideously complex.

Sometimes the simplest things like switching to a popular vote. Imagine if Presidents were voted not State-by-state but per individual or representative-group, as in it is the TOTAL population's opinion, so Rhode Island doesn't influence the vote as much as California.

 

[Treblaine]

The most poignant example is the 2008 crash, this was the scientists running the world economy, they could look at all the data and interpret it, they were the BEST and it was a DISASTER!

This was a group of bankers running the world economy and raking in TONS of cash. They could look at all the data and interpret it, they were the BEST and they made a KILLING.

The world got exactly what it bargained for. The world economy was run by economists who's goal is to maximise profits. Profits were maximised. Those economists are freaking rich now. (Do not mistake this for all economists having the goal of maximising profits, merely a lot of the ones that were running things).

If you want science to take charge of things you have to let a few more then just one discipline in. If you only let economists run things then yeah, you'll get trouble. What you need is psychologists who understand human empathy and compassion, working with biologists who understand who understand what humanity and the world require, working with physicists who understand how to make that happen, working with economists who understand how to get the resources for it etc. etc. etc.

Just like the USSR.

Wait, that was a massive failure. What about North Korea... oh... worse.

Ah, China, they turned out all right. Wait, they had massive famines and economic implosion till the 1980's when they adopted major capitalist reforms. Now China is mostly a capitalist country where the scientist hardly control anything.

Hmm.

 

[ClaptonKnophlerHendrix]

Have you seen the Australian government? Or indeed any of our politicians? Practically anyone could do a better job.

I'm assuming you don't support Labor then?

 

[Hagi]

Just like the USSR.

Wait, that was a massive failure. What about North Korea... oh... worse.

Ah, China, they turned out all right. Wait, they had massive famines and economic implosion till the 1980's when they adopted major capitalist reforms. Now China is mostly a capitalist country where the scientist hardly control anything.

Hmm.

Yes, because those countries were totally run by scientists who understood all about the things I just mentioned.....

They weren't run by revolutionary leaders in the least. I mean Stalin clearly had doctorates in any field from Psychology to Theoretical Physics and from Biology to Astronomy. And Mao? He's clearly the guy that taught Stephen Hawkins his stuff and well known around the world for his excellent research into human neurology.....

 

[Trivun]

Purely because of all the work and intricacies involved in running the country as leader, I could never be UK Prime Minister, without at least a degree in politics and all the experience needed for the job. After that, then yeah, I probably could. However, provided I had the right qualifications and experience (as always), then I could most certainly do a much better job as a Cabinet Minister than the current people. That's partly because I actually have good ideas, but also because I'd always run ideas past everyone with any experience and the right qualifications to answer sensibly before even thinking about bringing them to Parliament. And by that, I don't mean the general public (who wouldn't have a clue and would thus give skewed opinions), but actual people who are qualified to answer and who would give a realistic idea of what the effects would be. For example, if I was Health Secretary, I'd not just rush through reforms like Andrew Lansley is trying to over here right now. I'd have spoken to doctors, nurses, patients, hospital administrators, and so on, people actually involved in healthcare and with the experience needed to discuss it, before bringing the reforms to the government to vote on.

That, by the way, is another reason why I feel that ministers in Parliament should only be permitted (there should actually be a law about this, I reckon) to take on a role if they have the experience of that field already. For example, the Health Secretary should only be allowed to have that job if they have experience working as a medical professional. The Defense Secretary should have been a soldier or other military operative for at least some time before they're allowed to take on the role. And so on. Because that's the only way we're going to have politicians making the right decisions that really matter. A major failing of government is that most governments are completely out of touch with the actual needs of the people, and of the fields they are in charge of. Making sure the ministers actually know what should be done by making sure they know what they're talking about right from th off would be a massive positive step for actually having a successful, working, decent government.