Could you run your country better?

[ImmortalDrifter]

Even if i were the President I would still have to deal with all of the incredible fuck-knuckles in congress. And if this is an absolute power scenario i wouldn't go near it for fear of becoming what i hate.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I think I could run the country okay for about six months, after which my ineptitude which should have been GLARINGLY obvious at the time will bring the whole diseased, corrupt temple down on our heads.

 

[clutch-monkey]

probably not.

but it would be a hell of a ride.

 

[intheweeds]

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.

Wow. really?

So let me get this straight. Just so we're clear:
You're going to attempt to rehabilitate people based on whatever the psychologists believe at the time (i assume you will be getting some info from a professional an this). Then, if you fail, it will be 'hideous screaming nightmare'. That's nice. Then you are going to discolour and cripple whatever 'healing' process you may offer by hanging a giant cloud of fear over the the whole affair, thereby effectively guaranteeing failure. It's a good thing you give the first offense a sentence! A time limit for emotional healing is just what people need to get better! Enjoy your mutinous uprising.

You do realize that we know very little about mental illness right? That there is no cure? You realize science is only absolutely sure about the workings of 10% of our brain matter and the rest is somewhat of a mystery? That the listed mental illnesses change over time as we learn more?

You make huge assumptions about why people commit crimes as well. You assume people commit crime because of some kind of emotional issue. Are you going to 'talk' away someones abject poverty for example? Of course after a good talk they won't live in a ghetto anymore, they'll certainly get a well paying job and buy a house in a nice neighborhood if someone only took the time to talk to them. They only live around gangs and violence because they have emotional issues. If he only had a good talk, that poor father wouldn't need any drug money to feed his kids. He just doesn't understand. Clearly it's a choice people make because they haven't had the chance to talk it out! /sarcasm

How anyone would think this is a good idea is beyond me.

 

[JWAN]

well I study econ and military history and I have a certificate in politics.

Probably not though. I like to think I can but I cannot fairly judge because I have no practical experience in that area.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

...It's not the Democrats we see on Faux Noise, now is it?

Hahaha, it's funny, because you are insulting Fox News by using the word "Faux". I bet no one has ever thought of that before!

I don't mind honest debate on topics, but come on, name calling? That's one step above "I'm rubber, you're glue!"

OT: No, I have a few ideas, but I know there are reasons they do not exist. I'm not so vain as to think my thoughts are the only vaild ones.

Regardless, I would like to see more honest debate on the issues at hand, and less of the right accusing the left and vice versa.

 

[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.

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!

Interesting video. But no government in the world has its posts filled entirely with analytical types - there seems to be a few idiots in each one, mainly at the top. And unfortunately that's where they can cause the most damage, by ignoring a sensible decision that has taken much work to generate and taking the politically favourable option instead.

As for the New Economy, I can't say I know much about it, but if it is based on traditional economics, then it wouldn't really qualify as a science; more an automated opinion system. My understanding is that traditional economics assumes that each agent in a system will behave rationally, even after this was shown untrue in humans.

Science is definitely amoral. But I have confidence that most scientists/engineers (or the general public) have morals that are better for a country than those of politicians.

 

[Nimcha]

Yep. But I'd never be elected so the point is moot.

 

[Treblaine]

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

It is a fair point though, it's just that no one has come up with a viable alternative. I suppose that's why spin doctors and disaster capitalism exist though. A way to convince the otherwise ignorant? Or just shady fact twisting.

One or the other.

Best argument FOR Democracy: 5 minute conversation with the average dictator.

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.....

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or stating the obvious in a convoluted way, the entire political establishment in communist countries was entirely run by technocrats: scientists, engineers and experts. It was all entirely based on scientific principals.

Your hyperbolic comparison of tutors of Steven Hawkings betrays a gross misunderstanding of what science is. What good would a theoretical astrophysicist be in running a country?

You seem to act as if science is one perfect eternal that has all the answers and is never wrong. Well get that idea out of your head as there have been some terrible "scientific" ideas that come from trying to use it for more than it actually knows and understands.

Scientific discoveries can only be implemented when they have matured, even today the science of running the world is not developed enough to run everything.

 

[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!

Interesting video. But no government in the world has its posts filled entirely with analytical types - there seems to be a few idiots in each one, mainly at the top. And unfortunately that's where they can cause the most damage, by ignoring a sensible decision that has taken much work to generate and taking the politically favourable option instead.

As for the New Economy, I can't say I know much about it, but if it is based on traditional economics, then it wouldn't really qualify as a science; more an automated opinion system. My understanding is that traditional economics assumes that each agent in a system will behave rationally, even after this was shown untrue in humans.

Science is definitely amoral. But I have confidence that most scientists/engineers (or the general public) have morals that are better for a country than those of politicians.

Well then you want to catch Curtis' series "The Century of the Self" which focuses all on the rationality of the masses.

The Communists stated a LONG time ago that people are too irrational to be allowed to make decisions. But ultimately someone HAS to make decisions and that was what lead to every Communist state collapsing or forced to liberalise to capitalism: that you cannot just take away decisions from the masses because they make poor decisions. Then you have a tiny communist elite who make the same irrational decisions only on a far more costly scale.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

Not under the circumstances. If I was going to have to fight for votes no, that is just asking for failiure. If there was no voting system then YES YES YES. I am not an economist or a politician and that is exactly why I would be better. Politicians are actors who somehow got real power and now just fuck up. I could always hire economists. I have a lot of brilliant common sense ideas as to how to run a country and with no voting system or stupid semantics in the way I could do a better job than our current leader.

 

[Hagi]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or stating the obvious in a convoluted way, the entire political establishment in communist countries was entirely run by technocrats: scientists, engineers and experts. It was all entirely based on scientific principals.

Your hyperbolic comparison of tutors of Steven Hawkings betrays a gross misunderstanding of what science is. What good would a theoretical astrophysicist be in running a country?

You seem to act as if science is one perfect eternal that has all the answers and is never wrong. Well get that idea out of your head as there have been some terrible "scientific" ideas that come from trying to use it for more than it actually knows and understands.

Scientific discoveries can only be implemented when they have matured, even today the science of running the world is not developed enough to run everything.

Do you know what science is?

Science is based on falsification. That's a core principle of science. You have to be able to prove it wrong. If you can't prove it wrong then it's not scientific.

Dictatorships such as the USSR and China do not support any falsification. Nobody's allowed to tell them that they're wrong for these and these reason. That's not scientific in any way or form whatsoever.

Science has to be reproducible. You can't just say this is true (like dictators do). You have to show how you came to that conclusion so others are able to verify your conclusions. That's called verification, another core principle of science.

To ensure that both of these are possible any scientific theory has to be able to make predictions. You can't just say this is how it works. You can only say if this is how it works then this is what will happen. If it doesn't happen then you're wrong, if it does then you haven't been proven wrong yet. There's no right in science, there's only not wrong yet.

Dictatorships are in no way or form the scientific method applied to politics. There's no verification. There's no falsification. There's no predictions. There's no science.

 

[SammiYin]

Well since England is run by a bunch of morons who are trying to please everybody at the expense of everyone else, yes I could.
But I might be a little...controversial.

 

[Sansha]

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.

Wow. really?

So let me get this straight. Just so we're clear:
You're going to attempt to rehabilitate people based on whatever the psychologists believe at the time (i assume you will be getting some info from a professional an this). Then, if you fail, it will be 'hideous screaming nightmare'. That's nice. Then you are going to discolour and cripple whatever 'healing' process you may offer by hanging a giant cloud of fear over the the whole affair, thereby effectively guaranteeing failure. It's a good thing you give the first offense a sentence! A time limit for emotional healing is just what people need to get better! Enjoy your mutinous uprising.

You do realize that we know very little about mental illness right? That there is no cure? You realize science is only absolutely sure about the workings of 10% of our brain matter and the rest is somewhat of a mystery? That the listed mental illnesses change over time as we learn more?

You make huge assumptions about why people commit crimes as well. You assume people commit crime because of some kind of emotional issue. Are you going to 'talk' away someones abject poverty for example? Of course after a good talk they won't live in a ghetto anymore, they'll certainly get a well paying job and buy a house in a nice neighborhood if someone only took the time to talk to them. They only live around gangs and violence because they have emotional issues. If he only had a good talk, that poor father wouldn't need any drug money to feed his kids. He just doesn't understand. Clearly it's a choice people make because they haven't had the chance to talk it out! /sarcasm

How anyone would think this is a good idea is beyond me.

It's call education. Many prisons have resources for inmates to better themselves so they can actually go back to a better life when they get out. In a great deal of prisons, one can get the equivalent of a high-school diploma, and some even have work experience.

You can't magic someone out of whatever fuckup their lives are in. That's the idea of the second part of my leadership plan - to ensure it doesn't happen in the first place.

You really think 'rehabilitation' and 'therapy' is just a sit-down? Get fucking real. The idea of prisons is to get convicts through their sentences and back into productive members of society. Life-termers are obviously beyond that, and frankly I don't see why money should be spent on keeping them alive.
It's only the real 'ghetto for life', if you want to totally generalize that all criminals are ghetto rats, people who are beyond help. I don't want to purge people without giving them a chance, but if they're not interested?

Fuck 'em.

 

[Ashcrexl]

pfft, with my incompetence? nah. i'd be worse than dubya Bush. plus our current president aint doin half bad right now.

 

[Treblaine]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or stating the obvious in a convoluted way, the entire political establishment in communist countries was entirely run by technocrats: scientists, engineers and experts. It was all entirely based on scientific principals.

Your hyperbolic comparison of tutors of Steven Hawkings betrays a gross misunderstanding of what science is. What good would a theoretical astrophysicist be in running a country?

You seem to act as if science is one perfect eternal that has all the answers and is never wrong. Well get that idea out of your head as there have been some terrible "scientific" ideas that come from trying to use it for more than it actually knows and understands.

Scientific discoveries can only be implemented when they have matured, even today the science of running the world is not developed enough to run everything.

Do you know what science is?

Science is based on falsification. That's a core principle of science. You have to be able to prove it wrong. If you can't prove it wrong then it's not scientific.

Dictatorships such as the USSR and China do not support any falsification. Nobody's allowed to tell them that they're wrong for these and these reason. That's not scientific in any way or form whatsoever.

Science has to be reproducible. You can't just say this is true (like dictators do). You have to show how you came to that conclusion so others are able to verify your conclusions. That's called verification, another core principle of science.

To ensure that both of these are possible any scientific theory has to be able to make predictions. You can't just say this is how it works. You can only say if this is how it works then this is what will happen. If it doesn't happen then you're wrong, if it does then you haven't been proven wrong yet. There's no right in science, there's only not wrong yet.

Dictatorships are in no way or form the scientific method applied to politics. There's no verification. There's no falsification. There's no predictions. There's no science.

How do you falsify a scientific Theory of Economy without destroying an economy? How do you even verify it, an economy that isn't even a closed system!

You can't make a lab-rat economy, there is no human analogue. Computers can't do it either, they are not advanced enough to emulate human decision making, especially not on a vast scale. Everything is unproven theories till they are actually applied and applied on a scale that affects millions!

And yes, I know science is supposed to be about falsification and verification but irrational elites are VERY good at rationalising reasons to ignore or silence those who cast doubt on their ideas. ESPECIALLY when the ideas are already in practice, that's the problem with trying to run a country with science, the system is just so complex and unpredictable: chaotic that science cannot tell you what to do.

If you actually follow the true scientific standard of proof and falsification you can't actually use science to run countries. Only have it as an aide in certain circumstances.

The best we can do at the moment accountability and vigilance, so many unpredictable individuals wielding so much power (money), the best we can do is patch things as they go along and rebuild it when it crashes. You can't control it, you can't let it run wild.

Science has it's applications, but it is not the be-all and end-all.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Have you seen our government here in Belgium?
No?
That's what I thought, because we don't have one.

 

[Hagi]

How do you falsify a scientific Theory of Economy without destroying an economy? How do you even verify it, an economy that isn't even a closed system!

You can't make a lab-rat economy, there is no human analogue. Computers can't do it either, they are not advanced enough to emulate human decision making, especially not on a vast scale. Everything is unproven theories till they are actually applied and applied on a scale that affects millions!

And yes, I know science is supposed to be about falsification and verification but irrational elites are VERY good at rationalising reasons to ignore or silence those who cast doubt on their ideas. ESPECIALLY when the ideas are already in practice, that's the problem with trying to run a country with science, the system is just so complex and unpredictable: chaotic that science cannot tell you what to do.

If you actually follow the true scientific standard of proof and falsification you can't actually use science to run countries. Only have it as an aide in certain circumstances.

The best we can do at the moment accountability and vigilance, so many unpredictable individuals wielding so much power (money), the best we can do is patch things as they go along and rebuild it when it crashes. You can't control it, you can't let it run wild.

Science has it's applications, but it is not the be-all and end-all.

You mistake those irrational elites for scientists. They aren't scientists.

How do you falsify an economic theory? Easy.

An economic theory needs to make predictions. You don't have to do anything to the system. You don't have to use any lab-rats. You merely need data.

Your economic theory will predict a pattern. If your data shows the same pattern then your theory holds, for now. If it shows a different pattern then your theory needs work.

You keep collecting data. You keep working on that theory. You keep checking your theory.

That's all the scientific method is. The creation, verification and falsification of scientific theories.

All the experimentation is helpful and speeds up the process when it can be used, but that's not what the scientific method is.

Passive observation is just as scientific as controlled observation. It's just a lot harder to draw conclusions from. But when you don't have a choice there's plenty of statistical research and theories on how to responsibly draw conclusions from passive observation.

The key part about using science in government is that every policy needs to be verifiable and falsifiable. Politicians need to show what actual theory (common sense is not a scientific theory) lies behind their plans. What they predict would happen if their plans were implemented (if they can't make concrete predictions then they need to research it more) and under what circumstances their plans fail (if any exception is an "exception that proves the rule" then it's not scientific).

It's got absolutely nothing to do with getting a giant AI with an IQ of 200000 to run the country. It's got nothing to do with saying that current scientific theory is suddenly absolute truth and going with that. It's got nothing to do with turning the entire country in an experiment to test whatever crazy theory Bob, the lead scientist, came up with today.

It's got everything to do with a responsible working method that leads to actual results, as the progress of the past decades has shown.

 

[TheAmokz]

Of could i could. I'm genius after all.

 

[Treblaine]

It's call education. Many prisons have resources for inmates to better themselves so they can actually go back to a better life when they get out. In a great deal of prisons, one can get the equivalent of a high-school diploma, and some even have work experience.

You can't magic someone out of whatever fuckup their lives are in. That's the idea of the second part of my leadership plan - to ensure it doesn't happen in the first place.

You really think 'rehabilitation' and 'therapy' is just a sit-down? Get fucking real. The idea of prisons is to get convicts through their sentences and back into productive members of society. Life-termers are obviously beyond that, and frankly I don't see why money should be spent on keeping them alive.
It's only the real 'ghetto for life', if you want to totally generalize that all criminals are ghetto rats, people who are beyond help. I don't want to purge people without giving them a chance, but if they're not interested?

Fuck 'em.

It's not even that hard, it can take the simplest things like - I don't know - do something about the horrific rape statistics in prison.

We've seen this for decades now. Clyde Barrow (of Bonnie and Clyde) the most notorious Gangster in US History, his criminal career began when he went to jail for petty theft where he was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a dominant inmate. Clyde murdered his abuser when no one would help him, his first killing, and left jail a hardened criminal who never hesitated to kill and held a vendetta against all society and especially the police who locked him in that cell...

Why do you think "gangstas" today resort to that hyper-macho "ghetto for life" attitude? Compensating to what happens to almost every young man sent to jail, they learn to fight so that no one can ever dominate them like that again. They never talk about it, but they all know about it. They all say "they never got me" but they wouldn't if they did.

How the hell can you ever choose the peaceful path when anything but extreme violence and gang mentality gets you highly likely to be raped! It doesn't even have to happen often, it only has to happen enough for there to be a threat to close into group protection.

So what is the solution? Petty criminals going to prison and coming out hardened gang members?

As for hardened criminals, the surest way is to isolate them from their gang activity and just give them a few years to cool off. How do you stop people who were gangsters on the outside forming gangs on the inside? Well that is tricky and you can't wait them them to come to YOU looking for help, as the gangs themselves can be more beneficial than most rehabilitation that is offered.