Your ideal non-monarchic gov't
- Thread starter Psycho Cat Industries
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well actually if what I heard is accurate, real communism doesn't really have a government. It is ruled by the people for the people. Of course the fatal flaw in the system is that it assumes everyone is a good person who will work for the common good. Of course that is not true and there are many people that would leech off the hard work of others, or worse kill people and take their stuff.SilentCom said:
OT: I think I'd go with a republic, but only allow people who have taken sufficient courses in political science to vote. I can't help but feel that many problems with governments of this type are caused by people who have no clue how it works having a say in it.
I would say Communism but I know I'd fall apart the moment It started. Probably a republic of some sort then. One man ruling leads to bad things and trying to have everyone rule is not practical so a small rulership seems better. At least then they all be corrupted against each other.
I would like a government where the citizens vote on everything. There would still be representatives to discuss and debate possible laws, but then the people that are being represented get to vote on the laws discussed.
There are ups and downs to this idea. An example of an up to this would be that people who disagree with their representative can have their voice heard on every issue. A down would be the people who don't understand the issues and are easily lead my media outlets could possibly make an uneducated vote, but that already happens anyway.
I would also do away with party systems. This would hopefully cause the citizens to listen to the people that are campaigning to represent them instead of just voting for that representative because they are a member of a particular party.
There are ups and downs to this idea. An example of an up to this would be that people who disagree with their representative can have their voice heard on every issue. A down would be the people who don't understand the issues and are easily lead my media outlets could possibly make an uneducated vote, but that already happens anyway.
I would also do away with party systems. This would hopefully cause the citizens to listen to the people that are campaigning to represent them instead of just voting for that representative because they are a member of a particular party.
Kinda like this. Most day to day decisions would be made by popular vote, but there would also be a highly regulated and elected representative body to take control under very specific emergency conditions.Psycho Cat Industries said:
Mines a two-parter...
AI head-of-state, with a parliament consisting of non-professional politicians. Non-professional, in the sense they must have another occupation within their electorate.
The AI head-of-state is panoptic, but not in the sense that no-one has any privacy. Since for an intelligent agent, what you can observe around you with respect to your movements dictates the dimensions of perceived self, the AI would perceive the entire country as part of itself. This immediately eliminates any threat of "AI with too much power will destroy all human life" as this would be self-deprecating and decidedly not optimal. The important thing is that everyone within its state would be able to converse with it and argue directly with it on a personal level at all times. Instead of voting for a party and having a party decided on issues, these could be constantly voted on, with respect to stakeholdership, like a constant referendum. I say with respect to stakeholdership, as this could allow for weighting of votes.
With such ease of conversation with your direct head of state, people within the state could become politicised at decidedly earlier ages; politics would become a natural part of day-to-day life. In actual fact, it could be integrated like a computer game: your stakeholdership of a particular issue can be awarded through an achievements system. Everyone regardless of their knowledge has one vote; if they read or watch something about the issue they get a heavier vote; investigating both sides of the issue gives an even heavier vote; all the way to doing a PhD on the topic, or higher.
For such a system, transparency is essential.
Besides, the legal system would still be separate, and so would the ombudsman overseeing it, who would definitely still be human. This office would probably still be elected through direct election, but most likely of members of parliament.
AI head-of-state, with a parliament consisting of non-professional politicians. Non-professional, in the sense they must have another occupation within their electorate.
The AI head-of-state is panoptic, but not in the sense that no-one has any privacy. Since for an intelligent agent, what you can observe around you with respect to your movements dictates the dimensions of perceived self, the AI would perceive the entire country as part of itself. This immediately eliminates any threat of "AI with too much power will destroy all human life" as this would be self-deprecating and decidedly not optimal. The important thing is that everyone within its state would be able to converse with it and argue directly with it on a personal level at all times. Instead of voting for a party and having a party decided on issues, these could be constantly voted on, with respect to stakeholdership, like a constant referendum. I say with respect to stakeholdership, as this could allow for weighting of votes.
With such ease of conversation with your direct head of state, people within the state could become politicised at decidedly earlier ages; politics would become a natural part of day-to-day life. In actual fact, it could be integrated like a computer game: your stakeholdership of a particular issue can be awarded through an achievements system. Everyone regardless of their knowledge has one vote; if they read or watch something about the issue they get a heavier vote; investigating both sides of the issue gives an even heavier vote; all the way to doing a PhD on the topic, or higher.
For such a system, transparency is essential.
Besides, the legal system would still be separate, and so would the ombudsman overseeing it, who would definitely still be human. This office would probably still be elected through direct election, but most likely of members of parliament.
Something close to the structure of the united states, except that on the national scale the only thing that the government does is defend the country and tax so it has the power to do so. Everything else, like moral decisions and building of public roads and such, is decided on a state by state level. But this would only really work if defense is taken in a strict sense of the term and not going out and meddling in other countries business.
No point complicating matters, your two-parter is a communist society with capitalist markets and an AI head of state.Benjamin Moore said:
Brilliant, take all the good bits you think exist and throw them into an erroneousness system built on a lie.
That being the AI. AI is only as good as the person who wrote it. People are flawed, ergo the AI will be flawed. It's an inescapable fact. Also, I have a virus, head of state nukes China, your world becomes an rl Defcon. Great game. ^ ^
Ideal non-monarchic is a.. Well it can't work.
See, politicians need absolute power in order to achieve anything otherwise they do quick and dirty work for short term gains instead of a long term project leading to a more desirable result. For example, a few nuclear power stations would run Australia much better than the coal stations. It would have less impact on the environment, and increase the general intelligent work force. Boost education, construction, mining, etc, etc. But, it's never going to happen because of several reasons, the main one being that it would be political suicide to introduce such an idea given the current reactor in Japan. Even though arguing about a 30+ yr old reactor designed with ancient safety standards that's leaking small amounts of radiation after 900000000 earthquakes, a couple of tsunamis and general panic and comparing said reactor to a non-earthquake zone location built with decent safety standards is stupid, it's politics. Not logical.
So I need absolute power but shared power. I need a communist system with an overlord and kill squads.
But the overlord can't be corrupted. So I'd need a second agency, intelligence, assassination, etc. That agency would be in charge of removing the overlord if they let the power get to them. I have no guarantee of deals struck between them, so I'd need another agency monitoring the first, and another monitoring that one. But even then, they will eventually reach equilibrium with each other and decline into chaos. Entropy is in full effect and such a system is impossible to have.
So ideal system of government doesn't exist. You could remove them altogether, but then it's just pure chaos. The weak die, the strong survive. Such chaos would lead to destruction. Rape, murder, etc. Hillbilly heaven, but not a situation I'd like to exist in.
Just about any representative democracy today plus an autonomous branch whose job it is to investigate every part of the government for corruption and abuse of power, and kill all those responsible when found. Then they need to present this evidence to the public.
Rules for this assassin branch of government will be set up so that nearly half of the branch will have to okay the assassination before it goes down. Members will be recruited from disaffected youths and taught that their job is important to keep people with power honest. The member who performs the job of killing a corrupt politician then turns his/herself in and serves a reduced sentence for murder. That should make sure people aren't killed over nothing and that people won't be killing for political gain. Still it will probably go wrong.
[edit]
Pretty much any multi-part government can be made effective by creating a part that can check all the others but in doing so hurts itself.
Rules for this assassin branch of government will be set up so that nearly half of the branch will have to okay the assassination before it goes down. Members will be recruited from disaffected youths and taught that their job is important to keep people with power honest. The member who performs the job of killing a corrupt politician then turns his/herself in and serves a reduced sentence for murder. That should make sure people aren't killed over nothing and that people won't be killing for political gain. Still it will probably go wrong.
[edit]
Pretty much any multi-part government can be made effective by creating a part that can check all the others but in doing so hurts itself.
Go play that Mass Effect 2 mission "A House Divided" aka Legion's loyalty mission. Pay attention to Legion when he describes to you how the Geth race operates.
Done? Good. THAT. The Geth system: only, with Humans.
It isn't foolproof (evidently) but the only issue that could break that otherwise perfect system is the coming of a potential Prophet, so....
Done? Good. THAT. The Geth system: only, with Humans.
It isn't foolproof (evidently) but the only issue that could break that otherwise perfect system is the coming of a potential Prophet, so....
What happens when the Benevolent Dictator dies? and he is replaced by his living breathing Dick of a son?Zhukov said:
the problem with any government is that you have to get both the people being governed and the people doing the governing to work for the greater good of the whole because if you dont you risk tearing the country apart through mass corruption. As such any government could be a good government as long as the people strive for every ones well being.
But if i must choose i guess ill go for what ill call an empire but will be ruled by a person that can choose to rule for life that was trained to the tasks of ruling and loyalty to the people along with many other ruling candidates that were tested form a young age to be both highly intelligent and stable.
Under the emperor are three different groups that are governed very differently. The citizen which is what every one is born as that is governed as a parliament, the military that is as you would guess is run as a military unit and when you join you are no longer a citizen but you get extra privileges for your sacrifice, and then there is the scientist(this includes all technical personnel including mechanics) who act as a pure non representative democracy and who may break into groups for a greater focus on decisions that require greater emphasis on certain areas.
But if i must choose i guess ill go for what ill call an empire but will be ruled by a person that can choose to rule for life that was trained to the tasks of ruling and loyalty to the people along with many other ruling candidates that were tested form a young age to be both highly intelligent and stable.
Under the emperor are three different groups that are governed very differently. The citizen which is what every one is born as that is governed as a parliament, the military that is as you would guess is run as a military unit and when you join you are no longer a citizen but you get extra privileges for your sacrifice, and then there is the scientist(this includes all technical personnel including mechanics) who act as a pure non representative democracy and who may break into groups for a greater focus on decisions that require greater emphasis on certain areas.
Your response is pretty much the response I expected from my suggestion. Not that you are wrong; your analysis on why there is no ideal government lines up almost exactly along why I suggested the above scenario in the first place.Cyberjester said:
But your dismissal of my suggestion hinges on two points: AI will never be 'perfect', and no system is completely impervious to attack. The latter is actually false: some military operating systems are mathematically 'proved' to be unhackable, although designing an operating system this way is extremely expensive and difficult to do. But it can be done. Look up 'sel4' from Open Kernel Labs for a downloadable, non-commercial, formally verified operating system.
The AI claim, that because humans are fallible, so inevitably, will their creations, to me is a defeatist fallacy. It's like the claim that no machine can build something more accurate than the parts it is made up of. This is blatantly false; if it were true, no machine could ever build anything more accurately than we could. We are, after all, machines in our own right. (The problem with that statement is that it is backwards: it should say: nothing can be built that can machine something more accurately than itself. There are plenty of construction methods other than machining that can, particularly casting and forging.)
But we can design things that are less fallible than we are. Since we are on the topic of AI, lets look at the control engineering side of things, which is what I am. Control Theory is the method of mathematically controlling a system's (plant) response with respect to its input, and usually it's output too (feedback). Such a systems response is highly more accurate than sitting a human behind a control panel and letting them control the device.
But apart from that, as long as the operating system for the AI is sound, the fallibility of the AI is irrelevant. The whole point of the system is the emphasis on individual democracy and transparency. No need for 'deals' because policy goes through everyone. Besides, the fallibility of a government is only with respect to those it governs, and those it communicates with on an equal level. As Cyberjester pointed out, humans are fallible, and so are all other governments. Hence neither national nor international decisions have to be perfect; they just have to cause the minimum amount of damage... I even left in a back-door: the original non-professional parliament is designed to be able to take up power in the event of a breakdown to the system, of which can be shutdown through the ombudsman's office, who cannot take any power.
Besides, even if such a system were possible, even if I was 100% convinced that my system was infallible, I still would net let such a system have 100% command over strategic military assets like intercontinental ballistic (or targeted) missiles. I doubt neither would the average citizen of the state. And that is important, because whether or not it had control over such assets is a political issue.
tl;dr: some OSs, such as sel4 are formally verified and are unhackable. The emphasis for the AI is on transparency, not infallibility. Whether or not it is fallible is irrelevant, as no other government system is infallible. It just has to be good enough. Any problems to the system can result in an emergency shutdown, after which elected officials take emergency power until a solution is found.
Leadership by Council to be implemented separately in interconnected communities with relatively small populations.
