A choice of non democratic systems of government

Zor · Post by **Zor** » 2011-11-28 01:42am

Here is a list of three non democratic forms of government...

Feudal Republic: In this system, there is a class of Nobility, with various tiers of nobles (Barons, Counts, Earls and Dukes) which rule over towns, districts and cities as their own personal fiefs. Lower ranking nobles often swear fealty to higher ranking ones. However there is no king on top. Instead their is a governing body called the Landsraad, a council of nobles from which they elect an executive known as the Lord Protector. There is a constitution and there are some legal rights for commoners, the nobility itself is (at least in theory) is not above the law and there is gender equality (in that commoner women are considered equal to commoner men, and both are equally beneith Noblemen and women respectively). It is possible for nobles to be promoted in this system for excellent preformance and on the same notice be demoted or even stripped of nobility as punishment for frequent failures. If gaps in the nobility happen, applicants from the commoners are promoted to fill them by vote by the Landsraad. Even so don't get too uppity in front of nobles.

Plutocracy: In this society when it comes to political voice, money talks. There is a parliament (as well as provincial and municipal elected governments), a constitution and their are elections, but guess what there are several tiers of citizenship based on your income as judged by tax information and/or what property you own. To vote, you need to pay an special franchise tax, a voluntary fixed sum that 75-80% of the population can not afford which gets you ONE vote but can not hold public office. You can pay multiples of the franchise tax, doing so will get you another vote for each time you pay it (if the Franchise tax is $30,000, pay $60,000 on top of your regular income taxes and you got two votes). After the fifth vote, the price for each additional vote increases by 50%. For the right to run for public office, you need to pay a sum which is five times the value of the franchise tax . There is an exception to this, after twenty five years of service, retired soldiers and police get a free vote for the rest of their lifes. Needless to say this does stratify society.

Scholar Bureaucracy: Here things are not hereditary nor based on wealth, the entire government is composed of a single huge centralized bureaucracy. Members of said bureaucracy get their posistion through competative examinations that are held every year. Those who score the highest in said examinations (which involves writing essays on History, Politics, Sociology, Economics and Psychology) are given office and the title of Scholar Bureaucrat. Promotion is based on either the recommendation of several of his/her superiors or (more often) by going through and passing five additional tiers of examinations. Protocol and proceedure are very important here, and they have mechanisms to check for bribes and nepotism. The final one leads to the Supreme Administrative Committee of the nation, who elect from among their ranks an executive known as the Supreme Bureaucratic Administrator. That said their is no real official ideology outside of the supremacy of Scholar Bureaucracy as a means of governing, the importance of proceedure and protocol and Rule of Law.

Of these three, which one would you say was the best (or least bad)?

Zor
(minor clarification)

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2011-11-28 02:29am

It would depend on just what sort of legal code it was built upon but the Bureaucracy doesn't sound too horrible given the options.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2011-11-28 04:01am

This is SDN. What option do you think people are going to select?

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2011-11-28 05:16am

Yeah, you think that people here would take option 3.

I think they would do better in option 2.

Personally, I like option 1. Rewards excellence in all fields and punishes incompetence. Doesn't rely strictly on book smarts, nor wealth.
2 and 3 route control to too few and allows easy corruption.

Post by **Eternal_Freedom** » 2011-11-28 05:29am

I agree with Havok, the fuedal republic doesn't rely on intellect or wealth. The most important bit is that it is possible to advance to the nobility, advance within the nobility and be demoted for failure. That makes things far more equal than others.

The plutocracy sounds like a terrible idea. The plitical whip hand being held by the same as the economic one? That's a recipe for disaster.

And the scholarly bureaucracy isn't great either. I know plenty of scholarly people who are thick as shit in the real world. If you want a reign of intellect you might as well go the whole hog and have an AI in charge.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2011-11-28 06:20am

Martian Law.

ComradeClaus · Post by **ComradeClaus** » 2011-11-28 07:47am

#1 Feudal, it's like something out of medival fantasy. Even a peasant like me can become a noble by playing my cards right. (like save the king in battle)

#3 puts too much pressure on everyone, just look at how well it works in Japan...

#2 is basically the US as of now & sux ballz

Faqa · Post by **Faqa** » 2011-11-28 09:15am

Havok wrote:Yeah, you think that people here would take option 3.

I think they would do better in option 2.

Personally, I like option 1. Rewards excellence in all fields and punishes incompetence. Doesn't rely strictly on book smarts, nor wealth.
2 and 3 route control to too few and allows easy corruption.

The problem with option 1 is that law derives from the nobles. In theory, they might not be above the law, but I haven't seen any checks on what the Laandsrad can do, so I'm guessing they can change any law.

The chances of a noble being held responsible for his mistakes by the legal system is.... about as high as Bush or Obama being held responsible for their crimes IRL. Simply by creating a ruling class you have made them exempt from the rules themselves.

Option 2.... I'm really waiting to hear why it can even be argued as a good idea. Really. It looks too one-sidedly bad.

Anyone wishing to implement option 3 would be well-advised to look at the administration of the nearest college/university. It would be like that, only worse. Noooooo thank you.

Fuck, if I have to pick, I might just pick option 1 as a gov't that gets things done. But they're all shit choices to live under.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2011-11-28 08:36pm

Option #3
I'm sure I could find ALOT of disenfranchises people to rally into an army and overthrow it.

I mean, can you imagine how long the paperwork to get the forms to send a intelligence agent out to confirm the earlier reports of a armed rebellion seizing government headquarters would take to fill out?

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2011-11-28 08:46pm

Havok wrote:Yeah, you think that people here would take option 3.

So far they seem to be doing just that.

I might be convinced that #1 is better, but the devil is in the details.

ComradeClaus wrote:#2 is basically the US as of now & sux ballz

The US is not quite as bad as all that, at least you don't have to pay $50000 to vote.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2011-11-28 09:11pm

Doesn't rely strictly on book smarts, nor wealth.
2 and 3 route control to too few and allows easy corruption.

Book Smarts is what you actually need to run a government. Policy decisions are not (or should not) made on the basis of how one ought carry themselves in a seedy part of town, or on someone's personal feelings on how people behave. Instead they should be made based upon how the world operates, as determined by experts publishing in the peer reviewed literature. A justice system for example should be designed in such a way as to:

A) Maximize conviction of the guilty and minimize conviction of the innocent. So, we know from the discipline of psychology that eye-witness testimony is not reliable at all. "Street Smarts" otherwise known as personal intuition, tells us the opposite, but is incorrect. Thus, evidence should be weighed with this in mind, as an example.

B) Makes a distinction between willful action for motivations that are against society, and various conditions which reduce a person's capacity to follow the law. Under our current system (where this distinction is not made because it is made on the basis of "street smarts"), a person can have a brain tumor, or a condition which reduces the ability of their frontal lobe to control their behavior, and they will be treated the same way as a person who had the capacity to actually chose to commit a crime. In fact, they will often be treated worse, because they will be repeat offenders or commit a more serious crime. Or, in the case of people who commit sex offences as children: they are often abused as children themselves, and because the trauma is delayed into their teens and they have no point of reference to the contrary (the six year old thinks it is normal for 12 year olds to touch them), will go on to repeat what happened to them. They are often charged as adults and put on the sex offender registry, when they should be treated as a Patient, not a Criminal. This leads us to:

C) Has a prison system which is designed for, and seeks to perform, the rehabilitation of as many criminals as possible.

As for corruption...

Option 3 has mechanisms in place to detect and prevent it. Number 2 is Concentrated Corruption, and Option 1 is... Well have you ever done any reading on Renaissance Italy? If you think there is less chance of corruption there, you have something coming.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2011-11-28 09:28pm

I voted for (2), because every time I see a large beurecracy I have an overwhelming desire to wire the building with explosives and blow it straight to hell.

Seriously, this is not a balanced scenario. In reality (1) is fairly stable (as much as any autocracy), (2) will tend towards (1) over time as wealth is used to create and protect privilidge for one's offspring. (3) is described as a near-utopia but in reality no 'anti corruption' mechanism ever designed can keep such a pyramidical system from being co-opted and turning into a USSR style sham (but worse, because there is not even input from or respect for hard scientists and engineers).

wpm0001 · Post by **wpm0001** » 2011-11-28 10:08pm

Feudal Republic: Sadly? I have to choose this one. It is the only one that has the possibility (as I read it) of having a conscience for the underclass. Yep - I might be crazy since it isn't working out so well for the countries in the Mideast that live under something that sounds similar!

Plutocracy: I apologize if this offends anyone but it almost feels like this is how the USA is trending. Lobbyists, etc. Not my first choice but then again the USA was never set up to be a Democracy. It was supposed to be a Republic (a non-feudal republic but please don't press me on this...).

Scholar Bureaucracy: In my opinion this one sounds the best but could/would be the worst. My reasoning comes from limited experience but for the most part people that are excellent at taking tests believe they truly are excellent. This leads to bickering within their own ranks and after a time decisions come to be compromises between large groups of folks that do nothing but attempt to get the upper hand in the compromise. No thought at all for those folks that do the work or finding unique ways of helping others.

Simon_Jester · Post by **Simon_Jester** » 2011-11-29 01:33am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Doesn't rely strictly on book smarts, nor wealth.
2 and 3 route control to too few and allows easy corruption.
Book Smarts is what you actually need to run a government. Policy decisions are not (or should not) made on the basis of how one ought carry themselves in a seedy part of town, or on someone's personal feelings on how people behave. Instead they should be made based upon how the world operates, as determined by experts publishing in the peer reviewed literature. A justice system for example should be designed in such a way as to:

In mitigation- there are people out there whose interests are often not comprehended, or respected, by the average scholar. Being a scholar is a self-selecting professional choice, and people who go that route live in a different world from the average person, often without fully grasping that they are doing so.

While I might not put someone in charge based on how they carry themselves in the seedy part of town, I would damn sure want to ask someone who knows how to carry themselves in the seedy part of town before making decisions that affect the seedy part of town.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2011-11-29 06:51am

While I might not put someone in charge based on how they carry themselves in the seedy part of town, I would damn sure want to ask someone who knows how to carry themselves in the seedy part of town before making decisions that affect the seedy part of town.

Of course.

Simon_Jester · Post by **Simon_Jester** » 2011-11-29 12:30pm

True- although this tends to undermine the idea of governing by peer-reviewed journals.

Where peer reviewed journal science is a practical way to decide what is to be done, by all means use it. Where it is not a practical way, you do need government capable of things that scientific or scholarly skill simply doesn't test for: fast reactions, ability to persuade foreign diplomats, ability to adapt to unexpected crises. Things like that.

Knowledge is good, but is not enough; ability to harness knowledge correctly can take the place of knowledge (though even harnessing it is rare enough in modern politics).

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2011-11-29 01:12pm

Simon_Jester wrote:True- although this tends to undermine the idea of governing by peer-reviewed journals.

Where peer reviewed journal science is a practical way to decide what is to be done, by all means use it. Where it is not a practical way, you do need government capable of things that scientific or scholarly skill simply doesn't test for: fast reactions, ability to persuade foreign diplomats, ability to adapt to unexpected crises. Things like that.

Knowledge is good, but is not enough; ability to harness knowledge correctly can take the place of knowledge (though even harnessing it is rare enough in modern politics).

Well, I dont think any of the laid out proposals is a comprehensive layout of government. In the case of a scholar-bureaucracy, you dont have rule by journal. You have rule by people willing to make decisions based upon the sum-total of the literature. Something that is sorely lacking in the other proposals--and democracies. What it does not specify are other functions, and what is left unspoken are the sorts of people who will take a given position, and how the exams are designed and graded. The only people who can write and pass the exam to become a diplomat for example, are the sorts of people who have degrees in international relations and have done similar work already, or retired business people (if I am missing a group, let me know). Real world scenarios would be given, potentially oral exams could be done.

It may have its problems, but it is better than being ruled by the Pazzi family, or Monsanto.

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2011-11-29 05:33pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Doesn't rely strictly on book smarts, nor wealth.
2 and 3 route control to too few and allows easy corruption.
Book Smarts is what you actually need to run a government. Policy decisions are not (or should not) made on the basis of how one ought carry themselves in a seedy part of town, or on someone's personal feelings on how people behave. Instead they should be made based upon how the world operates, as determined by experts publishing in the peer reviewed literature.

Oh man, that was funny, thanks.

You do realize that "book smarts" is a derogatory term that indicates not understanding how the world actually operates, correct?
You don't need book smarts to run a government, which is a pretty basic fact that you can ascertain from looking at any number of governments around the world, you need intelligence. You need charisma. You need the ability to publicly speak. You need power. If you want to throw book smarts in there, awesome. I'll vote for you, but it isn't a need at all.

A justice system for example should be designed in such a way as to:

A) Maximize conviction of the guilty and minimize conviction of the innocent. So, we know from the discipline of psychology that eye-witness testimony is not reliable at all. "Street Smarts" otherwise known as personal intuition, tells us the opposite, but is incorrect. Thus, evidence should be weighed with this in mind, as an example.

B) Makes a distinction between willful action for motivations that are against society, and various conditions which reduce a person's capacity to follow the law. Under our current system (where this distinction is not made because it is made on the basis of "street smarts"), a person can have a brain tumor, or a condition which reduces the ability of their frontal lobe to control their behavior, and they will be treated the same way as a person who had the capacity to actually chose to commit a crime. In fact, they will often be treated worse, because they will be repeat offenders or commit a more serious crime. Or, in the case of people who commit sex offences as children: they are often abused as children themselves, and because the trauma is delayed into their teens and they have no point of reference to the contrary (the six year old thinks it is normal for 12 year olds to touch them), will go on to repeat what happened to them. They are often charged as adults and put on the sex offender registry, when they should be treated as a Patient, not a Criminal. This leads us to:

C) Has a prison system which is designed for, and seeks to perform, the rehabilitation of as many criminals as possible.

OK seriously. This isn't "Design Utopia"
We all want perfect systems. Not gonna happen.

Option 3 has mechanisms in place to detect and prevent it.

You gotta stop.

Number 2 is Concentrated Corruption, and Option 1 is... Well have you ever done any reading on Renaissance Italy? If you think there is less chance of corruption there, you have something coming.

Look, corruption is a given. It is going to happen.

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2011-11-29 05:54pm

Option 1 is functional, and does not in any way preclude scholars becoming the ruling class. It is the most balanced and viable choice as it is non discriminatory on a base level (gender, race).

Option 2 is only functional with a steady and strong economy, where the masses will make money, otherwise you will have revolt. If people with money decide not to just become the politicians themselves, they will simply but the people that do. This option is actually the least discriminatory and inclusive, as the only color it cares about is Green. As a society, though, it is going to be fairly bankrupt of morals and the like.

Option 3 is going to get bogged down in something far worse than bureaucracy and that is interpretation of ideas and theories and even facts. And yearly contests? When are people going to actually get things done?

"Hey, I don't like gay people. I'm going to write a paper on why they are bad."
"I like gay people. I'm going to write a paper on why they are good."
"I'm going to write a paper on why God hates gay people."
"I'm going to write a paper on why God is stupid and doesn't exist."
"I'm going to write a paper on why the idea of God is needed and that our ideas about what God may be should be completely different than they are."
"Uh oh! yearly test time!"

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2011-11-29 06:00pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Zor wrote:Feudal Republic
You've gotta be born into it. Meh, I've heard worse.

Not completely, but yeah.

Plutocracy
You've gotta buy into it. Not great, but still not the worst idea I've ever heard.

One difference here is even modern folk are ok with blaming people for their own failure in this environment. If you aren't born into something, you aren't privileged, but it isn't your fault either and people often realize that.

But, with money, well, maybe if you weren't such a lazy slob, you could work your way into it too. Even if that isn't always true, a lot of people think it is.

Another interesting thing is you might be able to set up a voting marketplace. OK, so an official vote is too expensive for most folks to afford.

What that does is limit the number of official votes cast.... which isn't necessarily the number of total voices heard.

Here's what I'd do. If you pay me $5, I'll record your vote. Once I reach the voting fee amount, I'll cast a vote on the behalf of the majority who paid me.

Now, people who aren't as wealthy don't have as loud of a voice... but they do have a little something. And if I make a lil profit on top, all the better!

Electoral College + BRIBES!

Oh wait...

Scholar Bureaucracy
You've gotta be born into it, buy into it, AND toe the line. This might be the worst idea I've ever heard.

"but you're not born into it", ehhh yeah you are. "recommendation of several of his/her superiors " guess whom they are most likely to recommend? I'm willing to guess there's a genetic element to brains too.

"well you aren't buying into it!" ehhh yeah you are. Even if there's no fees, what class of people are most likely to find the time to take exams and read/write about history, politics, and whatnot?

It ain't poor people.

And, any bureaucracy is going to be fairly resistant to change, especially when the committees are self-selecting... ask yourself this, who grades those essay examinations?

You also forget... Who says people that are smart aren't going to be giant assholes just like anyone else in power?
I hear smart people never have ego problems.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2011-11-29 06:13pm

Plutocracy all the way, that's what we have right now and I can't say it's that bad at all. We just pretend we have a democracy, representative republic or some other hokey-pokey system where people think their votes count. Yeah, your vote counts, but if you think it's worth anywhere near as much as Mr. Millionaire CEO's vote then congrats, you're a dumbass. The plutocracy just strips away the veneer and makes it official. Seriously, if I want marijuana legalization or nuke plants for everyone, all I gotta do is organize & bribe enough people to make it happen.

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2011-11-29 07:02pm

aerius wrote:Plutocracy all the way, that's what we have right now and I can't say it's that bad at all. We just pretend we have a democracy, representative republic or some other hokey-pokey system where people think their votes count. Yeah, your vote counts, but if you think it's worth anywhere near as much as Mr. Millionaire CEO's vote then congrats, you're a dumbass. The plutocracy just strips away the veneer and makes it official. Seriously, if I want marijuana legalization or nuke plants for everyone, all I gotta do is organize & bribe enough people to make it happen.

The angry pot head speaks.

It's not that bad, and yes, your vote does count. If that weren't the case, then politicians wouldn't practically shut down the government every four years to suck our dicks and lie to our faces.

The problem is IT does count. IF you could promise politicians complete apathy from the majority of the public and the assurance they WON'T vote, they would be the happiest campers in the world. The problem is they may just be dumbass voters and show up and vote for the other guy.

Phantasee · Post by **Phantasee** » 2011-11-29 09:49pm

I know I'm smarter than most people, so I'd go with Scholastic Bureaucracy. It'd be easy for me to be successful under that system, and i think society would benefit from the concentration of people who think like me in both content and quality, running the show and all that. Can you imagine the amazing tomorrows we could construct? If only people today realized the unused and misallocated potential of their intellectual superiors, we could have had moon bases and men on Mars already! Poverty could have been eliminated, population at a sustainable level, hypersonic air travel...

It makes me weep at what could have been.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2011-11-29 10:20pm

Havok wrote:You need charisma. You need the ability to publicly speak.

China would like to disagree with you there. After Mao, they decided that one charismatic leader was enough for any party, and created a system where you have to be an engineering graduate in order to reach top echelons of power.

Option 3 sounds quite similar to Feudal China, to be honest. It was quite a stable system over a long period of time. The big danger, really is that the bureaucracy entrance exams could turn into an exam based solely on accepted government doctrine, just like the Chinese exams became tests on Confucianism. On the other hand, China still often has exams for entry into public service positions (in part because they often have so many applicants that there is no other convenient way of separating the field), and the current exams are much more practical than the feudal-system exams, so it's not as though the scholar bureaucracy system will necessarily have the same issues as those of feudal China.

wpm0001 · Post by **wpm0001** » 2011-11-29 11:41pm

Phantasee wrote:I know I'm smarter than most people, so I'd go with Scholastic Bureaucracy. It'd be easy for me to be successful under that system, and i think society would benefit from the concentration of people who think like me in both content and quality, running the show and all that. Can you imagine the amazing tomorrows we could construct? If only people today realized the unused and misallocated potential of their intellectual superiors, we could have had moon bases and men on Mars already! Poverty could have been eliminated, population at a sustainable level, hypersonic air travel...

It makes me weep at what could have been.

Being smarter than "most people" puts you in the 51st percentile. Are you sure you want someone from the 52nd percentile group to tell you what to do?

If you truly are a bright bulb than you would have decided to be tested by now. I'm not a genius. I only rated at the 92nd percentile when I thought I was all that. Now if you believe you are so much better than everyone else and everyone should believe and behave as you do? Sounds like you want to be a dictator based on the fallacy of imagined intellectual superiority!

It isn't that I don't believe in your intentions my friend. I just doubt that anyone of a true and powerful mind that is "beyond all others" could be counted on to actually understand the basics that we simple people need. Like what Superman used to say! OK the Superman thing is a jab but we simple folk like what he used to say in the old days...

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A choice of non democratic systems of government

Which one do you choose

A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government

Re: A choice of non democratic systems of government