A choice of non democratic systems of government

[Zor]

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?

I am going to clarify this. There is a yearly enterance exam. Pass that and an aplicant are let in at the lowest level of the Bureaucracy (and passing the enterance exam is the only way in). There are mechanisms to deal with nepotism and so forth. Susan's Essays is graded by several people, who see them as being writen by "Applicant-301". There will be gaps that need filling at the lowest level because people move up in rank, are dismissed, retire or die. After passing the exam they can either do the job at that level and stay there, or if they want to try to move up the ranks.

Option 3 sounds quite similar to Feudal China

Thats were i got it from, with some adjustments.

Zor

[Zor]

Who are those several people doing the grading?

Other Scholar Bureaucrats.

Zor

[Stark]

Don't forget simple corruption and nepotism. Zor is either an idiot or ridiculously naive if he thinks the system will work as designed for more than a few months.

and i think society would benefit from the concentration of people who think like me in both content and quality, running the show

Whoa.

[Lord Zentei]

^ Indeed: in the feudal system at least we know that nepotism is redundant due to the positions being hereditary, right?

Of course, that's assuming that the positions are in fact hereditary and not meritocratic. If they were meritocratic, then that would make the feudal model closer to the scholar-state, except possibly WRT the nature of how merit is measured. If they are hereditary, then it's basically auto-nepotism for hiring, with merit being gauged only after the fact, and with some unspecified amount of upward mobility from the commoners. Moreover: who gets to decide who gets booted out of the nobility? Presumably other nobles, right?

Meanwhile, the testing can easily become "locked in" with a self serving bureaucracy, while the feudalists go for sustained tangible results.

As I said, the devil is in the details on which is better. I'm leaning towards #3, but I haven't decided (or voted) yet.

[Hawkwings]

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...

Your sarcasm detector needs fresh batteries dude.

Anyways, deciding which system it would be best to live in depends on what social/monetary/educational class I'm in. If I'm on the bottom of the heap, then I'd probably go with option 1, since it seems possible to advance via competence in being a village leader (which takes no money or formal education).

If I were on top, then option 2, no doubt. If I'm filthy rich, then I can continue to be filthy rich by controlling more votes, and by using my money and political power to make even more money. This is the system best suited for the top people to stay there. In option 2, it seems like even those on top could be legitimately challenged and "overthrown". It'd be a lot of work to stay on top, and who wants to do that?

[wpm0001]

Your sarcasm detector needs fresh batteries dude.

Anyways, deciding which system it would be best to live in depends on what social/monetary/educational class I'm in. If I'm on the bottom of the heap, then I'd probably go with option 1, since it seems possible to advance via competence in being a village leader (which takes no money or formal education).

If I were on top, then option 2, no doubt. If I'm filthy rich, then I can continue to be filthy rich by controlling more votes, and by using my money and political power to make even more money. This is the system best suited for the top people to stay there. In option 2, it seems like even those on top could be legitimately challenged and "overthrown". It'd be a lot of work to stay on top, and who wants to do that?

I was/am taking this as an honest start from scratch thought from the original poster. Didn't think to consider my current status in society or the niceties of which I've become accustomed to. I didn't get the sarcasm (if there was any) because of that approach. I have a tendency to take people literally when I haven't been exposed to the environment I'm in for long and I am a newbie to StarDestoyer.Net. No apologies from me for that. My first post was not only summarily dismissed but had an added comment about what an idiot I was. I kind of liked getting told off because it was my fault for not paying enough attention to the rules.

So? Thanks for the reply - I appreciate it!

[Havok]

Man... have you guys actually paid attention to about 90% of teachers and professors? Do you really want those basket cases running a country?

Anyway, I find it interesting that the Feudal Republic is running second, I though for sure all the super smart scholars would be scared to death of all the not smart at all people that could advance in that system.

I'm also surprised that the super smart people don't have faith in their ability to make money with their smarts in option 2. Guess they are more confident in their test taking and essay writing abilities than anything that is actually functional in the real world.

[aerius]

I'm also surprised that the super smart people don't have faith in their ability to make money with their smarts in option 2. Guess they are more confident in their test taking and essay writing abilities than anything that is actually functional in the real world.

It takes more than smarts to make it in option 2, you need to be ruthless enough to manipulate others, fuck them over, and sleep soundly at night as well as recognizing when others are trying to do the same to you and dealing with them before they bury you. Then there's other stuff like being morally flexible enough to do disreputable, borderline legal, or even outright illegal things when required to make money. Frankly, most people here aren't cut out for that and they'd get eaten alive no matter how smart they are.

[wpm0001]

It takes more than smarts to make it in option 2, you need to be ruthless enough to manipulate others, fuck them over, and sleep soundly at night as well as recognizing when others are trying to do the same to you and dealing with them before they bury you. Then there's other stuff like being morally flexible enough to do disreputable, borderline legal, or even outright illegal things when required to make money. Frankly, most people here aren't cut out for that and they'd get eaten alive no matter how smart they are.

Wonderful! I love it! You must understand however that it is not necessary to be ruthless to manipulate others. "Others" just need to believe you are ruthless... Well actually (and forgive my poor punctuation) ruthless doesn't matter a whit. I'm waiting for you to tell me what you want. You are the only one I truly want to help. I'll bring down Hell on anyone that even dreams of attempting to harm you! Please help me? Help me stop the monsters? I'm begging you! Find our friends in this cause and stop the monsters!!! PLEASE?

Yuk yuk yuk. Yea - I suppose that is actually ruthless. I retract my original premise aerius. But I do love you. I swear it! I'm pretty sleepy now...

[Phantasee]

what the fuck

[Simon_Jester]

I'm also surprised that the super smart people don't have faith in their ability to make money with their smarts in option 2. Guess they are more confident in their test taking and essay writing abilities than anything that is actually functional in the real world.

It takes more than smarts to make it in option 2, you need to be ruthless enough to manipulate others, fuck them over, and sleep soundly at night as well as recognizing when others are trying to do the same to you and dealing with them before they bury you. Then there's other stuff like being morally flexible enough to do disreputable, borderline legal, or even outright illegal things when required to make money. Frankly, most people here aren't cut out for that and they'd get eaten alive no matter how smart they are.

Yeah, and most of us are aware of it.

Frankly, I'd take the scholar-bureaucrats as the least bad option, mostly because I distrust feudalism. I know and sympathize with people who just might take feudalism though. It really depends on the cultural context; in real life, feudal systems were dominated by warlords and rule by warlords is always a bad thing. A more peaceable feudalism might not be so bad, but you'd still have problems with every petty king-of-his-castle making trouble and throwing his weight around.

Like local governments in some parts of the world today, only more so.

[PeZook]

Feudalism could be really nasty because it was just so goddamned hard to see what was going on in Shithole, France from Paris. Or, for places that were actually within reach of the king's sight, if the ruler was crap and didn't know how to control his nobles, the nobility could use it to seize more self-entrenching power.

And it's not like all feudal countries were universal shitholes throughout the ages, either.It all depended on the precise dynamics in play at the time between the head honcho and his underlings.

[K. A. Pital]

Scholar bureaucracy looks like Imperial China. Not good. All three deserve a molotov cocktail but if I were to choose, I'd choose plutocracy, paradoxically. Easier to destroy.

[Simon_Jester]

Scholar bureaucracy looks like Imperial China. Not good. All three deserve a molotov cocktail but if I were to choose, I'd choose plutocracy, paradoxically. Easier to destroy.

I'm not so sure plutocracy would be easier to destroy- given a choice between overthrowing the French aristocracy of the 1780s and the Iron Heel, I think that putting on the Marseillase and slapping together a few guillotines is simpler.

Plutocracy is more effective at... in Marxist language, mystification, yes? The process of convincing members of the oppressed class that it is actively in their interest to struggle on behalf of the oppressor.

[aerius]

what the fuck

There's a reason I have my custom title. Everyone thinks it's a joke, next thing they know they're drinking the magic koolaid.

[Phantasee]

I'm almost certain wpm0001 is a bot.

[wpm0001]

I'm almost certain wpm0001 is a bot.

What if I am? It is awesome that you are only "almost" certain! What type of human could or would create such an elaborate and powerful AI just to post to your preferred outlet?

Thank you again. This is a serious compliment for my creator!

[wpm0001]

I'm almost certain wpm0001 is a bot.

Hey... I didn't realize what "bot" meant in this particular forum until I checked around. This isn't the only forum out there you know tough guy and I'm only on this one because it has the most talented Fan Fiction writers. I'm still new pretty boy but I'm not using a tool to read or respond and I find your accusation insulting. Why would you do that? Because I didn't respond to your PM? I didn't think it would be appropriate to respond when all you said was basically good point. And what is up with your profound and brilliant "what the fuck" message? Someone else thought it was for them and responded because you didn't quote! Yes Sir - you are right up there with all the great poets and thinkers of our time. They are probably kicking themselves for not just typing "what the fuck?" a couple of times.

Thanks for the introduction into "your world" where all you have to do is put together three words and be considered bright.

And what is with the pics? Do you think you are that cartoon character from 'Speed Racer' from the 1970's? What was his name? Steve? I think I'll call you SpeedRacer from now on. And NO - you can't do anything about it. I've broken no rules and calling out assholes is pretty much the norm here. In this forum. Not in some others...

[wpm0001]

what the fuck

There's a reason I have my custom title. Everyone thinks it's a joke, next thing they know they're drinking the magic koolaid.

I think this brilliant and perfectly worded demonstration of intellectual superiority by SpeedRacer (aka Phantasee) was meant for me. It might be that I am so arrogant as to assume this but hey - SpeedRacer isn't very difficult to figure out.

I happen to like your custom title. I haven't found something I'm comfortable with which is why I haven't got one. I apologize if I'm out of line responding to your comment on SpeedRacer.

[K. A. Pital]

Scholar bureaucracy looks like Imperial China. Not good. All three deserve a molotov cocktail but if I were to choose, I'd choose plutocracy, paradoxically. Easier to destroy.

I'm not so sure plutocracy would be easier to destroy- given a choice between overthrowing the French aristocracy of the 1780s and the Iron Heel, I think that putting on the Marseillase and slapping together a few guillotines is simpler.

It seems so, but the French aristocracy existed for ages. Same goes for the Russian aristocracy. Sometimes its power can survive for centuries. So I'm not sure it is "simpler" par se.

[Simon_Jester]

The French aristocracy didn't last long after the Enlightenment- the entire concept that aristocrats should be overthrown in favor of democracy wasn't even invented until a time that was within living memory as of the storming of the Bastille.

The Russian aristocracy was largely broken by the Czars many long years before the Czars were in turn overthrown during World War One- they were not a feudal system, and the aristocracy was effectively reduced to an enforcer-class that operated on the behalf of and by the will of the absolute monarch at the top of the system. I would expect the autocracy of a czar to be no longer or shorter-lived than any other form of autocracy with similar institutions in place.