Goverment forms/systems - [from single payer healthcare thread]

[Belthus]

History is full of examples of people who were the smartest, brightest, best read, most articulate, etc., who made stunningly bad decisions. As I said in another thread, there is no science of success in government. But hubris and overconfidence are a sure recipe for disaster, and a room full of the best and brightest will have those in abundance.

[Belthus]

Who chooses the people to make the decisions? Who chooses the choosers?

The most contentious issues are not how you get from Point A to Point B. They are whether Point B or C or D should be our destination. If the ends are defined, experts are good at telling you the best means to achieve those ends. But people often disagree vehemently on which ends should be pursued.

[Belthus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM&feature=related

Argue with that ^

Ownership is a concept that applies to property. To say that people own themselves is to say that they are property. I have asked several Randians whether it was OK for people to sell themselves. They replied that if you can't sell yourself, you don't really own yourself. I asked if slavery was OK when it was the result of people selling themselves. They said, yes, that was OK.

Slavery is not OK with me. People do sell themselves, out of desperation. People sell their children. They wouldn't do these things if they were prosperous. The answer is to reject the notion that people are property that can be owned.

[Belthus]

Ownership is a concept that applies to property. To say that people own themselves is to say that they are property. I have asked several Randians whether it was OK for people to sell themselves. They replied that if you can't sell yourself, you don't really own yourself. I asked if slavery was OK when it was the result of people selling themselves. They said, yes, that was OK.

Slavery is not OK with me. People do sell themselves, out of desperation. People sell their children. They wouldn't do these things if they were prosperous. The answer is to reject the notion that people are property that can be owned.

Slavery only happens when ownership of another's liberty is acquired through force.  But when ownership of another's liberty is acquired through voluntary means it's not slavery; it's a job.

When you ask 'is slavery was OK when it is the result of people [voluntarily]selling themselves?' it's a lot like asking 'is 5 ok when it's the result of 2+2'.  It's fine because it's nonsense -or- Yes, but it never is.

If you crawled out of a desert onto my oasis, I might be able to get you to sign a very harsh contract in exchange for the necessities. Or maybe you wouldn't sign and would die of thirst or hunger or exposure. Negotiations between very unequal parties results in exploitation.

[Evil Hamster]

You said you think a meritocracy would be your preferred form of government- where the most intelligent people make the decisions. I was just listing some bad decisions that could be made- and have been suggested by smart people.

[Evil Hamster]

If they decide they want it, the peaceful people will give it to them. If its their lives, they will do that to. But then they become martyrs and it would probably help the cause.

But do consider this: by the fact that we are alive right now is essentially proof that we have the potential for peace. We also have the potential for total destruction, since people do kill each other. While the majority of humanity is not exactly perfectly happy and at peace and whatnot, the majority do not kill someone in their lifetime. While many do support violence and death, there are many who don't.

Peace is a concept that is only possible through military strength. If your neighbor will take unacceptable losses trying to take something from you, he won't try. Does that mean we have the potential for peace? Or is it more the fear of destruction is what holds people in check. Throughout human history most people would have been involved in various skirmishes/wars. What has put the damper on that more recently is the fact that our weapons have improved to the point where in general- you might kill me, but I'll kill you too. Now none of this will stop a truly crazy/maniacal leader from being a "bad neighbor" which is why i really worry about Iran getting a nuclear weapon...

Besides, what would a simple, peaceful society without emphasis on matierial things have that a self obsessed, materialistic world would want?

You're alive so there must be food resources. Can the land you are on be mined? Women. There are lots of reasons- just being peaceful is not a means of defense.

[Evil Hamster]

evil hamster: No worries. What would you prefer? If i may ask?


Belthus: True, But why not aim for perfection and have a small chance of getting there? Also not only the best and brightest have those falts, the rest of us are just as guilty.

Of course if you are the best and brightest, history might take more note, and what is a small mistake to you might effect many more people than a small mistake by someone else. Everyone loves a victim. Easy to victimise someone who says x deaths ect was a small mistake.

I would say a republic would work well, with term limits so politics can never become a lifetime career and no bribery. But that's in a perfect world. A true democracy would be too chaotic and near impossible to implement anyways. The "meritocracy" you mentioned would be too easy to turn into a dictatorship. A truly "good" form of government requires strong checks and balances to prevent the people in charge from accumulating too much power.

And sndance:

Your idea sounds good, but would only work until the non-peaceful group next to you decides they want something you have. That's just a sad fact of the human condition.

[sillyking14]

Ownership is a concept that applies to property. To say that people own themselves is to say that they are property. I have asked several Randians whether it was OK for people to sell themselves. They replied that if you can't sell yourself, you don't really own yourself. I asked if slavery was OK when it was the result of people selling themselves. They said, yes, that was OK.

Slavery is not OK with me. People do sell themselves, out of desperation. People sell their children. They wouldn't do these things if they were prosperous. The answer is to reject the notion that people are property that can be owned.

Slavery only happens when ownership of another's liberty is acquired through force.  But when ownership of another's liberty is acquired through voluntary means it's not slavery; it's a job.

When you ask 'is slavery was OK when it is the result of people [voluntarily]selling themselves?' it's a lot like asking 'is 5 ok when it's the result of 2+2'.  It's fine because it's nonsense -or- Yes, but it never is.

i wanna put a concept out there that may be rather off-the-wall sounding but here goes.
no-one has any power over you that you don't give to them voluntarily. there are always choices.

evil hamster: No worries. What would you prefer? If i may ask?


Belthus: True, But why not aim for perfection and have a small chance of getting there? Also not only the best and brightest have those falts, the rest of us are just as guilty.

Of course if you are the best and brightest, history might take more note, and what is a small mistake to you might effect many more people than a small mistake by someone else. Everyone loves a victim. Easy to victimise someone who says x deaths ect was a small mistake.

I would say a republic would work well, with term limits so politics can never become a lifetime career and no bribery. But that's in a perfect world. A true democracy would be too chaotic and near impossible to implement anyways. The "meritocracy" you mentioned would be too easy to turn into a dictatorship. A truly "good" form of government requires strong checks and balances to prevent the people in charge from accumulating too much power.

And sndance:

Your idea sounds good, but would only work until the non-peaceful group next to you decides they want something you have. That's just a sad fact of the human condition.

may i ask? would you prefer a completely benign autocracy or a perfectly corrupt demoncracy?

[SnDance]

If they decide they want it, the peaceful people will give it to them. If its their lives, they will do that to. But then they become martyrs and it would probably help the cause.

But do consider this: by the fact that we are alive right now is essentially proof that we have the potential for peace. We also have the potential for total destruction, since people do kill each other. While the majority of humanity is not exactly perfectly happy and at peace and whatnot, the majority do not kill someone in their lifetime. While many do support violence and death, there are many who don't.

Besides, what would a simple, peaceful society without emphasis on matierial things have that a self obsessed, materialistic world would want?

[SnDance]

There is only a small change of getting there if few agree with you. But I contend that even if only 100 of the approx. 6,845,146,634 people on the planet decide on a peaceful life and make their own little village, that the world around them would begin the change and the world would take notice.

While fast food is not directly related to a perfect world, it does work as an analogy in this case. In America, you cannot be farther than 145 miles from a McDonalds *Linky Linky* (http://www.good.is/post/map-of-every-mcdonalds-in-the-country/). It started as a single restruant in 1940, and today its the biggest fast food chain in the bloody world.

While fast food and world peace are unrelated for the most part, it does show that when something desirable is created, it becomes something big, and when the desire never fades, then it basically becomes permanent.

If 100 people create for themselves a peaceful existence, then others who wish for the same existence will replicate it, just as they replicated mcdonalds...again...and again...and again.

The mistake people keep making is trying to uniformly change the world an bring it to a state of peace. You can't just march off to third world countries and provide schooling and medical care and expect change. This just enables better lives, and a better change to have more advanced weapons. I could go into detail, but its not that important.

To begin the process of changing the world, you must first, and foremost, be at peace with yourself. Being at peace with yourself, others will feel more at peace around you and will want to be with you more. They will, in turn, become at peace with themselves.

So Lets say that for the first decade, there is one village on earth that is at peace with itself. It does not govern itself, because there is no need. People are at peace, no longer pulled by the desires of the world, they do not steal, they do not kill each other.

So after the first decade, someone else decided that this is a good way to live and makes another settlement of peace and more people come.

After a while more, another settlement.

I don't know how much time it would take, but it could happen. The problem is that most people don't want it to happen. They want to remain in the world of strife and hatred, of wars and poverty, and all of that. And so desiring war and unrest, they create it and call it government. The question is not what is the perfect government, but rather when humanity will decide to live in peace and leave behind governemnt all together. When we make a conscious choice, either as a whole, or in small parts, to leave in peace, we wont have need of government because we will no longer need laws to keep us from harming each other.

[SnDance]

To attack for food makes no sense. 100 people or so would have enough food to feed themselves. As for mining the land, ok, that's a possibility, but not likely to be important.

You cannot create peace in a non-peaceful way. Think about it. If someone came and killed your family, your town, most of your country, would you be peaceful? No. You would respond with violence. You would want to kill the people who killed the people you cared about.

And then, lets say you succeed and kill a few million people. Well the families of those people will be angry with you and hunt you down and all who helped you. Its a cycle that doesn't end, unless someone accepts their losses and remains at peace with themselves, refusing to continue the fighting.

Also, when a person does something good for another person, unless that person is insane and homicidal, it will make them feel better. Just as violence produces more violence, so does goodness produce more goodness.

While for the most part the world is in a rather depressive state at the moment, there are enough countries that would come to the aid of the small, peaceful country.

As it is now, there are actually several countries without a military force: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

Just as some of these countries are defended by other countries, so would the small country of peaceful people. So while yes, they would have military protection, they wouldn't ask for it, nor would they have any part of it. It would simply be given to them as a gesture of good will.

The problem, hamster, is you underestimate the good will of people. While there are not many truly good, generous, and kind people, there are still enough who will not kill someone that such a place could survive.

[Uzra]

&feature=related

Argue with that ^