Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedWarrior0]

Weekly riots to determine what happens.

[misko27]

Riots are actually unpleasant things, because not everyone is so noble as to care about their political basis. There's a reason things go to hell during Black-outs.

In fact I'd argue stability and longevity of a government can be a negative trait just as well. A form of government that is hard to change/overthrow may be problematic when it becomes corrupt or incompetent, especially when there are no checks in place (like I imagine is the case with fuedalism? Don't actually know to much about it).

Sometimes a little instability and the threat of revolution is necessary to keep it in shape. How does it go? A government should fear its people, not the other way around?

And the opposite is true, nothing stopping a good government from being brought down. Recall there is a large and angry segment of the population, directly opposed to whatever you or the government believes in, and all a decent government needs is a couple of high-profile mistakes (And there are always mistakes, because they are only human.)  and they are let loose. Violence rarely is as successful as reform. And there is no determining whether the new government will be so friendly to new revolutions.

At the end of the day, instability is bad because you roll a dice continuously, and whatever it lands on is what you get. Even if it's far worse. Weimer Germany collapsed badly, and angry, violently opposed factions were what tore it apart. The result, as you know, was far worse then anything else.

[ChairmanPoo]

Democratical Elected Dictatorship, Based Upon the Masses Consensus.

That is the Ultimate Form of Democracy.

Basically, you Elect someone, a 'X' who has to at the very least have the following things in his favor:

Have served in the military for two years.
Have a Degree in Economics, Engineering or Mathematics.
Have a complete and utter Religion-Less life.
Have no family.

Then we can keep adding restriction.

Afterwards, he comes up with his own political agenda, and he 'proposes' it to the People through the Internet, through the news, through Freely distributed papers...
The people then can 'Vote' Him at any of the always-open voting spots. The vote REMAINS until it is changed. Hence there is no 'Fixed' time of dismissal from power. If the Dictator remains loyal to his agenda, and keeps on providing the people with what they need, he remains in power.
The moment he goes down the 'bad-End Route' people change their votes accordingly to the others around them who have remained as 'candidates' until then.

The Highest definition of Democracy after all is that the will of the People is superior to that of the minority.

To keep the Dictator on Check however, and to keep the people themselves on check (Who is to say they don't want to 'Crucify soccer players' and actually get the law passed because they want that in the agenda?) there are some common rules.

1) The Dictatorship is born upon the Free Will of the People, no law may, at any one time, infringe upon the freedom of people to talk, write or discuss.
1a) No citizen may at any one time declare his will superior to that of another, and force through strength of arms his choices, for we are all born Free and Equal.
2) The Dictator is to remain in charge for Two months since his start of the term as a minimums, afterwards he may be freely removed from lack of votes.
3) The Dictator must always have the Majority of votes from the Country's people, otherwise he will be replaced by whoever achieves said majority.
4) The Dictator cannot declare war without the approval of the people.
5) The Dictator is the Ultimate form of Law, Military and Executive system. In cases where Bureaucracy is inherently flawed, in cases where the need of the people is left unheard because of the cogs of society he may intervene at his leisure as the last form of decision.
(Case being Criminals who are set free because the cop didn't tell them their rights, mafia-guys who go out of jail because Corrupted judges let their crimes 'go in prescription' and people who are inherently guilty, have been found such, but have been freed because a test suddenly was 'invalid' out of a procedure vice or protocol)
(If an old woman is about to lose her home to high-interest loans brought forth by Loan-Sharks, the Dictator may intervene too)
(Basically, give him a white cape and call him Super-hero)
6) The Dictator is the Representative not of a small part of the citizens, but of his entire Nation, his entire assembled citizenship and must thus provide for all of them indiscriminately.

That is what I believe would be the best form of government possible.
A single man or woman able to make quick and rapid decisions for the benefit of the majority, without being tied down by anything more than the people's will.
In a short word: The Greek's model of Dictators, the ones that cropped up in the Polis and were valued as extremely useful individuals.

This sounds exactly like the kind of system that would be easily subverted by charismatic rich people with media empires at their back

oh wait

[shadenight123]

Point is: That's Democracy at its finest.

Either we accept the People as a Majority are right, hence we accept the Power to the People theme.
OR
The Majority are imbeciles, they should just be glad few, elite men/women guide them. Hence we follow the Oligarchy theme.
OR.
Everyone except One is an imbecile. He should rule, the others should just shut up and obey. Hence, there's a King, Monarch, Emperor, Dictator stuff.

You can't make politics any simpler than this really.
Either all have a voice, few have a voice or one has a voice.

The 'Neutral Ai' is still a Single Voice.

No voice at all isn't anarchy...it's complete extermination of every living being.
As long as a single human living being breaths, he will have an opinion.
The clash of opinions is politics.

[LordSlowpoke]

What if we take three kings and make them rule a country then sacrifice the one doing worst by some arbitrary criterion (like being patriarchal, hurr hurr hurr) to ther Sun God?

You've got monarchs, executions and appeasement of deities which keep you alive mostly out of spite. Best system all the years.

[RedWarrior0]

And a reason to perform well.

Until it becomes trendy to be a sacrifice.

[Nadaka]

The majority have one or more of the following flaws: uneducated, ignorant, prone to magical thinking, easily swayed by appeals to emotion without regard to the facts and a lack empathy for people not entirely like themselves.

Majority rule is NOT ideal.

[Jelle]

And the opposite is true, nothing stopping a good government from being brought down. Recall there is a large and angry segment of the population, directly opposed to whatever you or the government believes in, and all a decent government needs is a couple of high-profile mistakes (And there are always mistakes, because they are only human.)  and they are let loose. Violence rarely is as successful as reform. And there is no determining whether the new government will be so friendly to new revolutions.

At the end of the day, instability is bad because you roll a dice continuously, and whatever it lands on is what you get. Even if it's far worse. Weimer Germany collapsed badly, and angry, violently opposed factions were what tore it apart. The result, as you know, was far worse then anything else.

Oh yes absolutely. Didn't mean to imply that one extreme is better all the time, it's a complex issue that cannot be simplified that way. Merely arguing that stability alone by itself isn't the best metric to judge a government's worth.

I would however strongly disagree that change as a result of government instability can be simplified by a random dice throw.

The Majority are imbeciles, they should just be glad few, elite men/women guide them. Hence we follow the Oligarchy theme.

Hm is oligarchy the one with the wealthy few? Or is it forms of government with a select few in charge in general? Does meritocracy fall in  this category if so?

[misko27]

Oligarchy is specifically rule by a few. Rule by money specifically is Plutocracy. Oligarchy can be any elite few. Aristocracy falls underneath I believe.

[Eagle_eye]

The majority have one or more of the following flaws: uneducated, ignorant, prone to magical thinking, easily swayed by appeals to emotion without regard to the facts and a lack empathy for people not entirely like themselves.

Majority rule is NOT ideal.

That's true of any system of government. There isn't any really reliable way to pick good people. The best we can hope for is making sure that people have to cooperate to get anything done, and that means distributing power as widely as possible.

[Nadaka]

The majority have one or more of the following flaws: uneducated, ignorant, prone to magical thinking, easily swayed by appeals to emotion without regard to the facts and a lack empathy for people not entirely like themselves.

Majority rule is NOT ideal.

That's true of any system of government. There isn't any really reliable way to pick good people. The best we can hope for is making sure that people have to cooperate to get anything done, and that means distributing power as widely as possible.

Distributing power as widely as possible results in a situation where the voice of the minority on any given subject will automatically never matter.

Racial integration would never have happened. Womens rights would never be recognized.

Sometimes you need to have someone who can make the right choice, no matter how unpopular it is.

[gogis]

I liek thyranny + AI controlled praetorians to quickly dispatch bad rulers, Rome style.

Reasons is simple. One, hugely good wisey man is a lot better than any clique goverments with all the shenanigans and scheming and wealth spent on bribes/lobby instead of country. Thats exactly how we create huge prospering empires in games. All for greater good.

Democracy is such a joke now, naueseating even. We voting for a streak of retards, which fed with bribes for promises even before they take control. And populism, should I say more? FUCKING POPULISM.

edit: I dont believe in demos ruling the nation, really in a pure sense. Demos is retarded and by definition is average. 

[Eagleon]

The majority have one or more of the following flaws: uneducated, ignorant, prone to magical thinking, easily swayed by appeals to emotion without regard to the facts and a lack empathy for people not entirely like themselves.

Majority rule is NOT ideal.

That's true of any system of government. There isn't any really reliable way to pick good people. The best we can hope for is making sure that people have to cooperate to get anything done, and that means distributing power as widely as possible.

Distributing power as widely as possible results in a situation where the voice of the minority on any given subject will automatically never matter.

Racial integration would never have happened. Womens rights would never be recognized.

Sometimes you need to have someone who can make the right choice, no matter how unpopular it is.

Who gets to decide who's making the right choice? The person making the right choice, of course.

I never bought this argument. Racial integration happened because there were enough people in areas affected by it that knew things were wrong, and were willing to submit on a large enough scale to an authority that held their position. How do I know? We still have integration issues in my hometown, despite Our Benevolent Leader saying that it was wrong so many decades ago.

Women's rights happened because strong women stood up and pointed out that they were half of the damned population, so why should they be treated as inferiors? We still have women's rights issues, despite fairly clear laws saying that we should probably stop treating them as inferiors.

There are places that still resist both, and in those places there is clear dissent behind a backdrop of status-quo fear and stigma. Breaking through that stigma and encouraging people to speak their minds is where change happens. People are generally rational, but their rationality is affected by the need for stability, their fear of change and the unknown.

If you turn the argument on its head, and have an authority that's trying to fight common sense against the will of the people, you don't lose your common sense and eagerly submit to an ostensibly wiser leadership, you fight it as much as you can, sometimes to the point that it means problems for yourself, because it's a break in trust.

[shadenight123]

"Common sense"

Define it.

Problem is...Majority decides 'Common Sense'.

It's 'Common'.

Cannibals believe 'Common Sense' to eat the flesh of other humans.
In a cannibal tribe, it isn't a crime.
It's 'Common' sense.

If a single person declares 'human food' taboo, he won't be making a 'right' choice. He'll be eaten alive because he goes against 'common' sense.

All laws. All moralities. Everything...

is relative

What WE believe right is, what WE believe wrong is. 'WE' being the majority.
If, tomorrow, the majority of people decided that 'Killing people who commit crimes is okay' then you don't get an 'immoral' decision. You don't get a 'morality' argument. You simply get that from tomorrow you can kill people who commit crimes.

Racism existed even after the abolishment of slavery and 'everyone is born equal' speeches. It was defeated when the majority of people changed, but that change was brought up by a minority of them at first.

Every new Idea comes from the minority.

The few always spearhead innovation. The sheep follow blindly. When you're lucky, the one leading are smart and you get innovation, civilization, true and outright democracy.
When you're unlucky, you get Democracy as it is now. A place where good faces and with loads of cash get the seats, and where stagnancy runs rampant as...'why should I bother? I have my comfy chair and my salary'

[Eagleon]

Yes, morality is relative, but it isn't undefined. Morality is relative to biological imperatives - they created our society to begin with, and they still underlay every society we have now. Common sense is common, but it comes down to a question of whether you believe that people are generally pretty agreeable once they're in your social circle. If you don't, you don't have the trust that a society needs to function, and it breaks down to (hopefully) form something stronger.