Print

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

[Powder Miner]

The British socialist government was touted by several of the scientists of the time as being the sciemtifically-determined superior form of government. And then it failed horrifically. Why's this? Because science isn't some sort of unitary magical all-saving force, it's a method of figuring things out run by scientists. Being a good physicist or anthropologist has absolutely NOTHING to do with running government. The rules of human society aren't like the rules of physics or biology or chemistry, they have so many more completely uncontrollable variables, and they don't actually adhere to any definite formulas. What a scientist would need to do is to look at past events and estimate (nothing follows a strict set of laws like physics and chemistry do, you can't just follow a specific formula or ideology and expect it to remain steady, every single planned economy has learned this) what to apply based on his own opinions and experience, and then convince others to do it. And that's literally just politics, not science.

And when it's politics involved, it's the people who are good at politics who do it well, not the people who are good at science. And then it's the people good at politics who get into power. Whatever scientific utopia you might have wanted prevents itself from existing by the tangible, specific definition of what science actually IS.

[Sheb]

I think you guys are underestimating one major benefit of the current US constitution: its age make people respect it. That protect it somewhat. I come from a country were we change the constitution after pretty much every election, and the result is a unholy mess. And don't get me started on the French that are now changing their Constitution to allow for perpetual state of emergency in the wake of the 13/11 attacks.

[Shadowlord]

What a scientist would need to do is to look at past events and estimate (nothing follows a strict set of laws like physics and chemistry do, you can't just follow a specific formula or ideology and expect it to remain steady, every single planned economy has learned this) what to apply based on his own opinions and experience, and then convince others to do it. And that's literally just politics, not science.

You just described historians. Problem solved!

[Powder Miner]

That doesn't actually solve the problem even a little. Historians are just as bitterly divided as politicians, and among historical lines.
One goes "All y'all liberal fakehistorians need to stop yer propaganda, Reagan's policies worked", for example, where another will go "Yoooouuu conservative redneck scum, you are clearly wrong, Reagan's policies failed!" and then people go with the interpretation that they believe to be correct, for whatever reason.

This is literally how things presently work.

[Flying Dice]

What crises? Everything is working fine, apart from the 2nd amendment maybe.

Homicide rate is still steadily dropping.

Yeah, crisis is probably not he right word. I still think the legality of guns should be something that is decided by democratic will, not set in stone, but hey, I don't live in the US.

There is enough democratic will to incite armed uprisings in defense of the legality of guns, which means that the system is working as intended.

There was enough "democratic will" for a sizable portion of the union to commit to an armed uprising in defense of the legality of slavery. Democratic governance does not constitute a blanket requirement to accept everything because some citizens want it. That's nearly as asinine as trying to ban everything that offends someone.

[Helgoland]

Seriously though, I wish democracy wasn't literally a bunch of popularity contests.  Too bad there's no reasonable way to fix that, that I can think of.  (without having a government of orphan eunuch scientists)

Sorry to quote from a page back, but: Read up on the difference between democracy and ochlocracy! In theory democracy doesn't work like you say - what you describe is a degenerated form. The ancient Greeks had all sorts of cyclic history theories about this.

[Powder Miner]

>orphans disallowed from having families in government
hahaha
lemme tell you bout the janissaries

[scriver]

Well both them and the Mamluks also happened to be their country's army.

Of course, the idea is bad for other reasons. In any kind of government you generally want the people in charge to relate more to the people they govern rather than less, for starters.

[WealthyRadish]

If the Liberal Crime Squad started raids in Connecticut to kidnap trust fund infants as a new caste of political slave warriors, they'd have my vote.

[mainiac]

I think you guys are underestimating one major benefit of the current US constitution: its age make people respect it.

That's what they used to say about the monarchies.

[Morrigi]

Thing about the Constitution is that attempting to abolish it would result in a civil war and probable coup in which the government would lose horribly. The Constitution would then be re-instated.

[lemon10]

I think you guys are underestimating one major benefit of the current US constitution: its age make people respect it.

That's what they used to say about the monarchies.

And it's true. The added stability of a hereditary monarchy is a huge benefit that at times allowed centuries of (internal) peace in a time when civil wars were extremely common. That doesn't mean that its a particularly good type of government due to the added costs (dictatorship, civil war almost guaranteed if their is a succession crisis), but the added stability does help.

[Loud Whispers]

And it's true. The added stability of a hereditary monarchy is a huge benefit that at times allowed centuries of (internal) peace in a time when civil wars were extremely common. That doesn't mean that its a particularly good type of government due to the added costs (dictatorship, civil war almost guaranteed if their is a succession crisis), but the added stability does help.

Monarchies are quite swell systems, the flaw is that it's quite hard to remove a poor Monarch in an absolute monarchy without some coup, forced abdication or assassination. And those turn out to usually be quite messy. A good example would be Saudi Arabia. Quite stable, it has been able to put forth consistent policies, yet has also suffered a coup that could have gone horribly wrong during the succession period and is quite authoritarian. One amusing thing as well is that one strong point of a monarchy is that it gives you a leader who can put forth long term policies which will cause discontent in the short term but bring prosperity in the long term, whilst a fixed-term republic creates leaders who will put forth policies beneficial in the short term for more votes - that will turn out disastrous in the long term. Contrast with for example, the authoritarian leaders (albeit within Republics) Ataturk in Turkey or Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore who led their countries to prosperity through great social upheaval. Oddly enough Saudi policies have been surprisingly short sighted in comparison. I would blame that on the oil crutch.
You must also consider that the whole notion of old monarchies bringing stability only matters with a populace that is quite traditional, otherwise it will merely bring resentment and offers more problems and little benefit. They also usually go absolutely pear shaped around the 3rd generation for some reason.

[martinuzz]

We do it all the time here in Europe. Most West-European and Scandinavian countries still are monarchies. Or if you want, hybrids between constituional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. Monarchs do provide some extra stability.
I think if Belgium didn't still have a monarch, it'd have fallen apart into Flanders and Wallonnabee France decades ago.

[mainiac]

Thing about the Constitution is that attempting to abolish it would result in a civil war and probable coup in which the government would lose horribly. The Constitution would then be re-instated.

Thing about the Monarchy is that attempting to abolish it would result in a civil war and probable coup in which the people I dont like would lose horribly.  The Monarchy would then be re-instated.
Thing about the Shogunate is that attempting to abolish it would result in a civil war and probable coup in which the people I dont like would lose horribly.  The Shogunate would then be re-instated.
Thing about the Peoples One Party Rule is that attempting to abolish it would result in a civil war and probable coup in which the people I dont like would lose horribly.  The peoples rule would then be re-instated.
Thing about the Baathist revolutionary state is that attempting to abolish it would result in a civil war and probable coup in which the people I dont like would lose horribly.  The Baath Party would then be re-instated.