Print

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

[Earthquake Damage]

The point is not to strip down the government completely, but to break the entire government structure down to the core and then to completely rebuild it. The current structure is overly complex and filled with anachronisms and it seems like they're just hiring random people to do random work instead of trying to get the best person for every job. If the government feels the need to for example shuffle the ministries every 4 years and "revolutionize" the school system every 6 years then that's a clear indication that the government itself doesn't work and nobody has a clue on how to fix it. Ergo, burn it to the ground and replace it with something that does make sense.

So your suggestion is, what, "revolutionize" the government every 6 years? 

[smjjames]

Most governments. From what I've gathered, there are pretty much no governments with the right people in the right places.


The point is not to strip down the government completely, but to break the entire government structure down to the core and then to completely rebuild it. The current structure is overly complex and filled with anachronisms and it seems like they're just hiring random people to do random work instead of trying to get the best person for every job. If the government feels the need to for example shuffle the ministries every 4 years and "revolutionize" the school system every 6 years then that's a clear indication that the government itself doesn't work and nobody has a clue on how to fix it. Ergo, burn it to the ground and replace it with something that does make sense.

FYI, that is not how the US system works. We just have a congress that is unwilling to work together to get things done and the fact that the republicans are blocking and filibustering when they can doesn't help either.

[Virex]

The point is not to strip down the government completely, but to break the entire government structure down to the core and then to completely rebuild it. The current structure is overly complex and filled with anachronisms and it seems like they're just hiring random people to do random work instead of trying to get the best person for every job. If the government feels the need to for example shuffle the ministries every 4 years and "revolutionize" the school system every 6 years then that's a clear indication that the government itself doesn't work and nobody has a clue on how to fix it. Ergo, burn it to the ground and replace it with something that does make sense.

So your suggestion is, what, "revolutionize" the government every 6 years? 

I suggested for the government to be made up of competent people. You know, the opposite of the current situation?

[nenjin]

Interesting tidbit from China.  They're all pissy about the whol Liu Xiaobo/Nobel peace price thing, of course, but they asked a good question: why not give Assange the prize?

You know shit has gotten weird when China can make a moral relativism argument and it actually holds water.

[smjjames]

I suggested for the government to be made up of competent people. You know, the opposite of the current situation?

I get that and agree with you, I was just informing you that what you said is not how the US system works.

[Virex]

Sorry that was a reaction to the post above you. You ninjaed me

[Earthquake Damage]

I suggested for the government to be made up of competent people. You know, the opposite of the current situation?

Firstly, you're declaring the entirety of government incompetent, as though they are of a different breed than the general public.  Secondly, are you advocating a meritocracy?

[Virex]

Most of the public is incompetent as well, and yes at least for government jobs I don't think we should never accept less then the very best.

[Earthquake Damage]

Most of the public is incompetent as well, and yes at least for government jobs I don't think we should never accept less then the very best.

Who determines the best and on what grounds?

[smjjames]

Most of the public is incompetent as well, and yes at least for government jobs I don't think we should never accept less then the very best.

Based on what standard?

Most of the public is incompetent as well, and yes at least for government jobs I don't think we should never accept less then the very best.

Who determines the best and on what grounds?

Exactly. We seem to be thinking alike here. Or we are both seeing the same logical fallacy here.

[SalmonGod]

Interesting tidbit from China.  They're all pissy about the whol Liu Xiaobo/Nobel peace price thing, of course, but they asked a good question: why not give Assange the prize?

You know shit has gotten weird when China can make a moral relativism argument and it actually holds water.

Glenn Beck, too.  Apparently he's been defending Assange, and even turning on his usual allies to do so.

[Graebeard]

Interesting tidbit from China.  They're all pissy about the whol Liu Xiaobo/Nobel peace price thing, of course, but they asked a good question: why not give Assange the prize?

You know shit has gotten weird when China can make a moral relativism argument and it actually holds water.

Seriousville.  I mean, I always approach "party" arguments very skeptically, but we seem to have given their propaganda machine pretty good fodder.

Glenn Beck, too.  Apparently he's been defending Assange, and even turning on his usual allies to do so.

Didn't know that.  Man.  What's happening to the world?  I found myself posting a link on FB earlier of Ron Paul defending him too.  They may make me turn in my liberal card if this keeps going.

[Virex]

Most of the public is incompetent as well, and yes at least for government jobs I don't think we should never accept less then the very best.

Based on what standard?

At least by the standard of "don't cause damage to society with your responsibilities" Out of all the people I know there would only be maybe 2 I'd trust with my health-care documents, let alone that I would trust anyone to decide on more pressing matters. That's why it's necessary to have an intensive screening procedure to make sure that anyone with responsibility can actually do her job as needed.

[Earthquake Damage]

Glenn Beck, too.  Apparently he's been defending Assange, and even turning on his usual allies to do so.

Didn't know that.  Man.  What's happening to the world?  I found myself posting a link on FB earlier of Ron Paul defending him too.  They may make me turn in my liberal card if this keeps going.

So they're taking an ideological rather than partisan stance?  I know nothing about Ron Paul, but I can kinda see it with Glenn Beck, ideologue that he is.

At least by the standard of "don't cause damage to society with your responsibilities" Out of all the people I know there would only be maybe 2 I'd trust with my health-care documents, let alone that I would trust anyone to decide on more pressing matters. That's why it's necessary to have an intensive screening procedure to make sure that anyone with responsibility can actually do her job as needed.

So someone will have to screen potential government officials and employees somehow.  I ask who and how.  Who are you going to trust with that responsibility?  That's one hell of a lot of discretionary authority.

[Virex]

Well, who would you trust with authority? I think that only a completely independent and unbiased jury, who knows nothing of the person in question could make a good judgment. I would therefor propose a jury consisting of at least 1 jury member knowledgeable in the field the person to be hired is sought for and for the rest, an even division amongst the populace. Juries would be formed per case, or to solve a small number of cases, to avoid bias creep and concentration of power. They would have as much access as possible to personal and biographical data of the person in question and said person would have to run an admission program of at least 2 weeks to show that she is competent. The Jury may decide to prolong the period once, but their decision must be unanimous, if 1 member has the impression that the person who's going to be hired may not function adequately, he's not hired.