Print

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

[Leafsnail]

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, who runs the "intensive screening procedure"?

[SalmonGod]

As soon as someone expresses interest in a position of authority, I find it hard to trust them.  There's no reason to desire power unless in pursuit of an agenda, which almost certainly falls into one of two categories.

1.  Personal Ambition
2.  Conceited belief that one knows how others should live

[Leafsnail]

As soon as someone expresses interest in a position of authority, I find it hard to trust them.  There's no reason to desire power unless in pursuit of an agenda, which almost certainly falls into one of two categories.

1.  Personal Ambition
2.  Conceited belief that one knows how others should live

3.  A genuine desire to change things.

If someone doesn't express interest, they clearly aren't gonna give a fuck about it if they ever do get power.

[Virex]

The Jury I described above, supported by an executive body, which should be the first body of the new government. Initially, Juries should be chosen by popular vote on anonymous candidates with only their merits available for public viewing (this is still a step I'm not entire clear on). After this, the executive body will be formed and then juries are formed by random selection from a pool of possible jury members, which I think should include the entire populace, those who are unable to participate exempted.

[smjjames]

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.

How big is the jury going to be? 1 person, two? 12? 50? 100? From what you said, all it takes is one person to disagree every single time to deadlock the whole thing.

[Leafsnail]

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.

Couldn't a coin make an equally good "judgement"?

[Virex]

A coin canīt tell if someone is a moron, a jury with access to his biography and personal information and who observed him during the trial period could.
I was thinking that 8 would be a nice number, but frankly this is a value that I can't properly predict at the moment.1 person holding the jury in a deadlock is indeed possible but since the juries change very often, I doubt this will be a large problem. If there really are foreseeable problems with rigged juries, obvious bias and attempts to rig the jury should be punishable by law as a severe form of fraud or in extreme cases as treason.

[smjjames]

The Jury I described above, supported by an executive body, which should be the first body of the new government. Initially, Juries should be chosen by popular vote on anonymous candidates with only their merits available for public viewing (this is still a step I'm not entire clear on). After this, the executive body will be formed and then juries are formed by random selection from a pool of possible jury members, which I think should include the entire populace, those who are unable to participate exempted.

It sounds like you're making it overcomplicated, like the goverment you want to replace.

[Earthquake Damage]

Let's suppose this could work at all.

Do you seriously intend to do this for every single government employee?  That'd cost an awful lot of time and money.  It'd also require a sizable piece of the population be permanently devoted to jury duty (don't forget the requisite expert in every jury).

[SalmonGod]

As soon as someone expresses interest in a position of authority, I find it hard to trust them.  There's no reason to desire power unless in pursuit of an agenda, which almost certainly falls into one of two categories.

1.  Personal Ambition
2.  Conceited belief that one knows how others should live

3.  A genuine desire to change things.

If someone doesn't express interest, they clearly aren't gonna give a fuck about it if they ever do get power.

Your #3 almost certainly falls under #2... I will admit that there are exceptions, but only in the pursuit of creating greater freedom, which almost certainly necessitates weakening the position that has been sought after...

Basically we need people with humbleness and humility in positions of authority if they are ever going to be a positive thing.  We need people who will only wield power when it really matters, not everytime they see something they just don't like or everytime they decide that they would like something.

I don't think such people are incredibly rare, but such people who will also volunteer for positions of power are exceedingly rare and cannot generally compete with those who really want it for selfish reasons.

[Virex]

The Jury I described above, supported by an executive body, which should be the first body of the new government. Initially, Juries should be chosen by popular vote on anonymous candidates with only their merits available for public viewing (this is still a step I'm not entire clear on). After this, the executive body will be formed and then juries are formed by random selection from a pool of possible jury members, which I think should include the entire populace, those who are unable to participate exempted.

It sounds like you're making it overcomplicated, like the goverment you want to replace.

That is a good point. Iīll see if I can simplify things, but I was aiming more for the point that there currently are too many departments working on the same field without comunicating with the other departments. I would say the whole idea of a department would need to be reconsidered, but I havenīt had a look at that yet.

Let's suppose this could work at all.

Do you seriously intend to do this for every single government employee?  That'd cost an awful lot of time and money.  It'd also require a sizable piece of the population be permanently devoted to jury duty (don't forget the requisite expert in every jury).

A large part of the cost would be offset by cost reductions and increased productivity on the government side. It would also force the government to critically check what jobs they want to fill and what tasks they want to fill and avoid bloat. I could foresee a less tight procedure for people low in the hierarchy, but ideally the concept of hierarchy within the government should be partially moot, since the whole point is that government employees should communicate efficiently and be able to bear executive responsibility (this would also require other measures then just tight screening)

[smjjames]

The Jury I described above, supported by an executive body, which should be the first body of the new government. Initially, Juries should be chosen by popular vote on anonymous candidates with only their merits available for public viewing (this is still a step I'm not entire clear on). After this, the executive body will be formed and then juries are formed by random selection from a pool of possible jury members, which I think should include the entire populace, those who are unable to participate exempted.

It sounds like you're making it overcomplicated, like the goverment you want to replace.

That is a good point. Iīll see if I can simplify things, but I was aiming more for the point that there currently are too many departments working on the same field without comunicating with the other departments. I would say the whole idea of a department would need to be reconsidered, but I havenīt had a look at that yet.

Why not instead simplify the departments and make communication between departments easier. Still though, you'd have to explain more how the departments work for those not familiar with Netherlandish (?) goverment and how it works.

[Earthquake Damage]

Why not instead simplify the departments and make communication between departments easier.

Also:  Minimize redundancy and clearly define roles for all departments?

[Virex]

I used th term loosely, not in the Dutch sense. I just mean different executive bodies within the government that are largely independent entities. The whole concept of the government existing as independent entities that tie together on a high level prevents effective communication from the get go, and compensating for that is difficult at best.
Clearly defining roles is a common trap in this case, since it pushes the different entities further into their shell and limits their coordination: "That's a job for the ... department, not ours. contact them", instead of "Oh, to get that done, I need to send this to .... (someone in the ... work group), he'll route it to the right person. We'll contact you within ... days."

[ChairmanPoo]

As soon as someone expresses interest in a position of authority, I find it hard to trust them.  There's no reason to desire power unless in pursuit of an agenda, which almost certainly falls into one of two categories.

1.  Personal Ambition
2.  Conceited belief that one knows how others should live

3.  A genuine desire to change things.

See #2