Print

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

[Cthulhu]

So complacency is superior?

[SalmonGod]

So complacency is superior?

Humbleness and humility are not necessarily complacency.  A person can have no desire to control others but also fight like hell against being controlled.

[Earthquake Damage]

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."

So you want one dominant executive structure that makes all the decisions rather than several more independent bodies that make their own decisions within certain guidelines?  I'm reminded of command push versus recon pull.  Cue 5 second Google search (I hope it's relevant).  The basic idea:  Given the realities of imperfect information and communications, it can be far more efficient to give more authority to individual units rather than hoard it all at the top.  I'm also reminded of economics, with market liberalization yielding greater social welfare, ceteris paribus.

Also, since we're debating fun ways to restructure government:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

...

It says a lot about my leadership style that those are the best I can think of for jokes, and my "real" answers are even flatter.  I would want at least two things in my Ultimate World Government.  First, the world would be divided up into political-territories, states if you will, based on population density and distances, because I'm a federalist.  Within each territory, the main legislative body would be the Conscriptocracy.  Dun dun duuun.

I have always believed that while democracies are more equitable and stable than any other government, representative democracy is cursed by the fact that only people of tremendous drive, charisma, wealth, and ego can ever actually win elections to go be legislators.  My legislatures would be staffed like American juries - everybody in the local population over a certain age (15 for fun, 30 because this thread clearly shows no one under that age has any idea how the world works) would be eligible to get a summons in the mail.  If you get a summons, you just got elected, and you have to go to the capital and make laws and appoint executives and judges.  No exchanges or replacements.  No ego or ambition or desire.  No one for the populace to blame but themselves for their governance.  God damn would it be beautiful.

...

[Bauglir]

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.

A bit of research suggests this is correct. My mind just got blown out the back of my skull. I... I can't believe I'm saying this. I agree with Glenn Beck's conclusion? I'm going to go spend a couple hours trying to scrub off this feeling of wrongness.

[nenjin]

I can see Beck defending Assange. I'm sure he's dying to know everything that gets said behind closed doors. I don't really buy that he's defending Assange on the basis of total transparency, the freedom of information, or anything. I think he just sees the government put in an awkward position and is loving it.

Plus, he can stand apart from a completely different line of conservative thought, which is executing Assange for embarrassing/one-uping us.

Still, I can't get over China. Way to turn the current political situation to their own advantage.

[olemars]

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.

A bit of research suggests this is correct. My mind just got blown out the back of my skull. I... I can't believe I'm saying this. I agree with Glenn Beck's conclusion? I'm going to go spend a couple hours trying to scrub off this feeling of wrongness.

When did he do this? Last I heard of Glenn Beck's antics, he was illustrating the swedish rape allegations against Assange using crude drawings on his whiteboard.

EDIT: Oh, I see. He actually did that in a sort-of defense of Assange. Hadn't actually watched it myself, just read about it on other sites. This is the only time I will ever do this since it makes me feel dirty, but here's a link to the Glenn Beck clip.

[Osmosis Jones]

Pertinent images.

[ed boy]

And while we (post-60s) Americans are culturally reared to cheer for the little guy, the vigilante standing up against The Man, the guy speaking Truth to Power....Assange is none of these. He's an arrogant twat who lucked into probably the largest security breach in American history, and has been wielding it like a little kid waving a flaming torch.

I fail to see how the US people are credibly 'culturely reared to cheer for the little guy'

Have a look at the first three films that I can think of:
Star wars - a small group of rebels and jedi struggle to overthrow the evil empire and their vast armies, despite overwhelming odds
Dodgeball - a group of people from a small gym compete in a dodgeball tournament to prevent their gym from being bought by a large (unpleasant if not evil) gym chain
Lord of the rings - a small group of heroes set out against the might of the armies of mordor to destroy the ring for the good of all middle-earth

Even the movies where the main character is one of the authorities, it is in every instance I can think of (e.g. die hard, james bond) a single person or a small group of people against the baddies - in that case, the baddies have more people and more resources, and become 'The man'.

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.  Because it's the best thing to do

A recent example is that me and a group of other people are renting a house for a year next year. When we were putting all our names down, there came the question of who should be head tenant - the position of head tenant is one of responsibility, and since you become the middle man between the letting agency and the rest of the tenants, it can also be considered a position of authority.

When we were renting it, there came the question of who should be head tenant. None of us had had any experience in such matters before, so I volunteered. It was not because I wanted to be head tenant for the sake of being head tenant, nor because I thought that I would be undisputedly the best head tenant ever. It was because we needed someone to be a head tenant, and spending a long time trying to decide who would be the best when nobody had any idea what would make a good head tenant would just mean that our house would be most likely snapped up by another group.

It's not that people need to be pragmatic, it's that everyone that works for the government is a mindless asshole that doesn't seem to be able to even put on their own socks.

I'm going to guess that you've never been responsible for a group of people before. Not long ago, I was put in charge of a group of twelve people for a week, and I can tell you that it is bloody hard work. Even in a group as small as twelve we had massive problems organizing everyone in order to get our jobs done, and I would not have been able to maintain what we had indefinitely.
The government has to organize thousands of people to do millions of jobs year in, year out. Having experienced the difficulties of organizing people, I'd have to say that they do a bloody good job.

[Leafsnail]

A coin can´t 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.

So... like the current system, only you have fewer people to fool/ bribe, and they know less about you?

[Virex]

I was going to respond that you obviously don't get to know who'll be jurying you, because the juries change all the time, but then I realized Wikileaks exists...

[dragonshardz]

You all do realize that NO system of government is perfect?

Communism was touted as a perfect system, and in theory, it is. HOWEVER, in practice, it is far from perfect. Why? Because people aren't perfect. Not many people will act in the best interest of the collective if the action is not in their best interest as well.

Note, I'm using communism as an example to make a point.

[Virex]

I know, that's what gave me the idea to change the people before changing the government. You can't have perfect employees, but you can certainly try to get the best you can and to ensure high quality across the board, which when supported by the right structure should result in a higher quality of government work.

[Phmcw]

Stallman's comment :

"    * 11 December 2010 (Three cheers for Wikileaks)

      Wikileaks says, "We will not be gagged".

      This refers to the UNESCO announcement about World Press Freedom Day.

      Three cheers for Wikileaks. The US government has betrayed the country and works for the banksters, and the major media are mostly under their control, but Wikileaks is still on our side. "

[Sir Pseudonymous]

And while we (post-60s) Americans are culturally reared to cheer for the little guy, the vigilante standing up against The Man, the guy speaking Truth to Power....Assange is none of these. He's an arrogant twat who lucked into probably the largest security breach in American history, and has been wielding it like a little kid waving a flaming torch.

I fail to see how the US people are credibly 'culturely reared to cheer for the little guy'

Have a look at the first three films that I can think of:
Star wars - a small group of rebels and jedi struggle to overthrow the evil empire and their vast armies, despite overwhelming odds
Dodgeball - a group of people from a small gym compete in a dodgeball tournament to prevent their gym from being bought by a large (unpleasant if not evil) gym chain
Lord of the rings - a small group of heroes set out against the might of the armies of mordor to destroy the ring for the good of all middle-earth

Even the movies where the main character is one of the authorities, it is in every instance I can think of (e.g. die hard, james bond) a single person or a small group of people against the baddies - in that case, the baddies have more people and more resources, and become 'The man'.

I missed this initially, but America does have a strong streak of romanticizing the concept of struggling against a greater foe, often intermingled with an excessive degree of self-reliance. This doesn't tend to carry over into politics, though, although some people take the cliched meme to heart and call themselves Libertarians.

As soon as someone expresses interest in a position of authority, I find it hard to trust them.

Interesting. So you're at roughly the hunter/gatherer stage of social development then? Don't worry, there are still a few likeminded societies left, you could go join them! You would have to give up all those modern things like medicine, industry, sanitary food, actual housing, electricity, and internet access, but all those are just Authoritarian Chains that totally require logistics, organization, and other Authoritarian Bullshit, so you'll probably be happier.

Communism was touted as a perfect system, and in theory, it is. HOWEVER, in practice, it is far from perfect. Why? Because people aren't perfect. Not many people will act in the best interest of the collective if the action is not in their best interest as well.

That's really not true. Communism wasn't a form of government, it was a theoretical method to achieve functioning Anarchy, and therefore inherently flawed. Modern socialist ideals are much more rational. Beyond that, the problem you've seen in self-declared communist nations is that they are created by revolutionary militants, who are naturally the most violent and thuggish members of their society, except perhaps for those they replaced in some cases. The USSR was a slight exception to that: revolutionaries overthrew the Czars, then the Bolsheviks came in and hijacked the foundling government, then the leadership was itself hijacked by Stalin, a barely competent, brutal thug (at least at the beginning, later on he appears to have become a fairly cunning statesman). Despite that, they did a rather amazing job turning the backwater agricultural russia into a modern industrial nation, and then a superpower for decades after being nearly obliterated by a genocidal war on their home soil.

Stallman's comment :

"    * 11 December 2010 (Three cheers for Wikileaks)

      Wikileaks says, "We will not be gagged".

      This refers to the UNESCO announcement about World Press Freedom Day.

      Three cheers for Wikileaks. The US government has betrayed the country and works for the banksters, and the major media are mostly under their control, but Wikileaks is still on our side. "

By the way, Stallman's a bombastic lunatic. Citing his opinions only undermines your own words, whether or not what you happen to be quoting is right or not.

[Phmcw]

By the way, Stallman's a bombastic lunatic.

I strongly disagree.