Dear talk_politics members: I render unto you a question:

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

How would you describe your ideal government and its laws and policies?

(Sorry, mods, for making a short post consisting of nothing but a question. I was hoping it could facilitate some interesting and hopefully wank-free discussion ^_^)

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I like the idea of consensus-driven technocratic rule, provided we don't base expertise solely on academic definitions of what makes an expert. It has layer problems (who oversees the board that oversees who becomes an expert, to ensure that it's not abused?) and consensus-sabotage would probably also be an issue, though.

[nano-muse.livejournal.com]

I was hoping it could facilitate some interesting and hopefully wank-free discussion

Your faith in humanity amuses me. :P


My ideal government is one that actually cares for the people, protects the people's rights, and is free of corruption.

So obviously it's never gonna happen.

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

Your faith in humanity amuses me. :P


Heheh, guess I always was an idealist.

What you described is my ideal government as well, and I think that goes for most people. Ah, if only...

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yeah that was my first thought too!

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

panookah! How nice of you to stop by. :) What, pray tell, would your ideal government consist of?

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

Why? Too idealistic?

It is always good...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... to render unto Caesar, as long as it belongs to Caesar.

Re: It is always good...

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

My thoughts exactly. :)

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

So it would be safe to say that you are not a fan of taxation? =P

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

How would you describe your ideal government and its laws and policies?

None at all. Note that this also requires ideal people.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

This. Also, that.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

hahaha, yes

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

I wish that humanity were such that anarchy could work - i.e. perfect. =P

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I agree :)

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

It would be a government that had all elections campaigns funded by public money, not corporate coffers.

It would be elected by STV, thus reflecting the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

It would set the interests of the environment above the interests of corporations

It would not only protect the workers from abuse, but allow them opportunities to better themselves financially by providing day care for parents and parental leave to parents of both genders, thus enabling more women to go out to work.

It would allow Free elections of course, but also Trade Union membership and freedom of association with any group not attempting to overthrow the stat or to commit acts of terrorism.

It would strive to bring the lowest earners up, not tear the highest earners down..

it would run a mixed economy where the state took on the tasks that yielded the lowest profit margins and yet provided the most needed services.

It would have an elected upper chamber, and a President who was Head of State, but no legislative powers, just the role of figurehead. The president would be chosen by the upper chamber, and be re elected every few decades. They would ideally pick someone who could look good in front of camera and be a figurehead who would cause the minimum amount of embarrassment abroad and hand out awards and open hospitals at home.

The Head of State would would most likely have had a career in TV, Films or Theatre and would be answerable to the Upper Chamber, the Senate for their position.

Everyone in government would also be subject to immediate recall on the basis of a referendum among their constituents, should they become unpopular enough to generate a petition for their removal signed by at least 50% the constituency.

STV?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Is that Steve?

I like your entertainer requirement for the frontperson. It reminds me of Reagan and Arnold.

Re: STV?

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

Kyo of Dir En Grey would be the figurehead of my new world order - but I'd be the one pulling the strings. MWAHAHAHAA!!!!

Re: STV?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

No - STV is the Single Transferable Vote.

A form of proportional Representation that ensures that if you get a mere 37 % of the vote, you don't get 55% of the seats in the House of Commons. Like Tony Blair did last time he got elected.

People laughed at Reagan because of his back ground, but an actor has to project an image with confidence. Reagan did.

An Ideal Head of State, in my world, would be the figurehead that all could unite behind - someone above politics, but hwo can speak to the people, rallying the nation in time of crisis and leading the celebrations in recognition of personal and community successes.

Think of the Mayor of New York, right after 9/11; of Lady Diana Spencer on goodwill trips abroad; of George VI during WW2 - that is what a Head of State should be doing, looking good in front of the camera, saying nice things about people except when they speak out, on behalf of the nation, to challenge the great and unquestionable evils of our times.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Problem is, my vote counts so little in proportion to the federal scale because the population has grown so large. I want a real federated government with a bottom up approach. No personal federal taxes. States pay federal tax for things that the states agree they want handled or enforced by the fed. I might even go so far as to say, go back to state appointed senators.

If that doesn't work, robot overlords - after the singularity.

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

Robot overlords - sounds good to me. ;)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The ideal government is a benevolent despotism. That's because ideal governments are separated from crude reality and politics as it works in the real world, rife with faction, hubris, and incompetence.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Specifically, with me as the benevolent despot. :)

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Absolute Monarchy.

As long as I get to be the monarch.

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

Heheh. ;)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Another one I can agree with.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

There is no such thing as ideal government. Give me an ideal culture and I won't need to care very much about the form of the government.

That said in general I would prefer a minimalist Constitutional Republic with a heavy degree of Federalism whereby the national government didn't do too much but run the military, act as a coordinator between the states, and offer advisory services to the people.

I would literally have written into the Constitution that the Federal Government cannot create any criminal sanction or direct regulatory burden on any individual without a Constitutional amendment.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

But what if someone in one state somewhere does something someone in another state elsewhere doesn't like? The world will end!

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

"...and hopefully wank-free discussion" Your naïveté is cute. ;-)

My ideal government would start with the one currently in place in the United States (three-branch Executive-Judicial-Legislative with a bicameral Legislature and a robust network of checks and balances). I would prefer that the Executive be directly elected, all positions be elected via range voting (http://rangevoting.org/), and that referendums, initiatives, ballot initiatives, and recall elections be implemented nationally. I would also like to see districting taken out of the hands of humans altogether, via the shortest splitline algorithm (http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html) (or any algorithm that can be shown to work better). Maximum government transparency.

Economic policies

Government as referee through antifraud, antitrust, and safety regulation. Government as shepherd of essential national resources (national parks and the like). Government as manager of public pools of money (unemployment insurance, health insurance, pensions, and the like) to ensure everybody has the basics covered, but with a parallel private sector for those that want to supplement the public coverage. Heavy government investment in infrastructure, education, and primary research. Little (if any) nationalized industry — the government can't make an effective ref if it's also one of the players.

Social policies

Only things harming another person would be illegal or given lower legal status. This would include complete legalization of drugs, but with the caveat that breaking a law while under the influence would carry stiffer penalties and mandatory rehab. Homosexual and even group marriages would have equal status as heterosexual marriages. Cruelty to animals would be illegal, but not harm (e.g. killing for food).

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

It seems we are of one mind. ^_^

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

Seriously, though - I agree on every point of your comment, save for the legalization of all drugs (I'd like to see weed legalized, but that's it). Well, you know what they say - great minds think alike! ;)

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

I could accept keeping some drugs legal, provided some rational criteria — rather than just "it freaks out the suits". For example, "anything worse than the the worst currently legal (alcohol) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg)" i.e. methadone, barbiturates, cocaine, and heroin. (Table 3 on page Ev 114 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_07_06_drugsreport.pdf) has a linear ranking of the average score on all three criteria groups.) Age restrictions using tobacco and alcohol as guides (anything up through tobacco with the same age restriction as tobacco — 18ish depending on jurisdiction IIRC — and anything from there up through alcohol with the same age restriction as alcohol — 21) would also make sense.

I do agree that pot legalization is a priority, as it's just plain over-prosecuted and used as a political weapon.

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

I think the principal criteria should be the health risk presented by the use of the drug and how much of the drug is required to cause significant impairment. I agree that laws shouldn't be made based on the opinions of philistines. ;)

The best govenment...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

As the old timers liked to say, the best government is one composed of the best people. In America, we either import the best people to work in offices, or we farm work out for them to do overseas. We prefer to put the worst people in office.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I would abolish existing terminology and definitions and replace them with something better. Restructure everything in such a way as to prevent many of the perceived negatives and shamefulness of civilization.

Under my type of government, it wouldn't matter as much whether you were born into a rich or priveleged family. Things wouldn't be slanted towards favoring the rich and other demographics and safeguards would be installed to prevent that type of abuse.

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

That's how it should be.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about that.

There has never been a world where every demographic in existence has not tried to give themselves unfair advantages over others. The rich have simply been better and more effective at it. It doesn't mean the poor or middle class doesn't have the capacity to be as exploitive or unfair -- it simply means that whatever power vacuum exists has a tendency to be filled most often by the wealthy.

Given such, its possible creating a vacuum whereby the wealthy are no longer the main causes of unfairness and bias in society only invites a new demographic to become oppressors, themselves.

BUT, it is also a question of what proportion of human success is built upon unfair and exploitive paradigms. Without slave labor we would not have the Gaza Pyramids, Great Wall of China, and other things considered 'great achievements' of humanity. To pretend that such arrangements may not potentially yield positive contributions may be unfair and unrealistic.

How much of America's wealth is built upon the exploitation of laborers from China and elsewhere? And, how much of America's present wealthy is built upon sweatshops in Asia as well as worker concentration camps and child labor in China?

To eliminate such potential advantages is based upon a precedent that is not recognized by history as it has never truly existed in any era of human history.

Despite this, yes I would agree: eliminate unfair advantages and level the playing field -- that's how it should be.

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

Of course, the desire to strive to better oneself is good for the individual and society in general. I'm not saying that things would be better off if class demographics didn't exist. And I agree that a substantial amount of America's prosperity is due to the outsourcing of labor to other countries - I also think that the existence of sweatshops isn't a purely negative thing, as there are benefits to those employed therein that people often ignore in their eagerness to condemn something. I just agree that whether or not someone was born into a rich family shouldn't matter as much.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Come on - be honest , you don't really understand existing terminology in a lot of cases, and the French have got that sort of system already.

They try to stop people using Anglicisms like "le weekend" and it doesn't work.
People themselves use words and alter their meanings through use.
You would never guess what 'Gay' meant when I was a child, looking at its use today.

I like what you say , though about a more equal society. I just don't think that you could devise the policies to make that happen. Caroline Lucas could, maybe , but not you.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Haters gonna hate.

I understand terminology perfectly well. What you really mean is I do not adhere to the dogmatic indoctrinated definitions you adhere to. Of course, this qualifies me for being 'incorrect' seeing as how your definitions are ideal and perfect and anyone with a different point of view is patently wrong.

Its amazing how many today argue with a basis in nothing but their own egocentrism.

A short one answered response with absolutely no wank.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I think abortion should be banned, women should not be allowed to work and only non-whites should be taxed.

Re: A short one answered response with absolutely no wank.

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

And the sale of alcoholic beverages should be prohibited on Sunday! xD

Btw...

[atasharuku.livejournal.com]

Was that subject line an attempt at snark? xD First of all, the phrase "one-answered response" makes absolutely no sense. Second of all, I said nothing about wanting short responses to my post - the only use of the word "short" was my apology for making a short post consisting of nothing but a question, as it is requested in t_p's community profile that we refrain from doing so.