Democracy Vs Republican System of Government

Education, terraformer, education- call me an optimist, or an idealist if you want. This is the clean slate. If you're not an idealist, someone who thinks that we can accomplish our ideals with a good system, then this forum is probably not for you. If people truly though about what is best for the majority, the greatest good for the greatest number, as they would be educated to, then it would work.

That is indoctrination, you say? All education is indoctrination. When you teach a student that the scientific method works, and is the best way to obtain information, you are indoctrinating them to reject other means of obtaining knowledge. (That mean YOU religion. There is no place for any form of deity in any true CSCS). Or, if you tell them to approach the alternative method logically, then you are indoctrinating them to think of it logically as opposed to otherwise.

The CS is not so much a system of government, or economy, the CSCS is a social revolution. No I am not a marxist or a communist. I am just someone who is not intimidated by the useless taboos of our time. What the CSCS really is is a newfound vitality, a newfound understanding that we need to help each other, a new understanding that all humans, irrespective of nationality or class, are one, that anyone who thinks is a part of the larger intelligent civilization, that can accomplish so many things.

What the CSCS is, is the throwing off of all archaic and modern anachronisms, of shaping our culture.

The changes of the CSCS needs start at the most basic level- the level of the interactions between humans. We call this society. We need to start our changes there, and if we can create a good society, all else will follow.

We've tried democracy. We've tried liberty. We've tried fascism. We've tried dictatorships. Have we tried a nightwatchmen style state?

You seem to like the idea of a direct democracy accross the whole state. I don't like that idea. Direct democracy should operate at a smaller level. I'm in favour of the federal system, simply because it works and offers the best tradeoff between liberty and democracy.

Basically, we'd have the main government setting out the basic rights of people in the Constitution. They have the power to ensure these rights are followed. This constitution can not be changed except for an overwhelming majority (perhaps a 4-1 majority).

Then, it's divided into states (districts) which make all the other laws. These can be decided by direct democracy. If someone doesn't like them, they can move to a state they do like.

If they can't find a state they like... well, that's why I like a variant on libertarian ocean colonies. They move away and set their own one up. As long as it doesn't infringe the rights as set out in the constitution (which will be set out very clear, so that there can be no misunderstanding) then it's allowed to continue.

Anarchy, as Niven said, is the least stable form of government. The trouble with anarchy is that it tends to collapse into feudalism. Thus, paradoxically, the only way anarchy can survive is to have a strong but libertarian government.

I am actually not a fan of anarchy.

And you can't have a strong libertarian government- libertarians favor weak government, you can't have a government that is both strong and weak.

And democracy on a large scale has never been tried. Especially not e-DD.

Clean slate means using new technology. Maybe DD couldn't work in 1787. But it can now. Computers. They can revolutionize the world, yet they are woefully underutilized. Any CS can, should, and will use them to their full capacity, and doing anything other than that is retaining the nonfunctional archaisms that the CS is getting away from.

What happens to your weak government when a few states decide that they want a totalitarian dictatorship, build up a huge military, and fend off attacks? What happens to our clean slate then?

You seem to have swept the most important part of my argument under the rig, so here it is again:

Quote :

The CS is not so much a system of government, or economy, the CSCS is a social revolution. No I am not a marxist or a communist. I am just someone who is not intimidated by the useless taboos of our time. What the CSCS really is is a newfound vitality, a newfound understanding that we need to help each other, a new understanding that all humans, irrespective of nationality or class, are one, that anyone who thinks is a part of the larger intelligent civilization, that can accomplish so many things.

What the CSCS is, is the throwing off of all archaic and modern anachronisms, of shaping our culture.

The changes of the CSCS needs start at the most basic level- the level of the interactions between humans. We call this society. We need to start our changes there, and if we can create a good society, all else will follow.

For anyone who has read the Mars Trilogy, you might call me a Bogdanovist, although I don't support violent revolution. The true Clean Slate- re-evaluating everything from morals to architecture.

You don't seem to be able to understand what I'm saying. Democracy on a large scale is not desirible. We don't need massive e-Democracy for the main 'federal' level. Perhaps on the 'state' level, but the 'federal' level exists for the purposes of ensuring the rights of the citizens are maintained.

Why do you prefer state governments so far above City governments? Remember, this will be a city. 10 million people. 20 if we do well.

But anyway, the corruption and incompetence of state governments, in America, at least, seems to me to be a powerful disincentive.

You have yet to convince me that democracy cannot work. Saying that the population is uneducated and shouldn't be allowed to decide things is an argument for fascism, not localism.

It seems we operate on totally different clean slates, mine with nothing on it, yours appearing green only because you have colored over the chalk beneath imperfectly.

"If we could start again, knowing what we know today, from a clean slate, what would we do differently?"

I fear this forum will never embrace a slate clean enough to find out.

Quote :

But anyway, the corruption and incompetence of state governments, in America, at least, seems to me to be a powerful disincentive.

Not to mention the incompetence and corruption of the federal government...

I have an idea, let's start from a TOTAL clean slate. Get 20 million people, put them on an island, and see what happens. No interference, let them set up what they want because, of course, since it's a "clean slate", whatever they come up with will be the best, right?

I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies with your theory of a complete clean slate. Your slate

Quote :

with nothing on it

seems to follow that train of logic.

Just because you're starting from a clean slate, doesn't mean everything has to be new. Some solutions humans have come up with and used are used simply because they are the best ones. Period.

Quote :

But anyway, the corruption and incompetence of state governments, in America, at least, seems to me to be a powerful disincentive.

I don't suppose you've been following the expenses scandal that's rocked british politics? We don't have a federal system, and still ended up with a corrupt government. Remember, corruption tends to be inversely proportional to accountability. A state government is accountable to the federal government, the other states, and it's citizens, whereas only having one government means it's accountable to it's citizerns only.

My suggestion for a federal type of government in the CSCS was to have an overall government (libertarian yet strong, it is possible) with the city divided into districts. The districts would decide most of the law, using Direct Democracy. As long as those laws don't conflict with the Constitution (the laws of the city), they'll be allowed.

And if you still can't find a district to your taste... get out (if you're Authoritarian) or set up you're own (why I'm a big fan of libertarian ocean colonies.

Clean slate means to me that we are no longer bound to using the knowledge and social structures as they existed in 1787.

More people working at a task together will accomplish more than separate groups of people working at that same task. The reason that Capitalism circumvents this is that competition leads to more motivation to work.

District governments won't be competing, so a city government could do more, not to mention that it will foster national unity in order to keep the CS stable.

We need a system that works, a system that will last the ages.

And Federalism *is* that system. America's been a continuous democracy far longer than most European nations, or most nations for that matter.

A city government ends up with one system of laws, which only fit the people who can tolerate those laws. Everyone has different political beliefs; a CSCS should allow them to... something (express?) those beliefs.

No, federalism is not that system. Federalism is inherently incohesive. It may last for a couple of centuries, but after that the central government tends to become weak, and disintegrate, or to have a revolution.

By the way, you seem to support something like 'decentralized federalism', where the districts have much more power than the city. Federalism can describe any system where there are states- for example, the USA would still be federalist if each state had a yearly budget of $0.01.

Of course you have yet to respond to this:

Quote :

The CS is not so much a system of government, or economy, the CSCS is a social revolution. No I am not a marxist or a communist. I am just someone who is not intimidated by the useless taboos of our time. What the CSCS really is is a newfound vitality, a newfound understanding that we need to help each other, a new understanding that all humans, irrespective of nationality or class, are one, that anyone who thinks is a part of the larger intelligent civilization, that can accomplish so many things.

What the CSCS is, is the throwing off of all archaic and modern anachronisms, of shaping our culture.

The changes of the CSCS needs start at the most basic level- the level of the interactions between humans. We call this society. We need to start our changes there, and if we can create a good society, all else will follow.

So, you want to change human nature now?

Why are you trying to Immantize the Eschaton? That's never worked. Instead, we should accept that we can't make Eutopia, and then work within human limitations. It is something to strive for, not something to delude ourselves into thinking we can actually do it. I can't build a manned rocket (yet). Doesn't stop me trying.

Quote :

We need a system that works, a system that will last the ages.

Perhaps it is necessary for different systems to rise and fall. Perhaps there is no perfect system. Circumstances change, and what may fit the old paradigm nearly perfectly doesn't apply at all to the new. One works for a time, then another comes along to replace it. Call it governmental evolution if you'd like.

Well, that's why we need an adaptable system.

Perhaps we can't create Utopia. But we can get close, certainly. If we design our system well, then there is no need for the fatalist "Everything must die" philosophy. Read some of the introductory threads that Mike wrote, to remember what the goal of the CSCS really is.

I'm not being fatalistic, what I'm trying to point out is that we need an adaptable system, like you mentioned.

Well, since revolutions tend to be messy, destructive, and unproductive, then shouldn't we just go with one system that we think will last, or, if we can't find one from history, make one up ourselves?

I never said revolution. And I think you missed my point. In one sentence, mankind's needs change as technology/the world/whatever change therefore one type of government may not always work.

A liberal federal system allows people to find the government that suits them, instead of this 'one government fits all' philosphy that we have at the moment. Some people crave being told what to do; others prefer a very liberal system. A Federation, where the states are given power over their own affairs, allows that.

The 'Federal' level should be based around a Night watchmen state. I don't care what the 'states' governments are like, as long as they keep to the rights laid out in the constitution.

The problem with that is that that system has an inherent tendency to decohere. By this, I mean the people are loyal to their state government, and the national government is seen as not relevant, not of them, and an imposition on their nation. How long can a state like that last?

Actually, a system such as that is really giving up- giving up the hope that we can have people co-operate and act as one in a large state.

I think the elimination of political parties by some means would actually go a long way.

No, it's not giving up hope. On the contrary, it allows people to find the type of government that suits them and their political beliefs. Hence why I think only the antiharm laws should be legislated on a Federal level, with provision made for ensuring people can move states.

This is also the reason I think we should use seasteading, as it allows us to alter the amount of land available to each state depending on the population.

How about a Technocracy?

Or how about we develop a self replicating machine for our CS, and have it do the work for us? or upload onto a computer, that would be the easiest.

"the so-called 'Revolt of the Scientists': let the intelligent men run things and you'll have utopia. It fell flat on its foolish face of course. Because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is not itself a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility." –Major Reid in Starship Troopers, p.143

What do you have against a Federal government with constitution enforcing a few laws, and states with direct democracy deciding the rest?

1. The states would tend to become bipolar, meaning aligned with either one ideology or the other.

2. Number one would lead to increasing radicalization of both sides, since there would be no need for compromise. Being in the middle of the aisle would be less and less common. Eventually civil war would tear the country apart.

3. The civil war that would probably come after 2 would be very difficult to suppress. Also, I think the CS would be prone to foreign intervention, meaning a foreign power sympathetic to one faction/one faction sympathetic to a foreign power, would tear the CS apart.

4. The central government wouldn't have enough power to act as one and really accomplish anything.

5. People will not pick up and move if they disagree with the government. In fact, corporatism may prevail, as people try to create jobs at all costs to attract people to their region.

I can't see any reason why it would be torn apart in civil war...

1. You seem to be assuming people themselves are either radicals od one system or another. I highly doubt the states would become bipolar. There's more than two ideologies.

2. Again, you're assuming that people wouldn't be in the midle. If they are, they'd find a state which suits them. If the states work of direct democracy, then people would tend to move to the states that are closer to their political coordinates. You'd end up with a few radical areas, but a lot of ones closer to the middle.

3. I see know resaon for a civil war, if they country isn't radicalised. Which it's unlikely to be (see above).

4. The central government weilds the bulk of the hard power, whereas the states have the soft power. In such a scenario you mentioned, it's hard power that's needed.

5. People don't just base where they live on how mayn jobs are available! Anyway, we'd see whether or not that is true. Better to give them a choice, than to not?

Well, what do you think keeps the American Dem/Rep parties from becoming extremely radical in either of their directions? The other parties. If a party basically had a monopoly on power, then they would become more and more radical, because there would be no need to compromise or attract independents. See, for example, any time one political party or people of one political opinion gain control of an area.

I think it would have quite a tendency to become bipolar, because humans in general tend to align themselves with either one side or another. That's just human nature. People want to align with a strong power, against the people they are against. Thence, bipolarity.

Perhaps people don't move to places just because of jobs. But it is certainly a large factor.

Trying things just because they have never been done is not a good reason to try them. Anarchy has never been tried, but, as you say, it is the least stable form of government.

Redsand, you're not thinking this through logically. Why would states become bipolar? States will still have moderately different political parties. Yes, of course there will be debates and protests, but no more than what we already have.

Redsand11j wrote:

Trying things just because they have never been done is not a good reason to try them.

Well, it's what you've been suggesting doing because 'it's a clean slate'.

Redsand11j wrote:

I think the elimination of political parties by some means would actually go a long way.

That would lead to increased radicalization...

It would just be a collection of states with a central government that wields enough hard power to ensure the rights of the citizens.

Quote :

Well, it's what you've been suggesting doing because 'it's a clean slate'

I don't suggest we try things for the sole reason they have never been done before, I suggest we try things because there is substantial evidence that they will work.

And actually, the elimination of political parties (difficult, I know, but we can probably figure some way out) would lead to increased moderation, as people would no longer be forced to choose between the two extremes that would form.

Ex. Republicans vs. Democrats in the United States.

They do not go to war and kill each other. Enough said.

But you were claiming that parties in the 'states' would tend towards the extremes because there wouldn't be other parties to moderate them.

Redsand11j wrote:

as people would no longer be forced to choose between the two extremes that would form.

Instead, they just wouldn't have the choice.

I wrote:

and states with direct democracy deciding the rest?

What makes you so sure there'd even be political parties?

No, instead, they would ideally have to decide their own political position, and decide based on merit.

You know how decentralized power worked?

Look at this.

Redsand11j - a Confederation is where the states laws overrule the confederal laws. A federation is where the federal laws overrule states laws. I've been suggeting a federal system all along, but you don't appear to have bothered reading my posts before replying.

Well, actually the problem with the AoC was that, while the federal government could make laws, it was still too weak, and couldn't enforce them anyway.

I spent (or maybe wasted) my time reading those posts, and they were not convincing in the slightest. A society needs a goal, that's one of the biggest problems societies to now have had: They really had no plan, no goal, and no reason. I say we decide that now, and build it into the constitution before anything else. Strong organizations are needed to accomplish goals big enough to be up to the standards of our shiny new CS, which means a government, an efficient government with as many checks on it as necessary in order to keep it on task, on time, and on budget.

Then you set that up... in your state. As long as you obey the federal laws, it's okay.

Transparency is another aspect of our government that must be taken into consideration. I don't mean the outright lies and deceit of the current U.S. administration and their definition of transparency. What we need is a yearly, or perhaps monthly, itemized list of spending for the public to view whenever they want.

Tobias- how much do you think that government would actually be able to accomplish towards the goal of the CS.

Why not actually make a choice for our society?

I can't actually understand what you've said, jumpboy. Which government? The Nightwatchmen feds, or the state government?

Basically it would be a collection of cleanslate societies, each fitting the needs and desires of the people in them, with a 'nighwatch' to ensure that people aren't harmed. Individual treaties between states allow it to accomplish what one state could not. Similar to how ESA is actually a seperate entity from the EU.

My phrasing was perhaps bad- I meant "How could such a society work towards the accomplishment of our stated goal?"

Any government, this collection of states that would end with a powerless confederation, wouldn't really be able to do much, now would it.

We're designing a society here, so we should have the intellectual confidence to say "For our purposes, XXXXXX is the best system."

I have had that confidence. I said a federal sysyem where the federal government is nightwatchmen is the best system for our purposes.

It wouldn't end with a powerless confederation. It would even be a confederation. If the majority of states agree that the federal government has overstepped the boundries, they'd be able to force it back. If a state oversteps the boundaries, the federal government would be able to force it back.

Besides, the federal government wouldn't be doing much anyway, it is, after all, only there to ensure peoples basic rights. Things like a space program, to qoute myself...

I wrote:

Individual treaties between states allow it to accomplish what one state could not. Similar to how ESA is actually a seperate entity from the EU.

How about we decide on the most important thing first- What the goal of our nice new CS is. Once we decide on a goal, we could have our cohesive city work towards it together.

I don't really know why you advocate this anyway. The size of the CS will be on the same level as a US state, is it some love for disorganization or something that makes you want them to not be represented all at the same place?

No, it's the fact that different people have different political beliefs, and are suited to different politics. A 'one size fits all' scenario - which is what you are advocating - doesn't work.

I think you're both getting at something here... On the one hand, you want to design a system which just simply works well; and if it just simply works well then a large proportion of your citizens will probably be happy to accept it and roll with it. However, on the other hand you don't want to have to impose your great new system on those that have their own ideals or for whatever reason aren't happy joining in with everybody else; so you want to keep some wriggle room for them, or even a lot of wriggle room as with the federal 'watchmen' scenario mentioned.

Personally, I love the idea of giving each city the freedom to choose whatever government model it likes. However, working from a clean-slate also gives you that opportunity to create a government system which just simply works well for everyone.

So which direction should we be headed?

I say both!

But the thing is, you can't create a system which works well for everyone, because everyone is different. Some people may be socialist, and see anything not socialist as being wrong. Others may be capaitalist, and see anything socialist as being wrong. Case: healthcare. If the main government is responsible for healthcare, they're going to get criticised by those of a capitalist persuasion for using their [the capitalists] taxes to fund a program that they don't want, in order to please the socialists. In a federal nightwatchmen state, the capitalist would simply move state to a more capitalist state.

The point I think Mike was trying to make is each district of the CSCS will have the opportunity to choose its own form of government. One could be nightwatchmen, another 100% e-democracy. A small, cohesive city government would keep the districts in line with the values and goals outlined in the Constitution.

Edit:

This system would share similarities with the Federal system, while allowing different forms of government to occur within its borders. One a side note, the success of different districts governmental models may incline other districts to mimic that model, so districts must be given the option to "evolve" their governments.

I think we should be able to find a governmental model that works. Think about it: It is no longer disputed that the form of the US government is unworkable, it is just the qualities of its policies that are disagreed with. Actually, that would probably be true for any form of government. I say we should consider all types of government, everything from dictatorship to e-DD, based solely on results.

If an autocrat would provide a state that is not only more well off but more stable (admittedly, this tends not to be true, but it is only an example) than any form of republic or democracy, then I say go for it.

It may work, but only if everyone likes it, which is unlikely. Or even if it does work, people may not like it - compare feudal europe to a democracy. The former has been more stable, but I don't think many people actually liked it.

Basically, the point I was trying to make is that having a one size fits all policy will not work.

And I disagree, the reason being that the point of government is to do what works best. What works best might be tried in different districts in order to see what works for a trial period, then what works instituted in the CS as a whole.

What works, works, and what fails to work, fails to work. Government's job it to do what works, even against people's will (yes, I am aware of the consequences of that, but in an ideal world* it would work well, we need safeguards etc). That is the point of government,

*In a truly ideal world, we wouldn't need a government at all, but I suppose in a world where we don't need safeguards to prevent corruption etc

Quote :

What works, works, and what fails to work, fails to work. Government's job is to do what works, even against people's will.

That is the tyrants mantra.

The government should *always* be under the will of the people. After all, government has no rights, no liberties, only the people do. I recommend reading John Locke or Rene DesCartes for an introduction to government.

Redsand wrote:

Government's job is to do what works, even against people's will.

No, governments job is to serve the people. Unless your a dictator, in which case governments job is to serve you. So what governments job is depends on what type of government it is...

You seem to want to institute a government against peoples will. Why? That's a big change from being a supporter of direct democracy.