Moderator: Community Team
Funkyterrance wrote:Hypothetical situation:
A pill is invented that guarantees that anyone who takes it becomes incapable of corruption regarding their function in government. Which society/government would you consider the best if anyone appointed a position in said government had to take the aforementioned pill before being appointed? Obviously the term "government" is being used loosely for my lack of a better one and even "no government" is a legitimate option. Also, to keep things simple lets assume that other than the new pill, the current state of the world remains the same. Otherwise, the sky's the limit.
I remember, when I first learnt of the different potential forms of societies, thinking that a lot of them sounded pretty bulletproof and would totally work, maybe even better than the current ones, if not for the element of corruption. Basically it seems like the governments with the most checks and balances win by default in the current real-world scenarios but in a world where a system would be non-corrupt, which do you all think would be most idyllic and why?
thegreekdog wrote:My initial answer is either meritocracy or dictatorship. I haven't decided yet.
Funkyterrance wrote:thegreekdog wrote:My initial answer is either meritocracy or dictatorship. I haven't decided yet.
Okay then, for now, which merits and which dictator?
Woodruff wrote:Honestly? With such a pill, there can hardly be a bad government. I suppose perhaps the totalitarian one, but how would that work with such a pill? I almost think they would all be equally "best".
thegreekdog wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:thegreekdog wrote:My initial answer is either meritocracy or dictatorship. I haven't decided yet.
Okay then, for now, which merits and which dictator?
I need to think about it some more, but I'm going to make my vote meritocracy. Then I'm going to say that the best person for each particular job in government gets that job. The best general is in charge of the military. The best legla mind writes the laws. The best tax guy comes up with the tax structure. Etc. Maybe have a test every year for all eligible candidates to determine if the general gets replaced.
Funkyterrance wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:thegreekdog wrote:My initial answer is either meritocracy or dictatorship. I haven't decided yet.
Okay then, for now, which merits and which dictator?
I need to think about it some more, but I'm going to make my vote meritocracy. Then I'm going to say that the best person for each particular job in government gets that job. The best general is in charge of the military. The best legla mind writes the laws. The best tax guy comes up with the tax structure. Etc. Maybe have a test every year for all eligible candidates to determine if the general gets replaced.
Okay, what if I am a genius at Math but hate the subject? Do I have to be a mathematician? Also, I'm assuming that testing would be the preferred method for finding who was the best at what? I then ask myself is the best lawyer the one who did best in law school?
Tbh though, this one does sound very appealing. I think I just need more information and perhaps some tweaking to take the pill and sign up.
Funkyterrance wrote:Woodruff wrote:Honestly? With such a pill, there can hardly be a bad government. I suppose perhaps the totalitarian one, but how would that work with such a pill? I almost think they would all be equally "best".
I can think of some Woodruff...
What about a dictatorship where the dictator were a bad decision maker?
Funkyterrance wrote:Democracy is far from perfect but it fits the bill in a world of corruption.
Funkyterrance wrote:So many governments are designed with corruption in mind that their derivation from true perfection is quite large.
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's difficult to answer because I'm not sure what 'not being corrupt' entails.
For example, a liberal democracy would be optimal because if the politicians and bureaucrats are incapable of corruption, then they'd be impervious to rent-seeking (groups trying to advance their own interests, e.g. social security recipients voting for those politicians who reject significant yet necessary reform). Since these politicians are not corrupt, they'd be impervious to advancing short-term profit (votes from rent-seekers) while neglecting long-term costs (insane debt and unfunded liabilities).
They'd make the necessary cuts, balance the books, keep surpluses to for future spending in order to mitigate the consequences of recessions, etc. They strive to uphold the Constitution, abide by the right rules (which is a hole in this hypothetical situation), and behave in ways which go against political incentives (which is another hole in the situation). So, it depends on how broad one wishes to extend that 'non-corruption'.
If the bureaucrats were incorruptible, then they wouldn't advance the interests of their cohorts, salaries, and budgets at the expense of taxpayers. In my mind, that would serve as being incorruptible because they're actively trying to discover what the common good (so they're not corrupted by greed or self-advancement).
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:It's difficult to answer because I'm not sure what 'not being corrupt' entails.
For example, a liberal democracy would be optimal because if the politicians and bureaucrats are incapable of corruption, then they'd be impervious to rent-seeking (groups trying to advance their own interests, e.g. social security recipients voting for those politicians who reject significant yet necessary reform). Since these politicians are not corrupt, they'd be impervious to advancing short-term profit (votes from rent-seekers) while neglecting long-term costs (insane debt and unfunded liabilities).
They'd make the necessary cuts, balance the books, keep surpluses to for future spending in order to mitigate the consequences of recessions, etc. They strive to uphold the Constitution, abide by the right rules (which is a hole in this hypothetical situation), and behave in ways which go against political incentives (which is another hole in the situation). So, it depends on how broad one wishes to extend that 'non-corruption'.
If the bureaucrats were incorruptible, then they wouldn't advance the interests of their cohorts, salaries, and budgets at the expense of taxpayers. In my mind, that would serve as being incorruptible because they're actively trying to discover what the common good (so they're not corrupted by greed or self-advancement).
Like FT indicated above, a liberal democracy would not ensure that the most qualified people were in office. A meritocrracy would, by its definition, ensure that the most qualfied individuals were in office.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't see how this really gets to the core issues. If the government is incorruptible, then they'd attempt their best to establish a fair and impartial means of determining qualifications for various positions. And even if the 'best' politicians and bureaucrats (P&B) don't get in, then does that even matter? An incorruptible government can no longer enrich itself by making false promises in order to advance its own goals. With rent-seeking rendered ineffective, then more people won't view the government as necessary for services/goods X, Y, and Z. Instead they'll turn to themselves (in the market) and/or to local 'political' communities to provide their own public goods (e.g. greek polis/city-states with local governing councils).
It all hinges on what exactly being incorruptible entails.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:technocracy/meritocracy
john9blue wrote:technocracy
Funkyterrance wrote:john9blue wrote:technocracy/meritocracy
Wow, 2 votes for meritocracy already and interestingly enough by(I'm assuming) two Americans? I am an American and I also am finding myself somehow attracted to this option. John, care to add why or do you basically follow thegreekdog's train of thought?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:john9blue wrote:technocracy/meritocracy
Wow, 2 votes for meritocracy already and interestingly enough by(I'm assuming) two Americans? I am an American and I also am finding myself somehow attracted to this option. John, care to add why or do you basically follow thegreekdog's train of thought?
maybe because americans have seen firsthand what it's like to have highly incompetent politicians?
DoomYoshi wrote:Randomtatorship.
All children born play an assdoodle game at age six. Winners are eligible for office, with relative rank decided by further assdoodling.
tkr4lf wrote:Libertarian Police State.
Funkyterrance wrote:tkr4lf wrote:Libertarian Police State.
To each their own. I'm assuming you would want to be a commoner in this scenario? It wouldn't be much fun without corruption though.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users