Conquer Club

Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:26 am

The right answer is Incorruptocracy.

All of you are wrong... except Neoteny.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:33 am

tkr4lf wrote:
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.

I don't even know what the hell that is.

I just posted the most absurd sounding government type that I could think of. I'm pretty sure I saw it on NationStates.


Anyway, to be serious, I would probably go with dictatorship, for its efficiency, or meritocracy, for the fairness. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but in a corruption-free world, they would both do nicely.

Hell, even communism would work well with absolutely no corruption.


There are some cool aspects of communism I agree but upon learning more about it in the past its got some serious issues, even if non-corrupt. From what I understood the biggest issue is that in a communist society no one is rich or poor. The harder/less hard you work makes no impact on your status. This tends to rob people of their ambition/drive.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:22 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
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.


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.


Interesting that you bring up the polis, since I was thinking about that in reference to a meritocracy. It tended that the democratic polis elected the best people to govern. So perhaps a democratically elected meritocracy is the best thing.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby jimboston on Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:31 am

thegreekdog wrote:My initial answer is either meritocracy or dictatorship. I haven't decided yet.


Assuming no corruption... which is a ridiculous assumption... I would say meritocracy.

Even a benevolent dictatorship can have an incompetent ruler. The assumption assumes a lack of corruption... not a lack of incompetance.

A meritocracy by definition would appoint/promote the best.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby jimboston on Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:36 am

Funkyterrance wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
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.

I don't even know what the hell that is.

I just posted the most absurd sounding government type that I could think of. I'm pretty sure I saw it on NationStates.


Anyway, to be serious, I would probably go with dictatorship, for its efficiency, or meritocracy, for the fairness. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but in a corruption-free world, they would both do nicely.

Hell, even communism would work well with absolutely no corruption.


There are some cool aspects of communism I agree but upon learning more about it in the past its got some serious issues, even if non-corrupt. From what I understood the biggest issue is that in a communist society no one is rich or poor. The harder/less hard you work makes no impact on your status. This tends to rob people of their ambition/drive.


In a Meritocracy the policies would be created by the absolute smartest people.

It's likely they would come up with tax policies / welfare policies that reach the best balance of encouraging greatness from those who are able... and rewarding said greatness; while at the same time ensuring that those who are not so fortunate still ahve a place in society and are able to conribute and have their basic needs met.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby tkr4lf on Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:38 am

Funkyterrance wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
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.

I don't even know what the hell that is.

I just posted the most absurd sounding government type that I could think of. I'm pretty sure I saw it on NationStates.


Anyway, to be serious, I would probably go with dictatorship, for its efficiency, or meritocracy, for the fairness. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but in a corruption-free world, they would both do nicely.

Hell, even communism would work well with absolutely no corruption.


There are some cool aspects of communism I agree but upon learning more about it in the past its got some serious issues, even if non-corrupt. From what I understood the biggest issue is that in a communist society no one is rich or poor. The harder/less hard you work makes no impact on your status. This tends to rob people of their ambition/drive.

If we expanded the hypothetical to not only the government taking the anti-corruption pill, but the entire populace, then communism would work wonders. "From each according to their ability, to each according the their need."

If everybody only worked toward the common good, then each and every person would do all that they could, work their hardest, etc. Each and every person would be doled out exactly what they needed by the non-corrupt government.

Of course, in our world, communism sucks. But in your hypothetical world, I think it could actually work.
User avatar
Major tkr4lf
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:35 am
Location: St. Louis

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby DoomYoshi on Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:43 am

This should have a poll. I bet randomtatorship would win.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:40 am

I don't get the whole meritocracy argument.

The P&B are not corrupt, but they aren't suddenly all-wise and all-knowing, nor do they have a method superior to the market for rooting out the best of the best of the best, sir.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:39 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't get the whole meritocracy argument.

The P&B are not corrupt, but they aren't suddenly all-wise and all-knowing, nor do they have a method superior to the market for rooting out the best of the best of the best, sir.


This is why I think meritocratic would most likely be used to amplify your answer but more details are needed for a complete picture.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby / on Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:03 pm

Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.
Sergeant 1st Class /
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby john9blue on Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:29 pm

/ wrote:Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.


so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby Woodruff on Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:42 pm

john9blue wrote:
/ wrote:Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.


so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?


That's really not what he said at all.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby john9blue on Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:18 pm

Woodruff wrote:
john9blue wrote:
/ wrote:Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.


so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?


That's really not what he said at all.


only if he believes autonomy is the best option in the real world
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby / on Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:17 pm

john9blue wrote:
/ wrote:Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.


so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?

It's a give and take equation, if we have criminals; we need police, if we have criminal police; we need internal affairs.
If we have no criminals, we would not need any of the above.

I honestly believe greed and selfishness is the main reason society doesn't function without government. We have taxes because no one wants volunteer to fix the roads we all use, agricultural subsidy so farmers grow what needs to be grown instead of worrying for themselves, books upon books of laws constantly being updated to prevent the exploitation that would occur otherwise.

If all of that was fixed, and the people did good for the sake of doing good, I don't see any reason to uphold any rule that the people themselves don't desire.

Now of course, since I haven't taken a magical pill, this is a biased view to the subjectivity of what is "corruption" and what is "ideal".

Is an ant colony "idyllic" because they work to promote their own group's expansion without any infighting?
Is a group of cacti "idyllic" because they just sit there, not consuming excess resources or being attacked?

A lack of government probably does do away the authoritative efficiency it takes to raise an army to fight martians or whatever, but I think that humans have enough common sense that, without greed, they probably wouldn't end the world anytime soon.

If the question is what I believe a better non-corrupt government would be to raise efficiency for things like urban planning, I would guess something resembling feudalism (or at least what historians redefined feudalism as), divided manors managed by a lord/lady, lords being managed to the count(ess) of their county, counts reporting to dukes, and so on up to the Ruler of Earth.

john9blue wrote:only if he believes autonomy is the best option in the real world

Absolutely not.
Sergeant 1st Class /
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby Funkyterrance on Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:57 pm

/ wrote:
It's a give and take equation, if we have criminals; we need police, if we have criminal police; we need internal affairs.
If we have no criminals, we would not need any of the above.

I honestly believe greed and selfishness is the main reason society doesn't function without government. We have taxes because no one wants volunteer to fix the roads we all use, agricultural subsidy so farmers grow what needs to be grown instead of worrying for themselves, books upon books of laws constantly being updated to prevent the exploitation that would occur otherwise.

If all of that was fixed, and the people did good for the sake of doing good, I don't see any reason to uphold any rule that the people themselves don't desire.

Now of course, since I haven't taken a magical pill, this is a biased view to the subjectivity of what is "corruption" and what is "ideal".

Is an ant colony "idyllic" because they work to promote their own group's expansion without any infighting?
Is a group of cacti "idyllic" because they just sit there, not consuming excess resources or being attacked?

A lack of government probably does do away the authoritative efficiency it takes to raise an army to fight martians or whatever, but I think that humans have enough common sense that, without greed, they probably wouldn't end the world anytime soon.

If the question is what I believe a better non-corrupt government would be to raise efficiency for things like urban planning, I would guess something resembling feudalism (or at least what historians redefined feudalism as), divided manors managed by a lord/lady, lords being managed to the count(ess) of their county, counts reporting to dukes, and so on up to the Ruler of Earth.


john9blue wrote:only if he believes autonomy is the best option in the real world

/ wrote:Absolutely not.

It seems that / has a refreshing and unusually high level of faith in the goodness of his fellow man. One thing though, the pill isn't magic, its hypothetical. ;)
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby john9blue on Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:15 pm

/ wrote:
john9blue wrote:
/ wrote:Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.


so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?

It's a give and take equation, if we have criminals; we need police, if we have criminal police; we need internal affairs.
If we have no criminals, we would not need any of the above.

I honestly believe greed and selfishness is the main reason society doesn't function without government. We have taxes because no one wants volunteer to fix the roads we all use, agricultural subsidy so farmers grow what needs to be grown instead of worrying for themselves, books upon books of laws constantly being updated to prevent the exploitation that would occur otherwise.

If all of that was fixed, and the people did good for the sake of doing good, I don't see any reason to uphold any rule that the people themselves don't desire.

Now of course, since I haven't taken a magical pill, this is a biased view to the subjectivity of what is "corruption" and what is "ideal".

Is an ant colony "idyllic" because they work to promote their own group's expansion without any infighting?
Is a group of cacti "idyllic" because they just sit there, not consuming excess resources or being attacked?

A lack of government probably does do away the authoritative efficiency it takes to raise an army to fight martians or whatever, but I think that humans have enough common sense that, without greed, they probably wouldn't end the world anytime soon.

If the question is what I believe a better non-corrupt government would be to raise efficiency for things like urban planning, I would guess something resembling feudalism (or at least what historians redefined feudalism as), divided manors managed by a lord/lady, lords being managed to the count(ess) of their county, counts reporting to dukes, and so on up to the Ruler of Earth.

john9blue wrote:only if he believes autonomy is the best option in the real world

Absolutely not.


i think you are confused.

Funkyterrance wrote:A pill is invented that guarantees that anyone who takes it becomes incapable of corruption regarding their function in government.


people themselves can be corrupt. only when they are doing government work would they be perfectly honest.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby / on Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:22 pm

john9blue wrote:
i think you are confused.

Funkyterrance wrote:A pill is invented that guarantees that anyone who takes it becomes incapable of corruption regarding their function in government.


people themselves can be corrupt. only when they are doing government work would they be perfectly honest.

Which is why I didn't say "anarchy"
Wikipedia wrote:Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- "self" + νόμος nomos, "law", hence when combined understood to mean "one who gives oneself their own law")

In other words, the person's "government job" is assigning rules to themselves, if they aren't corrupt in that function they would up-hold any law that they assigned to themselves, meaning they cannot be corrupt.
Sergeant 1st Class /
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby Funkyterrance on Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:29 pm

/ wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- "self" + νόμος nomos, "law", hence when combined understood to mean "one who gives oneself their own law")

In other words, the person's "government job" is assigning rules to themselves, if they aren't corrupt in that function they would up-hold any law that they assigned to themselves, meaning they cannot be corrupt.


What about sadists and masochists? Psychotics? How would a pacifist fare in this world?
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby / on Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:26 am

Funkyterrance wrote:
/ wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- "self" + νόμος nomos, "law", hence when combined understood to mean "one who gives oneself their own law")

In other words, the person's "government job" is assigning rules to themselves, if they aren't corrupt in that function they would up-hold any law that they assigned to themselves, meaning they cannot be corrupt.


What about sadists and masochists? Psychotics? How would a pacifist fare in this world?

That’s an interesting question. If the people were capable of identifying their own behaviors as wrong, or were capable of being taught that their behavior is wrong by helpful peers or family members, they could presumably hold themselves culpable for their own actions and would; in the case of people who take pleasure in sadism, respect the moral obligations to allow others to freely choose if they wished to play the masochistic role to them.

As we see from the biographies of most serial killers, many mental illnesses are caused in part or worsened to non-functional levels by environmental factors such as neglect, bullying, and abuse, if we taught and upheld the virtues and ideals of doing the best we can for everyone and everything, I believe the cycle would end eventually.

For those tragic cases whose rationalization allows them to truly believe their way is right, I would suppose that they would have to be fought by those who were willing to fight for what they believe is right by their moral code.
Until the philosophy took effect, I suppose pacifists would either have to move next to fighters or learn how to sprint to their cars really well. :P

I suppose it really does have quite a few flaws...
Sergeant 1st Class /
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby john9blue on Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:55 am

/ wrote:
john9blue wrote:
i think you are confused.

Funkyterrance wrote:A pill is invented that guarantees that anyone who takes it becomes incapable of corruption regarding their function in government.


people themselves can be corrupt. only when they are doing government work would they be perfectly honest.

Which is why I didn't say "anarchy"
Wikipedia wrote:Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- "self" + νόμος nomos, "law", hence when combined understood to mean "one who gives oneself their own law")

In other words, the person's "government job" is assigning rules to themselves, if they aren't corrupt in that function they would up-hold any law that they assigned to themselves, meaning they cannot be corrupt.


this is stretching the definition of the word "government" extremely far... but i'll let it slide... ;)
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:15 am

Corruption is not the issue. The issue is result. To many Americans today (to many humans throughout history, in fact), that simply means being able to have a house, put food on the table, practice their religion in basic safety with some ability to have fun thrown in besides.

What is NOT taken into account is what will really happen long term. In the past, that has not mattered much. Humans could drain swamps along the Nile, go to war, destroy things in a relatively limited fashion, which eventually could be rebuilt. In the past 5 decades, we have the ability to destroy our world instantly (nuclear, etc.) AND have begun to make mild long term changes that will, if not averted, destroy our world (perhaps not all of humanity, but most of civilization).

There is nothing in any of the government systems mentioned that will make people change from wanting Big Macs, fancy cars and the latest electronics. Only if there were absolute, 100% definitive proof would people maybe begin to care.. and likely not even then. We don't have the science to know for sure what negative events will happens, instead we have a lot of little warnings that have to be pieced together to see a real problem. (loss of amphibians, draining of aquifers, dwindling oil supplies without a viable alternative readily available, loss of effectiveness of antibiotics, increase of disinformation on the internet, de-emphasizing of real basic science funding, privatization of public resources such as parks; an economy that only gives minerals an materials value when they are sold.. etc.)

Right now, the move amongst the right is to claim most of the above is just not happening or not important enough to worry about unless and until the economy is "fixed".

Any system of government can create a good result. Any system can create a bad result. The missing factor is not the economic or political system itself, it is the knowledge of the society and its rulers. Today... that is utterly failing. The folks in power are less and less intelligent, not more.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby Funkyterrance on Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:28 am

/ wrote:As we see from the biographies of most serial killers, many mental illnesses are caused in part or worsened to non-functional levels by environmental factors such as neglect, bullying, and abuse, if we taught and upheld the virtues and ideals of doing the best we can for everyone and everything, I believe the cycle would end eventually.



I found this part intriguing since it suggests removal of half of the nature vs. nurture question. Removing myself from the question emotionally, I tend to believe that these individuals are most likely a product of troubled childhoods so finding out if this mindset would become extinct over time would be an exciting discovery. Then again, if the root of these behaviors ended up being nature, the system would, as you pointed out, have some tricky flaws.
However many flaws might come out of the scenario, however, I like the cut of it's jib.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:35 am

Funkyterrance wrote:
/ wrote:As we see from the biographies of most serial killers, many mental illnesses are caused in part or worsened to non-functional levels by environmental factors such as neglect, bullying, and abuse, if we taught and upheld the virtues and ideals of doing the best we can for everyone and everything, I believe the cycle would end eventually.



I found this part intriguing since it suggests removal of half of the nature vs. nurture question. Removing myself from the question emotionally, I tend to believe that these individuals are most likely a product of troubled childhoods so finding out if this mindset would become extinct over time would be an exciting discovery. Then again, if the root of these behaviors ended up being nature, the system would, as you pointed out, have some tricky flaws.
However many flaws might come out of the scenario, however, I like the cut of it's jib.

The problem is more fundamental. Those cited above are inherently aberrations, so not approaching any norm at all. Limiting the impact of those behaviors won't effect the norm behavior much because they are so far removed philisophically from the norm, even if their pratical impacts can be significant. (yeah, we all grieve over a murdered child, but it does not change societies' sense of right and wrong significantly)

The real problem for society is what is good, what represents a good goal. Most people are about the immediate.. and that distorts things when we have the ability to significantly and irrevocably change the possibilities for the future, as we do now more than ever before.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby Funkyterrance on Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:58 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
/ wrote:As we see from the biographies of most serial killers, many mental illnesses are caused in part or worsened to non-functional levels by environmental factors such as neglect, bullying, and abuse, if we taught and upheld the virtues and ideals of doing the best we can for everyone and everything, I believe the cycle would end eventually.



I found this part intriguing since it suggests removal of half of the nature vs. nurture question. Removing myself from the question emotionally, I tend to believe that these individuals are most likely a product of troubled childhoods so finding out if this mindset would become extinct over time would be an exciting discovery. Then again, if the root of these behaviors ended up being nature, the system would, as you pointed out, have some tricky flaws.
However many flaws might come out of the scenario, however, I like the cut of it's jib.

The problem is more fundamental. Those cited above are inherently aberrations, so not approaching any norm at all. Limiting the impact of those behaviors won't effect the norm behavior much because they are so far removed philisophically from the norm, even if their pratical impacts can be significant. (yeah, we all grieve over a murdered child, but it does not change societies' sense of right and wrong significantly)

The real problem for society is what is good, what represents a good goal. Most people are about the immediate.. and that distorts things when we have the ability to significantly and irrevocably change the possibilities for the future, as we do now more than ever before.


I see where you are going with this player but the purpose was to hear and discuss what system different individuals would prefer and why, barring corruption in government. It's more or less a thought exercise and not specifically intended at solving any real issue beyond exploring our own notions. Judging by your past two posts it seems like you believe the issue is indeed human nature? That being said, what would be your preference? Or are you basically saying: "None of the above."? I urge you to at least pick the one that would curb the damage you are referring to the most. There are lots to choose from. :)
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:20 am

I think my preference would be a system that allows freedom of discussion and thought/ analysis.. but that prohibits passing off opinion as fact.

I think people can work out amongst themselves various "ways of being" -- be it religious belief, economic systems, etc. However, without an agreement on fact, without an acceptance of the fundamental value in understanding how the world actually operates, has operated and things that have really happened, then the "debates" just become games of who has the power of the moment.

Every system of government humanity has invented so far has pretty much failed. There have been no real lasting successes, just temporary workable systems. We left the age of basically communal type tribal decisions, to systems where powerful rulers had control -- usually backed by some religion or other. Mostly, we have not seen changes in that system, just changes in who led. That did finally change with the industrial revolution, the printing press and democracy. People now can have, have had some individual power through elections of various sorts. However, it is being subverted by a system of powerful corporations who care only about, who are legally mandated to almost solely care about shareholder gains. I put forward that the real issue in Communism versus Democracy was whether people had full access to information or not. The Communist ideal wound up changing facts more than Democracy, at least for a time.

I don't know that any of the above would change that, unless you consider lack of corruption to mean adherance to the truth. The problem is that companies are not flat out lying.. they are pursuing a single-handed and mandated goal. Part of that goal includes and allowance to "frame the debate" to make a more favorable position for themselves. Over time the debate has been so "framed", though that the result is a real change in percieved truths.

Democracy is the only method we currently have to change the above, but it can only happen with honest dissemination of truth and facts. Without truth, there is no Democracy.

(and I wish I knew how to make that my signature :| )
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users