Moderator: Community Team
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.
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.
thegreekdog wrote:My initial answer is either meritocracy or dictatorship. I haven't decided yet.
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.
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.
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.
/ wrote:Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.
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:/ 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?
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.
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:/ 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?
john9blue wrote:only if he believes autonomy is the best option in the real world
/ 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.
/ 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.
Funkyterrance wrote:A pill is invented that guarantees that anyone who takes it becomes incapable of corruption regarding their function in government.
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:
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.
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")
/ 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.
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?
/ 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.
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"
/ 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.
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.
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.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users