Support NeoGAF

[Lardbutt]

By going "right" you mean when only candidates that you like win elections?

So democracy was all good for all this time and suddenly now it's "flawed" because the guy you didn't like won? That is so retarted.

 

[Zaptruder]

By going "right" you mean when only candidates that you like win elections?

So democracy was all good for all this time and suddenly now it's "flawed" because the guy you didn't like won? That is so retarted.

No. When things are going peachy and right, you just don't give such things much thought. But the problems still exist regardless of who wins. The when something goes wrong, then people start hunting for reasons things went wrong and solutions.

You spelt retarded wrong btw.

 

[Raven.]

Even if your whole Gattaca-inspired fantasy comes true, that'll just mean that we'd have a lot more innately intelligent people around-- it doesn't, as you say, provide the "means to deliver vast knowledge and experience" (particularly not experience). Knowledge can be acquired more rapidly, sure, but it must still be acquired-- it doesn't come packaged with intelligence. Likewise, experience must be...err...experienced, not passively learned about via reading. The synergy between experience and intelligence, mitigated by cultural and environmental factors, is what produces wisdom. I personally know dozens of phenomenally intelligent people (hell, there are about a dozen on this board), but I only know about two whom I'd consider "wise." Wisdom doesn't come packaged in a box.

Further elucidation of my post:

Further, we'd then get back to the question of "who defines wisdom?" Who defines the necessary qualities of a leader? What role, if any, does ideology play in such a situation (i.e., are the qualities of a good leader apolitical in nature-- that is, things such as integrity and intelligence-- or do you feel that "good leaders" will always be of a certain specific political/social ideology? Would you agitate to ensure that it is so?) These are the thorny issues that would have to be addressed before you implemented a plan such as you propose; what I propose is that many of these questions are fundamentally unanswerable-- or, in some cases, the conclusions we're likely to arrive at would be entirely unpalatable on a gut level.

Brain enhancement may not only involve gm but neural interphases that allow information exchanges at an entirely different rate. Furthermore enhancements may increase the passage of subjective time, in essence by an individual's mind functioning at much greater speeds and designing it so it subjectively experiences time at such a faster rate, the individual may experiences years or decades in but a fraction of the time. Other means that allow for computer-esque passage of brain patterns from one individual to another could be used to confer experience and wisdom if desired some day.

ed

 

[Ned Flanders]

Collusion at the top can destroy any form of government, and I don't think there is an ideal alternative to democracy that would not potentially suffer the same constrictions given that those in power continue trading influence for affluence. The only counterweights to such grievances are strong, selfless leadership, and the accountability of public scrutiny. True leaders in modern America are typically marginalized by the political system for threatening the status quo of colluders and pimps in DC, and the largely fat, happy, distracted, and vaguely informed public is not in a position to hold themselves accountable, much less politicians who pollute the media with doublespeak and milk their positions of privelege.

 

[Phoenix]

Would people even be complaining about Democracy if Bush didn't win the election?

Yes, because there would still be stuff wrong with the country regardless of who was running it, and we STILL wouldn't all agree with how things are going. People consider a democracy 'perfect' when it agrees with them and 'imperfect' when it does things that they don't agree with.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a democracy or republic or any other form of govermnet which has a strong set of founding principles and a judiciary that will back those principles up. The problem, as always, is with people - their desires, their greed, and their influence. Its impossible to factor this out of the equation without having a governing system of artificial intelligence. There will always be people who will be willing to step on the backs of others to get to the top, and so long as that is the case - there will never be a 'perfect' system of government because you always run the risk of self-serving assholes taking over the system.

 

[ronito]

The problem, as always, is with people - their desires, their greed, and their influence. Its impossible to factor this out of the equation without having a governing system of artificial intelligence.

I, for one, welcome our robotic overlords.

 

[mrkgoo]

"And if they don't agree?"
"then they should be made to."
"By who? You?"
"No, of course not me! Someone wise."
"Sounds awfully like a dictatorship to me."
"And if it works?"


"you're teasing me!"
"No, I'd be much to afraid of teasing a Senator!"

 

[Tarazet]

I believe that a democracy is the way to go, so long as EVERYONE has a say.

Here in Australia it is compulsory to vote. We have no choice, If you don’t, you get a big-ass fine.

That is AWESOME.

 

[Phoenix]

That is AWESOME.

Please explain this awesomeness?

 

[mrkgoo]

Please explain this awesomeness?

It means the country gets a representation of what the people want. Even if the majority is a bunch of retards (not saying that it is, but if it were).

In Nz, the system is that the government is made up from conglomerate of parties based on teh proprtion of people that voted for them (past a aprticular threshold). ie. 7% of citizens voted for them, they get a 7% representation in parliament. Or something. Doesn't always wrok, but at least that propoprtion of the public has their view represented in government.

 

[Phoenix]

It means the country gets a representation of what the people want. Even if the majority is a bunch of retards (not saying that it is, but if it were).

No, just means that you have more votes to count. If people don't WANT to vote, how does having them vote get you a better representation of what the country wants? You just open the door to more campaign ads, mailers, and voter fraud.

 

[mrkgoo]

No, just means that you have more votes to count. If people don't WANT to vote, how does having them vote get you a better representation of what the country wants? You just open the door to more campaign ads, mailers, and voter fraud.

Actually, I have no idea how Aussie really have there governmental system, but here, there are many who don't vote, based on a no confidence or uninformed basis. I don't think there is a fine for not voting here in Nz...we're heavily encouraged to, but not forced to.

Anyway, those who are too lazy or even if they are uninformed often still have an opnion on how they want their government. It's important to get their vote too. If you just came out and said "vote only if you want to", it doesn't bode well for the system. Unless.

 

[Loki]

Here in Australia it is compulsory to vote. We have no choice, If you don’t, you get a big-ass fine.

I'd only support compulsory voting if there were a "none of the above" option. If enough such votes were cast, the parties would have to go back to the drawing board and present new candidates. The current leaders would stay in power until a majority of the votes favored one of the candidates presented; this would, of course, be done in as expeditious a manner as possible. I personally know a LOT of people who consider the candidate they vote for to be "the lesser of two evils"; really, this mentality extends to the entire two-party system. There's a huge moderate voting bloc just waiting to be tapped in this country-- all it needs is to be given a voice in the form of a candidate/party. Unfortunately, the current two party system seems to be too entrenched for that to have any chance of occurring; the public has become inured to it, which has rendered them apathetic.

 

[iapetus]

Would people even be complaining about Democracy if Bush didn't win the election?

Yes. I've believed that Democracy isn't all that good a system of government through quite a wide range of governments in power both over here and in the US. It was bad when Clinton was president for very much the same reasons as it's bad under Bush. Because what some of us are talking about is fundamental flaws in the system, not the person we didn't vote for winning.

 

[mrkgoo]

I'd only support compulsory voting if there were a "none of the above" option. If enough such votes were cast, the parties would have to go back to the drawing board and present new candidates. The current leaders would stay in power until a majority of the votes favored one of the candidates presented; this would, of course, be done in as expeditious a manner as possible. I personally know a LOT of people who consider the candidate they vote for as "the lesser of two evils"; really, this mentality extends to the entire two-party system. There's a huge moderate voting bloc just waiting to be tapped in this country-- all it needs is to be given a voice in the form of a candidate/party. Unfortunately, the current two party system seems to be too entrenched for that to have any chance of occurring; the public has become inured to it, which has rendered them apathetic.

That's why we have a differnet system. sure, tehre are two MAJOR parties, but if enough people vote for the smaller parties, based on theri policies, they will see a representation in parliament, with a chance to make their case in every discussion.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The majority could be wrong.

Hitler was voted into power through a democratic process.

Pure democracy, where the majority rules, and the minority gets nothing, well, sucks. It's flawed in that a 51%-49% election results in 49% of the population not being represented at all.

What the US does, and Europe to a far greater extent, is mix socialism and democracy together. These nations are, at the core, democracies, but there are socialist aspects implemented within these nations so that minorities still have representation and a voice in government, despite their minority status.

Of course, you still have the issue of the majority possibly being wrong.

 

[GaimeGuy]

That's all part of the details, rather than the broad framework. The kinds of questions you'd ask not to put the idea in its place, but rather what you'd ask if you details on how to set up a meritocracy.

That said, my suggestions would be...
with regards to what kind of criteria you determine the exam, well you'd get a big bunch of political intellectuals together and determine what kind of important things would go into making a governer, what kind of knowledge they have, what kind of goals and gaffes they should avoid, what it means to be a politician.

I don't know why markers needs to be an important question. I'd assume in the same way other exams are marked, with individuals of knowledge and integrity.

a group independent of government and political affiliations group that is knowledgable on laws and regulation by which the theoretical government would have to abide by would be a good start.

Any decent government should have some broad goals in place though, things that it aims to achieve by been in power...

A meritocracy should seek to achieve effective social, technological progress, such that social classes and the differences between those groups become less of a factor, also such that it increases social understanding and well being through social education (even stuff like drink driving and smoking campaigns would be examples of social education, but taking it a step beyond that, you'd actively help the populace to understand and appreciate differences in different/other groups.
Also such that technology continues to increase, not just unimpeded, but with aid from the government; preferably in the direction that would aid the needs and wants of the general populace.

You know, China tried the whole exam thing, (in fact, they invented it. It's called the merit system) and, well, it didn't work out for them.

Corruption in the whole exam process made the whole thing flawed.

The big problem, though, stems from having an exam.

In order to pass an exam, you had to be educated.
In order to take the exam and be educated, you had to have money.

And a lot of people didn't have the money. Some families would pool all their money together over several years, even decades, towards payment for one family member's test. (Upon completion and passing of the test, one became a Han Government Official)

Anyways, only rich people could afford to take the exams or get the necessary education to pass an exam. As a result, China was pretty much an aristocracy in disguise.

 

[Boogie]

The majority could be wrong.

Hitler was voted into power through a democratic process.

But not voted into power by a majority ;P

 

[xabre]

I'm not going to go into elaborate detail why modern day western representative democracy is so bitterly flawed (I’m actually half way through a short essay on this for post on another forum), in short I consider representative democracy flawed for three primary reasons -

1. The representatives are flawed.
2. The class/wealth distribution systems are flawed.
3. The citizenry are flawed.

In a nutshell, the representatives are either corrupt or easily corruptible and generally favour elite interests such as corporate agendas and other organisations with strong financial and/or political backing in lieu of the best interests of their own electorate. The citizens who put such representatives into power are largely uninformed, highly fickle and all too easily manipulated. This is all too apparent in many western governments, and most prominently the US and leads to situations where wealth lays the foundations for supposed democratic process through ownership of institutions such as the media to manipulate the public opinion of the masses, the dissemination of information through intelligence services and that the elite members of society, the entrepreneurs, the bankers, the property owners etc generally belong to the same societal circles as those who get into positions of political power and thus share the same core interests.

 

[xabre]

This is a snippet I wrote on why I consider the citizenry to be flawed in the democratic process -

The vast majority of citizens of voting age are poorly informed and uneducated, with fickle and unstable opinions all too easily manipulated by social institutions both covertly and overtly. The power of their vote, considered equal for all and as such trumpeted as a great ideal is yet another flaw of representative democracy; allowing an uneducated and uninformed individual the same voting power of highly educated academics from various fields of education such as politics, economics, medicine, science etc creates an inefficient political system pandering to the lowest common denominator.

The citizenry, like the representatives, will always act in their own best interests first and foremost, regardless of whether this conflicts with the social interest as a whole or otherwise. Not only do their selfish interests often dictate their vote, the citizenry are not only unqualified decision makers in general, their vote is nearly always manipulated by powerful influences such as the media, advertisement and propaganda institutions. Thus the welfare of many is put in the hands of many who not only are unqualified to determine the domestic and foreign policy that is in the best interests of the nation, these decision makers are often not only a hindrance but often counter-productive to society as a whole.

 

[RonaldoSan]

I think the systems we practice in our day and age have too little focus on what is really important. Why is there no law or amandment saying no person shall be a victim of starvation? You can eat if you have currency? If a system does not feed all who lives under the system then I say there is something wrong. Sure in many cases starvation is caused by lack of resources but even today someone is going to bed on an empty stomach in every part of the world.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Speaking of not focusing on what's important, the government here in minnesota is crackign down on some kind of garden house plant problem. I think it's something to do with the weight of the flowers or something, I don't remember the news report. But I can't help but think, don't they have anything better to do? Like funding the education system or something?

American politicians (and citizens, for that matter) have gotten too caught up with political/party agendas, and not enough on doing what they feel is right, individually. It's rather pathetic, in my opinion.

 

[Fatghost]

The problem with democracy/republicanism as it is practiced in the west is that the original structures of governments were made in a time when bureacracy was limited and populations were relatively small, so "town halls" could effectively run government and rational common sense was actually applied to government.

 

[PS2 KID]

I, for one, welcome our robotic overlords.

The Matrix can't come soon enough. Let's hope it's here before we blow the planet up.

 

[Phoenix]

I think the systems we practice in our day and age have too little focus on what is really important. Why is there no law or amandment saying no person shall be a victim of starvation?

Make it illegal to starve? I'm not sure you understand what you are asking for.

You can eat if you have currency? If a system does not feed all who lives under the system then I say there is something wrong. Sure in many cases starvation is caused by lack of resources but even today someone is going to bed on an empty stomach in every part of the world.

Well lets seriously examine that. I don't want to pay for food at all - why should I, why should anyone? Lets remove the fast food, grocery, and other related industries from existence for a second. We need to have government controlled farms, fisheries, etc. to ensure that the nation has enough food. Now in order to make it fair we need to all pretty much be eating the same thing. Why should you have steak to eat if I can't? Why should those in power be able to eat any better than anyone else? So, we have reduced the system to everyone being able to eat - and have the same food (and amount) available.

 

[Zaptruder]

You know, China tried the whole exam thing, (in fact, they invented it. It's called the merit system) and, well, it didn't work out for them.

Corruption in the whole exam process made the whole thing flawed.

The big problem, though, stems from having an exam.

In order to pass an exam, you had to be educated.
In order to take the exam and be educated, you had to have money.

And a lot of people didn't have the money. Some families would pool all their money together over several years, even decades, towards payment for one family member's test. (Upon completion and passing of the test, one became a Han Government Official)

Anyways, only rich people could afford to take the exams or get the necessary education to pass an exam. As a result, China was pretty much an aristocracy in disguise.

You know, just because one country tried a flawed implementation doesn't mean the whole idea sucks.

Education might be a problem, but the exam could be crafted in such a way, such that education isn't a large deal, but instead just enough keen interest in what's going on in the country and how it operates.

In the end, will it still uneccessarily eliminate some worth while voters? probably, unfortunately.... but at the same time, it should eliminate a greater deal of uninformed voters...

The theory is, you should get enough uninformed voters padding out the vote on both sides so that only the informed voters are making a difference... but I think in practice, uninformed voters tend to skew one way.

So either way, you end up with a skew... so why not have a skew of merit?

 

[Zaptruder]

Make it illegal to starve? I'm not sure you understand what you are asking for.



Well lets seriously examine that. I don't want to pay for food at all - why should I, why should anyone? Lets remove the fast food, grocery, and other related industries from existence for a second. We need to have government controlled farms, fisheries, etc. to ensure that the nation has enough food. Now in order to make it fair we need to all pretty much be eating the same thing. Why should you have steak to eat if I can't? Why should those in power be able to eat any better than anyone else? So, we have reduced the system to everyone being able to eat - and have the same food (and amount) available.

Why should your genes determine that you're better looking than me?