Article on a new system

#1

This is just something I wrote on a new system. Maybe you can use it to your advantage:

The problem with democracy is that everybody may vote. Only
age is required, so most people who vote haven’t got a clue what they
are voting for. They don’t follow political shows as they have no
time for that. Understandable. These people obviously shouldn’t be
able to vote. That system is wrong. Of course you could have some
sort of political testimony that you know what it is about and then
you can vote, but this won’t work also, I suppose.
Two party systems are utterly corrupt, as the big money will
always infiltrate both parties and rule by money. This is the biggest
threat to democracy, money. It is simply too easy to bribe
politicians by supporting their party with money and to promise them
a superbly paying job after they promoted the wishes of the rich, the
banks and the corporations. This is going on right now throughout the
democratic countries.
I think politicians should be professionals, appointed for life,
not able to change jobs (thus protecting the land from corruption by
job offers from the rich). They should be paid very well and pay no
taxes, so they can’t corrupt the income system to their advantage.
Politicians should not be chosen, as the public knows nothing about
politics.
A good politician should have two great vices: they should be
smart and have a good heart. They should always look at what is best
for all, not the best for a small portion who bribes them. So they
should be tested in political schools at least until they are 30, so
they had the time to develop themselves and also society had the
chance to evaluate them if they are suitable for the job. Once the
school (and other parties) agreed they are the best suited for the
job they enter the government for life. If they ever become
corrupted, they lose their job, but will still have the same income
for life, otherwise they could enter society and it would be the same
as we have now, infiltration by the big corporations with promises if
they will just rat out the poor.
In such a system it makes no sense to only feed the rich and rob
the poor, as that is already proven to be the wrong path. Also it
makes no sense to keep burning fossil fuels, deregulate the financial
markets, let the corporations pay no taxes, etc. All this would be
over.

The word here is benefit. If the politicians have no benefit in
making wrong decisions they are much more apt to do the right thing.
To make that smart decision. To have a heart. To lead the people in
prosperity and happiness. As long as politicians have a benefit in
betraying the people all this won’t happen. Democracy is dead.

Operation: Voice Your Opinion
#2

I am not spotting how you are selecting your politicians, nor can I envisage any means of installing a selection mechanism that will not be influenced by those already in power.

This is the beginnings of the best idea I’ve found so far.

1 Like
#3

I have a few questions regarding your text:

  • How would you go about marketing the approach of “you know nothing and thus have no right to be a part of decisions which affect you”? Would you distract them even more from politics and societal issues than they already are? If so, isn’t this counterproductive to the greater cause and threaten to create entire lineages where outlooks on life, society and one’s place within it become warped? Although this might be a moot point as research has already shown that due to corporate lobbying and interest groups managed by the super-rich, U.S. politics are very much a game run by a very few players. Nevertheless, the illusion of ‘every vote counts’ remains and to come out proposing the exact opposite would give our opponents all the ammunition they need.
  • What kind of values would you instill in the leaders/politicians the political schools churn out? How will you motivate them to do their jobs properly besides money? What are their deeper causes and beliefs aside from good governance? The ‘spark’ within them?
  • Who watches the watchmen? Even the purest of hearts can and will become corrupted by power and a desire for personal glory, existing prejudices or unsettled scores they now have a chance at settling. What kind of an organization watches over their decisions? And how is this organization or group itself protected from outside influences?

And… Well darn, Hairyloon really beat me to the draw regarding my central concerns and did so in a very succinct manner. Props for that!

1 Like
#4

Come at it from the other way: it isn’t that you cannot be a part of decisions about which you are ignorant, it is that you can be a part of decisions about which you are informed.
The internet enables us to have a discussion with an almost limitless number of participants, so if we made it so that discussions occur on an open platform, we could make it a rule that only participants of that discussion can vote on it.

Thank you. I am a master of the gnomic tersity: I learned from some of the best. :wink:

#5

No system can be made that is without flaws, but we would still have to yearn for it.

In this one, the politicians should be shielded from any infiltration howsoever by any group. Politics is their life, as proffessionals, so they have more than enough time to make a decent study of politicology, economy, all parts of society (farming, corporations, banks, smaller businesses, etc.) and all other studies needed to enlarge your human skills like sociology, philosophy, psychologie, ethics, etc.

There is no need to market this idea, as for now it is just 5 paragraphs on the internet. Is the idea strong or not is the question.

Whenever an important thing is decided, everybody who wants can see the discussions leading up to the decision on a political channel on tv or the internet. All that is said is caught on camera. So basically everybody watches the politicians and there should be a way for the public to show their disliking to a certain decision, like a referendum.
The problem though is that if enough people don’t like an idea, but it is essential to do it for many reasons, then you can never change the public’s head about it, even if you talk to them for eternity. People only act in their own interest and don’t give a fly if the neighbour is getting kicked out of his home or so because the majority wants a certain law to stick that is holding up the country.

I agree that it is hard to find a way to see if people are suited for the job, but it is far from impossible. The spark within is pretty easy to find for people with insight in the heart and mind of people. Like strong psychologists or so.

I posted this to see if people liked the idea, apart from what problems might come from it :slight_smile:

#6

Well - given the larger topic at play here as well as your audience, I would hazard a guess that most of us appreciate your proposal / idea at least to some level :wink: I did not mean to discourage or assault your proposal, merely to hone it further using foreseeable reactions and issues as a base.

Of course I must admit that I am a big fan of transparent governance and therefore wholeheartedly agree with the general scenario of policymakers and leaders under constant and rather concrete vigilance from the public. The same also applies to Hairyloon’s proposal about an open platform!

(ps. god why do I sound like a particularly histrionic shakespearean actor when I post here)

#7

In terms of marketing, you focus on what people stand to gain, not what they stand to lose. In this instance, qualified suffrage contributes to a Meritocratic election process where major policies are designed in the interests of the people, thus, the marketing point is the benefits of this vs the corruption we have now.
Helping people attain their maximum potential means facilitating things like social awareness so instead of dumbing down Meritocracy enhances understanding of societal issues for those interested.
Those in positions of power can have no psychopathic characteristics. Public officials will be held entirely accountable to the people and anyone who abuses their power can be removed from office in a similar process to elections. They will not need to be paid large amounts of money and elite interests will not be able to influence their behavior. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people capable of doing legitimate public service; it’s just that these people currently have no ability to defeat moneyed interests in popular elections. Many people agree that politicians should not be controlled by elite interests but see it as inevitable in any government. This sentiment is implicitly anti-government. If we commit this ideal, it will not be difficult to implement but we have a problem now because the current system is designed on an idealistic level to allow elite interests the possibility to pay for political favors. A good example is neoliberal economist James Buchanan’s public choice theory which, to summarize Buchanan’s own outlook, ensures that politicians are motivated by self-interest and do not act in the interest of any conception of a good life.
You could say the “spark” is the potential for the idealized rational and altruistic psyche. Currently extraverted sensing types dominate positions of power which leads to the greed and selfishness we see. Introverted intuitives will act much more in accordance with the general will of the people. Introverted intuitives and extraverted sensing types are on the opposite ends of the psychopathic spectrum.

1 Like
#8

I have a question about the inheritance tax. Let’s say that meritocracy party gets most places in some country’s parliament. So there will be 100% inheritance tax. So everyone in the rich to superrich -categories will simply move to a different country to evade it? And nothing really happens to market and the families controlling it (and us). And people in general will complain because the aveerage parents cannot leave their house etc. to their children?

Am I completely misunderstanding something? I hope I am :slight_smile:

#9

Currently we promote a Millionaire Estate Tax: nobody can inherit more than, say, $1 million. Anything over that amount is taxed at 100%.

Of course this has to be applied to each individual country differently. For example, the UK allows people to inherit around 325k pounds before they start applying inheritance tax.

Will people in the rich to super-rich categories leave the country? I don’t know. We can’t know until we implement it. I seriously doubt every single person this affects will leave the country. They’ll for sure use every loophole available (well, their tax advisors will) but it’s a major step forward in the right direction and loopholes can be closed.

2 Likes
#10

Thanks for clearing this out. I’ll continue with investigation to Finnish taxation.

1 Like
#11

Great! That’ll be good to know :).