Jump to content

My idea for the perfect government


The Peon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yea im a communist at heart. Not because It's the cool thing to do, but because it's the right thing to do. But I want to take it a step further. Note that the idea presented below is merely a utopic vision of what I would like to see, and I realize the massive hurdles that would have to be overcome even if the plan was feasable. I present to you my plan:

 

My government would be run by scientists and doctors. You have a set number of political slots open in a given community based on population. Each slot will be filled in order by success obtained in the education process and based on specialty. For instance, a slot may be open for a Biologist, and the person who recieved top honors in his class would have the option to fill the slot (I would prefer no option and make it mandatory but human nature is human nature). Once the slots are filled, all slot holders may then vote in council members who will preside over the entire establishment. The number of council members is unimportant, only that there sole funtion being that the whole system works harmoniously in all aspects of it.

 

Doctors who hold slot positions will decide via committee a diet and exercise regimine. This will of course be adjusted to medical issues and will have an extensive menu option so as not to force people to eat certain things they dont wish to eat. The most important thing being that the individual recieves the sustanance they need without over or under eating. Doctors will also work in tandem with scientists to make sure that enviromental factors are being kept sane and sanitary in all aspects of life, from pollution to the chemicals being used in our everyday lives. Psychologists will work with doctors as well to ensure sound mental health in all individuals and to accomodate the mentally ill and disabled in the best way the society can.

 

Scientists will serve as teachers and guidance counselors, depending on specialty of course. They will keep an open scientific academic schedule, encouraging question asking and answer finding. Science will remain exactly what its supposed to be, science. Anthropologists could serve as cultural go betweens, etc. Some scientists may not interact directly with the community but can work behind the scenes. Scientists will also make sure all children recieve a firm understanding of the scientific method and current scientific theorys that are (in my opinion) vital for people to understand, such as evolution and sociology. Rule of law could be handled by anthropologists, psycologists, and other specialists who understand the human animal.

 

I know flaws probobly exist in this plan, but I would like to know what you all think of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seems a bit controlling for my tastes. I mean i don't want to be told what to eat (even if i have "an extensive menu") and i mean if they control what you eat(maybe not total control but definately some degree of control) they likely control other aspects of your life like what you watch on tv, what you use your computer for etc. it would be too easy for the government to take full control of our lives and it would probably only take a few corrupt individuals for it to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd revolt, violently if nessesary. If I want to over eat, under eat, or consume large amounts of alcohol etc, I don't want to have to do it behind the backs of a prying federal body.

 

Also, people tend to be crippled by being told what to do. Without being part of their own life or death decision making process, they may as well be domestic animals. I am not a libertarian, but I am closer to that way of thinking.

 

 

Why can't I spend all my time and money on some invention, eating nothing but ramen noddles and living in a shack off the scaps I make, if that is what I believe in doing? If the process leaves me sick and I die, its my life and my risk to take. I don't want to have to convince a government body that my work is "worthy" of exemption from the mainstream labor options, since its none of their business to begin with.

 

I also don't think many in academia are really the best people to make decisions for those who are not. When it comes to laws, I'd rather know someone who understands the value of doing shots of tequila till 5 in the morning is in the process, than some biologist who only knows the science of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My government would be run by scientists and doctors.

 

Are you by any chance a scientist or doctor?

 

For instance, a slot may be open for a Biologist, and the person who recieved top honors in his class would have the option to fill the slot (I would prefer no option and make it mandatory but human nature is human nature).

 

Those irksome humans always gumming up the works.

 

Doctors who hold slot positions will decide via committee a diet and exercise regimine. This will of course be adjusted to medical issues and will have an extensive menu option so as not to force people to eat certain things they dont wish to eat. The most important thing being that the individual recieves the sustanance they need without over or under eating. Doctors will also work in tandem with scientists to make sure that enviromental factors are being kept sane and sanitary in all aspects of life, from pollution to the chemicals being used in our everyday lives.

 

Don't forget to put GPS tags, bar codes and an electric shock mechanisms on all of the non-scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the words "perfect" and "government" rarely go together, if not for the simple fact that the need of the people in one generation may be vastly different then the needs in another. Perhaps that's why a 'perfect' government, if one should exist, should allow itself to be fluid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea im a communist at heart. Not because It's the cool thing to do, but because it's the right thing to do.

 

Are you sure you don't mean you're against communism not only because it's the wrong thing to do, but because it's the stupid thing to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any room for any kind of creative expression in your society? How do you plan on moving forward when all the classes are taught by scientists? You'll quickly end up with a bunch of genious kids but ones that can't think outside of this little world of science you've developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Peon,

Yea im a communist at heart. Not because It's the cool thing to do, but because it's the right thing to do.

Actually the system of government you defined is very very anti-communist, because of its rigid tier of a ruling class elite presiding over a working class, something that makes communists hide under their covers at night. What you have is an aristocracy :)

 

In principle, an aristocracy might be better for everyone overall, because some politicians just arent very good at looking after people or making smart decisions. And when 11 states unanimously voted away the rights of gays to get married in the past election, then theres some indication that democracy isnt the best rule of law either.

 

Except for the part where the government micromanages each of its citizens diet and exercise habits (I know I have very particular dietary habits and like to the gym everyday on my own schedule, not on someone elses), the way you described your ideal government didnt sound like too bad. At least no worse than any form of government that already exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way you described your ideal government didnt sound like too bad. At least no worse than any form of government that already exists.

You are joking, right? What on earth makes you think the micro managing would stop at diet?

 

The idea is disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds a bit like a fashist technocracy (not saying that makes it inherently bad).

 

whilst i'd be the first to admit that scientists are generally all-round brilliant people -- espescially molecular genetisists -- what do you think makes scientists better at making economic, ethical, military, and all other non-scientific desisions? or are you proposing that everything be descided via a scientific method of some kind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expand on that position please, as it is purely trolling at the moment.

 

Grow a sense of humor and let the man answer the question. We've all been doing this long enough to know how it works. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds a bit like a fashist technocracy (not saying that makes it inherently bad).

 

whilst i'd be the first to admit that scientists are generally all-round brilliant people -- espescially molecular genetisists -- what do you think makes scientists better at making economic' date=' ethical, military, and all other non-scientific desisions? or are you proposing that everything be descided via a scientific method of some kind?[/quote']

 

Too bad the United States is incapable of electing a president who graduated in the top ten percent of an elite school, did graduate work in nuclear physics and even worked as a nuclear engineer. I'm certain the election of such a president would launch a decade of prosperity and a resurgence of American prestige abroad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Peon' date='

 

Actually the system of government you defined is very very anti-communist, because of its rigid tier of a ruling class elite presiding over a working class, something that makes communists hide under their covers at night. What you have is an aristocracy :)[/quote']

 

The elites always rule over the working class to some degree in any system. As a practical matter, the degree of this control is much greater in a communist system.

 

In principle, an aristocracy might be better for everyone overall, because some politicians just arent very good at looking after people or making smart decisions. And when 11 states unanimously voted away the rights of gays to get married in the past election, then theres some indication that democracy isnt the best rule of law either.

 

Do any non-democratic systems on the planet allows gay marriage?

 

Except for the part where the government micromanages each of its citizens diet and exercise habits (I know I have very particular dietary habits and like to the gym everyday on my own schedule, not on someone elses), the way you described your ideal government didnt sound like too bad. At least no worse than any form of government that already exists.

 

You don't really mean this, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope all the far left crowd is watching what's happening in France this week.

 

They are protesting - it is their right, don't you think? If they want to have excessive unemployment, who are we to say they are wrong?

 

Someday, we may be faced with working 7-day weeks and working our children to compete with the Chinese. Is there a point when you say enough with this competition and lets have a life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad the United States is incapable of electing a president who graduated in the top ten percent of an elite school, did graduate work in nuclear physics and even worked as a nuclear engineer. I'm certain the election of such a president would launch a decade of prosperity and a resurgence of American prestige abroad.

 

I'm pretty sure you and I are the only two who get the joke. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess no one likes my idea? Meh... I would much prefer the people who "understand" man to be in control over some politician. But I guess thats just me. Just seemed like a good solution over the current system.

 

Most of you seem to be nitpicking certain parts of the plan, but I would appreciate if you elaborated or perhaps provide solutions to patch up the "holes" you see. I was kinda hoping to have help here building on the idea rather than destroying it. Does my view make me a fascist? A nazi? A totalitarian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, Ha, Ha:

 

This whole thread is a joke, right? It is as meaningful as discussing religion. Weird opinions, subjective college blethering and not a shred of objectivity to back it up.

 

Whichever joke PCS got, and I suspect it was ironic rather than humourous, there are plenty of others, largely unintentional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hehehehe, I can`t disagree there :)

 

Personaly, I think it would probably be a better idea to Hone and work out the bugs in the Existing system, I don`t think we`re TOO far off the mark already with what we already have in place now (Western World that is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess no one likes my idea?

 

It's not your idea.

 

Meh... I would much prefer the people who "understand" man to be in control over some politician. But I guess thats just me. Just seemed like a good solution over the current system.

 

This is idle platitude.

 

Your "idea" has been explored in academia and in practice in a wide range of experiences from the rise of managerial science and operations research to faculty politics to Singaporean governance. In the end, your idea boils down to one thing--qualifying the class of the governed capable of giving their consent to such a contract. That's why businesses answer to lay shareholders and consumers, faculties answer to corporations or state boards that are in turn responsible to the beneficiaries of the enrolled and alumni of varying technical compentence, and even a small city state like Singapore maintains a not-so-disingenuous pretense of republicanism. All you've done here is offer an extremely water-downed defense of what in its worst form descends into totalitarianism.

 

Most of you seem to be nitpicking certain parts of the plan, but I would appreciate if you elaborated or perhaps provide solutions to patch up the "holes" you see.

 

I think most people are simply rejecting the core thesis of your proposal, that an extremely elite community of the highly educated has the moral and physical authority to impose political apartheid against the far more numerous lay population.

 

I was kinda hoping to have help here building on the idea rather than destroying it. Does my view make me a fascist? A nazi? A totalitarian?

 

No, it simply makes you disingenuous--that's because you claimed the idea as your own and made no independent effort to evaluate it's efficacy of its previous incarnations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.