metadigital

Right, well that explains my initial confusion: calling the legislature the senate! The biggest issue I see with your proposed neo-Iraq is that you have created a de-facto dictator. Sure, the Chief Executive (Princess) doesn't wield unilateral power, but she has the casting vote in everything AS WELL AS BEING IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION! QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES? You are setting the poor folks up for a reaming. At the very least you need to have a whole department that investigates the CE. And then you need someone else to investigate them, e.g. the legisalture. Basically you need someone outside the power loop to check on the power loop, then you need the checkers to be generally at the mercy of the legislation like everyone else, and you need to police the boundaries fiercely.

This doesn't work for me. Information isn't neutral, and gathering and disseminating it cannot be a neutral activity. Plurality of sources rather than a single central 'authority' is more likely to work. A free press and the internet help a lot. An outside view can be useful, but decisions affecting local people are best taken locally. I absolutely agree that democracy is a work in progress. I hope that people are willing to try to make it better rather than abandoning it for some 'meritocratic' dystopia. The golden rule seems clear enough. So you'll agree that if a band of above-average intelligence citizens get together and decide that political rights should be withdrawn from those less intelligent than themselves, this would constitute a breach of the golden rule because it does harm to the disenfranchised. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It IS possible to provide information (mutiple sources) without granting power to the information providers, especially with the info tech we have already in place. It requires that the providers are prevented from corrupting their roles. I all for abandoning it for a meritocratic utopia. Only if the disenfranchised are negatively effected by their disenfranchisement. Would you argue that the mentally ill and criminal elements of society are unjustly disenfranchised? I can see the lawyers for the defence making their briefs now: "My client would be more inclined to follow the laws of this country if he could participate in their legislation, so he wants to be elected for President." "

We shouldn't ignore the good that someone does because they are overwhelmingly "evil" that's all I was trying to point out. Just like we shouldn't ignore the bad that sombody does who's overwelmingly "good" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps, to put it in Calaxspeak, Hitler was not very light side of the blackness of a black hole. Also, he did his best to wipe out a couple of ethic groups, like the Armenians (who aren't predominantly Jewish), too. It wasn't his theories, though. The Second Reich did much the same thing in Namibia, but no-one is allowed to talk about that because it was not the Nazis.

I only know what I see in TV, but apparently they are stabilizing the region. Slowly, but steadily. You know, all that stuff about their autonomous government and elections and whatnot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are still large parts of the country that have power for three or four hours out of the day. A government is being put in place - yes, put in place, not "formed by the people" - but it's not the sort of government that's going to be able to weather these attacks - which are not decreasing in number, by the way - without massive US involvement. The Iraqi security forces are good guys, but there's not a chance in hell they can handle the insurgency by themselves. And as far as the government itself goes, we're going to have to see if it actually does take shape. Consider everything right now provisional; the Sunnis could easily nullify the entire constitution in the referendum if they're really that unhappy with it, and then we're back to square one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> MacArthur didn't leave Japan for seven years AND he had a puppet monarch to placate the people. Big changes, like birth and democracy, take a lot of effort and pain.

Yeah, Dutch dykes are better than French lev

Are you sure they're separable? I don't think that good governance can be achieved by getting the right people at the top and giving them all the power and information. It tends to centralise power and put more power in the hands of the state - arguably a proven Bad Thing. Good governance may be about the quality of the decisions leaders make, but there remains the issue of legitimacy. In a meritocracy, the legitimacy of the government would supposedly come from their efficiency and good decisions. How realistic or sustainable is this? How soon before the government screws up (people aren't perfect), and the disenfranchised start demanding a change? And without democracy, they'll have no way to effect a change other than through violence, and the government will have to suppress them through violent means. Bad outcomes all round. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John Stuart Mill, in his treatise On Liberty, said: ... But I believe that the practical principle in which safety resides, the ideal to be kept in view, the standard by which to test all arrangements intended for overcoming the difficulty, may be conveyed in these words: the greatest dissemination of power consistent with efficiency; but the greatest possible centralization of information, and diffusion of it from the centre. ... This central organ should have a right to know all that is done, and its special duty should be that of making the knowledge acquired in one place available for others. Emancipated from the petty prejudices and narrow views of a locality by its elevated position and comprehensive sphere of observation, its advice would naturally carry much authority; but its actual power, as a permanent institution, should, I conceive, be limited to compelling the local officers to obey the laws laid down for their guidance. In all things not provided for by general rules, those officers should be left to their own judgment, under responsibility to their constituents. For the violation of rules, they should be responsible to law, and the rules themselves should be laid down by the legislature; the central administrative authority only watching over their execution, and if they were not properly carried into effect, appealing, according to the nature of the case, to the tribunals to enforce the law, or to the constituencies to dismiss the functionaries who had not executed it according to its spirit. ... We still haven't built the best democracy / republic that we can, even though Mill published this almost 150 years ago. What's more, with the state of info tech today, it is eminently possible to implement, with large scale anonymity to the individuals, so that their private affairs are not in any jeopardy, unless and until they break the laws of the land. Some other thoughts, from Chapter IV: ... Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; [edit: in other words, the golden rule] or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person's bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences. ...

To put it bluntly: so? Last I heard, it wasn't the job of the American armed forces to make Iraq a better place. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What if the best interests of the American people was served by the region being stabilised, and not left with a power vacuum like, um, when the British pulled out of the Middle East and Afganistan after WW1 ... then what should those armed forces do? Serve their own immediate needs, or the needs of the many?

I am almost tempted to search for one of your earlier posts where you equate "Kanada" with the USA, but I'm not that motivated. " What tests do you advocate for citizenship? And the system seems to be very much not working now, so I think it's up for analysis and amendment.

Psst. That's Volo you're trying to argue with. He (it?) is Impervious to Logic. Any effort and time you put into disarming his feeble arguments and establishing yours is wasted as your points will be flat out ignored. I doubt he he (it?) can even understand the notion that there are different opinions than his (its?) own. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (It's not just for his benefit; there are others that have nothing better to do than read this thread, too. )

I would even venture they are ex-Ba'th-apparatchik-anarchists trying to jostle for a position in the black government.

the internet is your friend ...

What evidence do you have to support this claim? How do you know that addressing the electorate in different ways won't create better solutions? For example, if we gave people who have eaten ice-cream regularly in the last five years two votes in the referrendum on new flavours, as opposed to everyone else getting one? Sure, the next problem is how you divide up the electorate, and it isn't trivial, but your blanket generalisation is just supposition. And a stagnant society isn't going to improve.

You are arguing about freedom in a debate about good governance. Sure everyone has the right to vote, nay canvass to be elected, but that doesn't solve the problem of governance. Good Governance requires making informed decisions that may be against your immediate personal interests. The biggest problem with a democracy is that people cannot be well informed of every issue (otherwise why do we need a special group of people to form a government; let's do it all ourselves). The second biggest problem is that, even with the knowledge, people make decisions based on their own wallet. Sure, they'll give to charity, but only after they have rigged the lottery to pay out to their sister-in-law. Arguing about disenfranchising the electorate is not the issue. I wouldn't mind being a part of a republican (small "r") society where I had no direct effect on the election of the government officials (just like you folks in the USA and your quaint "Electoral College" system ); I don't hear too many people complaining they can't be trash collectors, or astronauts. We need to specialise; that's how effective businesses become even more effective. The biggest hurdle is counteracting the leading classes innate tendency to feather their own nests. Fix that, and we have a winner.

Never said the contrary. If you read my post, I was not advocating the teaching of killing to every citizen as part of a good education, I was focusing on the mandatory and compulsory skills learnt in working with others, not chosen by you, in a command structure. A society. Sure some people won't get it. But at least 98% of people will (excluding those sociopaths that cannot) gain empathy for their fellow citizens. Who knows, maybe the next great civilizational progression will come out of such an engine. Perfect. The problem is that now, everyone who won the freedom of "the free world" is dead, so noone values it as much as those who have gone before. "Remeber, they gave their todays, for your tomorrows." Hurricane Katrina demonstrates the real use of a military force in a democracy: a rigorous command structure and a inexhaustible work force to attack large-scale problems. Not killing. Armies are not just for war.

What did you have in mind?

Look back through your recent posts. If it isn't there, then it's been deleted, or IT NEVER EXISTED. ~Big Brother.

They have already said that the National Guard is stretched pretty thin because of their ranks in Iraq.

I profoundly disagree. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Curtain was the Australian Prime Minister who sent conscripts to WW2. Even though he had not volunteered to serve in WW1, with his friends. He knew personally how morally ambiguous it was. Best case: it just is hypocritical. I'm not suggesting, by any means, that the military leaders should be political ones. In fact, I think that would automatically disqualify you. But actually working as a unit with other people not like you, not from your socio-economic background, not of your choosing: that sort of bare-faced interaction with the society of your peers is a Good Thing for any society. Just a two year military service to make the upper classes familiar with real work, and, with the middle and working classes, understand their society, too.

How about the one where you have to build the tallest possible tower out of newspaper? Or the one where you have to drop an egg a metre distance without it breaking? Why would the people who fail the test obey the laws made by the people who pass the test? The government would have no legitimacy, and legitimacy is the whole point of democracy and the reason why it's so successful. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I take it your point is that the test is arbitrary and open to abuse? To answer you: there is no reason to use intelligence as a marker for those wanting to serve the community; it's just a good idea that those who do end up making decisions are capable of making informed decisions when given the information. Using tallest newspaper stackers might work in the shortterm, but I fear it would end in a byzantine Tower of Babel. The problem is that only people who want to be politicians enter politics (or others who aren't are driven out by them). I'd be in favour of a sequential / random allotment for President, based on acceptablility IQ tests. Any major decision, like war, would be debated by a cabinet. The President would have veto, but no right to enact legislation.

Democracy ensures that the people are governed no better than they deserve. I support a meritocracy. You can vote if you pass certain tests. You can run for office if you pass certain tests. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Begs the age old question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right. I'll guard you, then. When do we start? When do I get my firearm and one of those nifty leather trenchcoats and matching set of jackboots?

I actually agree with this. Particularly, I'm thinking of something similar to Heinlein's take on the matter in Starship Troopers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What, service guarantees citizenship? I'm not sure I like that. I'm thinking more along the lines of a general knowledge test. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm all for it. You couldn't be a politician without serving, and risking your life for, your country. Sure have a SAT and cognitive behaviour test, and any other psychometric test deemed necessary, but it is unconscionable for a person who has never served in the military to send people out to their deaths.

Democracy ensures that the people are governed no better than they deserve. I support a meritocracy. You can vote if you pass certain tests. You can run for office if you pass certain tests. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Begs the age old question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Where was the last place you saw it? Where did you leave it?

Nothing made by humans can withstand a natural disaster. The point about this catastrophe is that the US will be able to deal with it more adroitly than any less-well-off nation could ever hope to. The people would probably have been the poorer residents, and not wanting to leave their homes to the mercy of looters and not believing the ferocity of the storm, decided to stay. Aparently there were in the order of a hundred people sheltering on the lev

They should be able to pump the water from the surrounds. The only drawback is filtering it, there is apparently loads of polutants, like oil and human and animal wastes. No point in pumping oil onto a fire. And I'm sure the people who own the building would rather it burnt down then got soaked in f