Amerika

[Lucius]

I don't want to bad-mouth the Danes, but the Canadian military produce not only extremely competent warfighters, but their record in peace-keeping is also superb. So I'd suggest tehir military packs a higher punch.

 

Meta: You mention fascism being efficient and effective. My understanding was that it was actually not terribly efficient or effective. The Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese all made a dreadful hash of things. A German old-timer once told me it was also nonsense about the trains running on time. They were still late under the Nazis.  This may not be true, but it amuses me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely you ought to take a peak at Danish peace-keeping mission records if you're planning on doing a nonbiased comparison. But even so, what would you expect of a nation with six times our population? I'd certainly expect an even higher punch.

[Walsingham]

Lucius, I promise I will correct my lack of knowledge regarding the Danish commitments asap.

 

Steve: I should say that I may be applying a personal bias. I have never trusted regulations over the right people in any sphere of activity. I've got a thing for it. Imagine drawing up a 'constitution' for marriage, for example. Could be inappropriate generalising, is what I'm getting at.

 

Meta: I think the Germans just have a great sense of public spirit, public duty, and thereby attention to the minutiae that make public things work. Similar to the other nordlanders.

[Calax]

calax said:

"I think one has to be either a bush cronie or a Iraqi power player to actually suggest things."

 

You mean like having a +10 sword of partisan smiting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

kinda, you also have to be an oil junkie...

 

I think it should be pointed out that Japan isn't allowed to have an army because America beat the bejessus out of them in world war two... no guns either.

[metadigital]

I think the Germans just have a great sense of public spirit, public duty, and thereby attention to the minutiae that make public things work. Similar to the other nordlanders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I'm thinking of going to Switzerland just so i can catch the 8:02 at exactly 8:02!

I think it should be pointed out that Japan isn't allowed to have an army because America beat the bejessus out of them in world war two... no guns either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Japan has a military. And, in point of fact, it is one of the best (if not the best) equipt militaries in the world. They just aren't aloowed to use it, without a special act of parliament.

[213374U]

Japan has a military. And, in point of fact, it is one of the best (if not the best) equipt militaries in the world. They just aren't aloowed to use it, without a special act of parliament.

There are Japanese troops on Iraq IIRC. They abducted a Jap and threatened to kill him unless the troops were withdrawn. He was executed.

[Volourn]

"Lastly I will generalize for the heck of it in this statement, even though I might be wrong. Disregarding Volourn (LOL!), the Canadians seem to be some of the most humble posters I have seen on forums through the years."

 

Kanadians who seem humble on the 'net are faking it. Kanadians are arrogant. This is a proven fact by anyone who has actually lived in Kanada for more than two months, and is truly honest with themselves.

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a Kanadian who doesn't honestly think they are better than Amerikans - let alone people from other countries.

 

Kanadians are punks who need to be spanked.

 

P.S. None of this talk changes one simple fact - Amerika is awesome!

[Calax]

I donno, I think they have a "self Defense force" rather than a japanese army... But i'm probably wrong.

 

Beware of the Eva's they will kill us with....

[Walsingham]

Volourn certainly is one Kanadian who is going to get a spanking from the discipline moose before long.

 

I've only met one Kanadian who wasn't fantastic. And he had been effectively chucked out of Kanad... I mean Canada. Cornsarnit, now I'm doing it.

[kirottu]

I donno, I think they have a "self Defense force" rather than a japanese army... But i'm probably wrong.

 

Beware of the Eva's they will kill us with....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*shrugs* Finland has "puolustus voimat" (defence force) not Finnish Army...

[Reveilled]

1. This goes back to my previous question, which was bourne out in a recent council election in the midlands. The electorate was asked, in a referrendum, if they would approve of tax increases specifically to be put into education. The vote was the highest turnout for any referrendum (ever in history, probably ), and they all said NO!

 

The point is that, although it is feasible to get broad directional input from the electorate, they certainly shouldn't have micro-management powers for the government, let alone something like the economy. (I suspect the economy has become such a touchstone recently, because of the high taxes, high waste and high demands; people just want to make sure that the money they give is being used efficiently, that the best use is made of it, and that there are efforts to maximise the efficiency even more over time. No-one really wants to talk about macro-economic policy: they just don't want to pay high taxes for some idiot to waste on something that nobody wanted.)

 

After all, what you seem to be proposing is a micro-managed totalitarianism of the majority!

 

Sorry, I don't see how your second point follows from the first. The people in the Midlands come out saying they don't want to increase taxes to fund education, therefore they shouldn't have a say in how their taxes are spent?

 

2. What we need is some method to let people get on with what they do best (governing for bureaucrats, decision making for politicians) and IMPROVE THE SYSTEM they work in. Make it more transparent (how many quangos are there in Britain?) and make the participants more accountable. And attract the best people for the job.

 

Personally, I think the sytem I'm proposing does just that. The highest job in the land is the one that ensures the transparency of the executive branch, and the members of the upper legislature are accountable to their constituents instead of their parties. The only thing that I think is harder is for a politician to make decisions, but I wouldn't say that's a bad thing. Look at how easy it is for Tony Blair's decisions to pass straight into law with little chance of obstruction.

 

3. I don't like this argument. (I know you were joking, but there is a serious point underneath, about limiting totalitarian power of institutions.) I think if the organisations are auditable and accountable, then they should have MORE power.

 

Hell no. It's more of a political belief than a view on the structure of government, but I'm a firm believe in binding the institutions of government down with the chains of a constitution.

 

4. The three pillar government construction is good because:

• there is one body (legislature) that just MAKES the laws,
   
  
• there is one body (executive) that APPROVES the laws, and can edit / reject laws tht are unfair,
   
  
• there is one body (judiciary) that INTERPRETS the approved laws, and can apply them in a fair way, to be balanced by
   
  
• the new laws that are created (by the legislature, and tempered by the executive) to assist this process further, if the government wants to change thefocus or direction of the interpretation of the laws; and
   
  
• there are three bodies, which is the minimum for a democratic decision.
  

I think this long process is mandatory to preserve the underlying freedoms of the society, whereby the assumption is that we can all do whatever we like, as long as we don't hurt anyone else (and then cue the lawyers to interpret "hurt").

 

Yes, but I'd consider such designations to be rather arbitrary. For instance, in my system, the upper chamber doesn't make laws, and instead takes the place of of the executive in approving laws, and the executive has a different function in handling public spending. The upper and lower chambers might be part of one "body", but they have such different functions and purposes that to call them one body is rather misleading. Under my system, power would be balanced between the Upper Chamber, Lower Chamber and the Judiciary.

 

Perhaps the election of these bodies needs attention (surely the judiciary needs to be made more transparent: both their appointments and their mistakes are steeped in secrecy.)

 

You can make a more efficient government: fascism is very efficient. You can make attempts to redistribute wealth, power and privilege: communism, but it isn't very efficient. (Net produce of grain fell under communism, as compared to the Tzarist serf-produced crops.)

 

Our society starts with libertarian ideals and works out from there. (China doesn't, for example: the State is more important than the individual there.)

 

I like some of your ideas, but I think your focus is in the wrong area. We need to make the system so good that it doesn't allow anyone to cheat. Then have three bodies sharing a rock-paper-scissors power relationship over each other and the society, and free ingres and egres into these bodies based on merit, and we have a winner.

 

Now, if only we could get that to work in practice ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said before, the Judiciary isn't important to the basics of the system I'm proposing. That doesn't mean I'm advocating doing away with the judiciary branch of government, only that it can take a form which doesn't interfere with the principle on which the rest of the government is based. The Judiciary could be elected, appointed by the Chief Executive or the Lower Chamber, and it could decide on constitutionality of laws either on the basis of whether it is forbidden by the constitution or whether it is expressly permitted by the constitution. It could have five members, ten, twenty-five, whatever. The Judiciary would still function as a chack and balance against the legislature, but the exact manner in which it does this isn't hugely important to the main idea of the structure of this government. So were one imposing my system on, say, the US Government, one would have to remodel the legislature and executive according to the system, but the Supreme Court could retain its structure relatively intact, because I don't have any particularly unusual plan on how the judiciary would be structured. the Judiciary can just be like any other boring old Judiciary.

[metadigital]

Um, I was merely making the point that people

[taks]

it seems you guys may be arguing the merits of democracy vs. republic, which is what most democratic nations are, i.e. elect government officials to make most policy decisions for you.

 

taks

[metadigital]

As long as there are robust and effective checks built into the system, I am all for delegating the chore of administration to a subsection of the community.

[Commissar]

As long as there are robust and effective checks built into the system, I am all for delegating the chore of administration to a subsection of the community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[213374U]

I support a meritocracy.  You can vote if you pass certain tests.  You can run for office if you pass certain tests.

I actually agree with this.

 

Particularly, I'm thinking of something similar to Heinlein's take on the matter in Starship Troopers.

[Commissar]

I support a meritocracy.  You can vote if you pass certain tests.  You can run for office if you pass certain tests.

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.

[metadigital]

As long as there are robust and effective checks built into the system, I am all for delegating the chore of administration to a subsection of the community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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?

[Commissar]

As long as there are robust and effective checks built into the system, I am all for delegating the chore of administration to a subsection of the community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[metadigital]

I support a meritocracy.  You can vote if you pass certain tests.  You can run for office if you pass certain tests.

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.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'm not sure I like that.  I'm thinking more along the lines of a general knowledge test.

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.

[metadigital]

As long as there are robust and effective checks built into the system, I am all for delegating the chore of administration to a subsection of the community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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?

 

[Commissar]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I profoundly disagree.

[213374U]

What, service guarantees citizenship?

 

I'm not sure I like that.  I'm thinking more along the lines of a general knowledge test.

And just where would the benchmark be set to ensure that it would be neither too easy to pass the test nor too elitist?

 

A "Service grants citizenship" system also makes sure that everyone is perfectly aware of the value that political privileges have, and that those who want them are willing to work to earn them. Serving is exactly the same work for somebody raised with little academic chances as it is for a degree graduate, as I believe that everyone should have the same opportunities to earn those privileges provided they have the will to.

[metadigital]

I'm not sure I like that.  I'm thinking more along the lines of a general knowledge test.

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.

[metadigital]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.