Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus
  • 1 Post By YaseaP
  • 1 Post By YouTuber
  • 1 Post By Brian
  • 1 Post By HAL9000

Thread: Interim system of Government to ease the transition

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oakville, ON Canada
    Posts
    4

    Interim system of Government to ease the transition

    The idea is to peacefully force a new system of Government which consists of a panel of top scientists from all major fields of discipline, with no single President/Prime Minister. Basically, it's a panel of leaders who are voted in by their peers in their respective fields. The idea is to have actual intelligent capable people running our countries who are leaders in their fields (You wouldn't hire a clown to fix a leak in the John; then why do you let these hooligans tear down the biz? Goulet!). The governing decisions are all based on pure scientific reasoning (as much as possible anyway), to ensure all decisions are made with the benefit of our environment and society in mind.

    Another big change would be no election campaigns and NO CORPORATE MONEY in the system. None. No lobbyists, no donations, no campaigns period. The scientific panel would be given full governing authority over the country's decisions on environment, education reform, healthcare, transportation, public safety, economy (current system will be phased out naturally), etc.. And all governing decisions that are cleared have to pass by each department in roughly the same order as shown above. The economy should always be the last concern, not the first.

    Governing Decision Priority List
    1. Effect on environment
    2. Effect on social well-being
    3. Effect on education system
    4. Effect on healthcare system
    5. Effect on transportation systems
    6. Effect on public safety
    7. Effect on Economy
    etc...

    This model is essentially like having all the Ministers of the Government Departments, but without the head of the Government itself. The Ministers in this case are not selected by the Prime Minister (which has inherently biased), but are instead voted in by their peers. The idea is that the panel must work and deliberate together like a panel of Judges on the supreme court. The information that is deliberated on is purely scientific, with as little bias as possible.

    I see this new system of Government having multiple positive effects. The obvious benefit being the new unbiased, environment and culture oriented decision processes made by very capable people. A secondary effect would be the change in how we view scientists in today's world. Seeing as the panel consists of the top scientists in the country, children would admire and look up to these people as it would be an honour to be chosen to sit on the panel. This would kind of flip our value system and make being a scientist cool, and a lucrative career to boot, perhaps encouraging more children to pursue a path as a scientist. They should be the ones we hold up high in our society, not the wealthy individuals.

    I see this kind of Government transformation difficult to attain, but still plausible nonetheless. It will really come down to organizing masses of people who agree with the same specific outline for a new government. So these ideas would really have to be hashed out and perfected before anything could be put into print and the advertised to the masses. If a new rock-solid system can be agreed upon, we can move ahead with a campaign to raise awareness for the idea. I can't see too many people arguing against having scientists versus the yahoos that are running the show now.

    Brief Summary; TLDR
    1. Replace current government elect with panel of top scientists (in all major fields)
    2. Voted to the panel by their peers (may serve for a set amount of time or kept in indefinitely)
    3. Full Governmental authority over country's decisions on environment, education, healthcare etc.
    4. Corporate donations/bribes or money of any kind declared illegal and an interference of Government

    Would love to get some feedback from you guys. Thanks a lot for your time!

  2. #2
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Isle of Man
    Posts
    4
    Am I correct to understand your proposal, as a temporary installment of a technocratic state? Here is a question: How will we place these scientists in authority? Will the public elect them? Also, how can we guarantee that these scientists will not abuse their authority? Having the 'experts' in authority will inevitably produce a hierarchy based on skill. While there is nothing unnatural about hierarchy, it can create imbalance. How could we prevent this? Could we temporarily install a radical democracy?
    YouTuber likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    637
    The people in authority have a good thing going for themselves and don't want to lose it. Trying to replace them will get you labeled as a terrorist and treated accordingly. Best you can do in that case is to go for small incremental changes. Direct democracy comes to mind. But most solutions will have to be bottom-up as the bottom because of this.
    Last edited by YaseaP; 01-11-2013 at 01:24 PM.
    YouTuber likes this.

  4. #4
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oakville, ON Canada
    Posts
    4
    The primary differences I see in this system are:

    1) It's a panel of leaders (like a board of directors with no political party association) not giving decision rights to any 1 person
    2) The scientists are appointed by their peers (i.e., fellow scientists in their field) based on a vote - could be largely a symbolic position?
    3) The position itself does not carry with it any outright power or influence, they are essentially representing their field of research and bringing forth the results of their findings
    4) The entire process of making decisions is held strictly to the science itself and the results of their findings
    5) Business is kept out of the entire process, passing a law that makes it illegal for the Government to accept money from a corporation (interference of government)
    6) Government still collects taxes for now (while current market-economic system is in place)
    7) Governing decisions are implemented after approval of the individual or panel
    8) If governing decision involves more than 1 department (e.g., transportation and environment), all affected department heads must deliberate on the decision

    Also, I think work should begin in some way on a super-computer designed for policy decision making; where the computer can take in all kinds of statistical data, including opinions, weather data, traffic data, economic information, public health data, current state of environment etc., and then output realistic outcomes of implementing various policies. Because this is one of the missing links in the fully automated Resource Based Economy model that we don't currently have. This to me has to be one of the most daunting technical tasks ahead, besides the whole cultural mind-shift.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    361
    First, I love this idea!

    Given that what flaws it may possess, those flaws would still pale in the shadow of the grave insults to human and planetary well-being perpetrated by our current state of affairs. Though, serious issues would still exist, unless adequate regulatory measures are taken.

    1) As long as people retain any sense of power, we should assume the worst at all times.

    The most effective deterrent of power being knowledge (rational and founded, not manufactured to monger fear--i.e. conservatives), any new system of government would have to be fully transparent.

    A fully transparent government would not have the convenience of going to war. Whether with any "foreign" foe through the military or domestic through the police.

    2) Elections would still exist. Despite what emotional fervor the idea of voting for one's own leader raises, this remains a fundamentally coercive force until every participant in the voting process is educated and immune to the forces of political manipulation. And that's only assuming that the candidates provided are themselves educated and reflect the best that society has to offer. Neither one of those qualities are even remotely true.

    Would they be true in a scientific environment? I would hope so. But I fear that then we would find ourselves in the midst of relative ignorance. Not all scientists are equally intelligent. Then, perhaps, the most intelligent and qualified amongst the scientists might be perceived as radical and ostracized as a result. Understanding this possibility, precautions would have to be taken to ensure an equal environment.

    3) We will also have to consider how the common rabble will react to having their only semblance of power in society striped away from them. I don't think this will reveal the best of us. And, for this reason alone, I don't think we will ever reach this society.

    4) I fear also that politics are an unavoidable anomaly of the voting process. So we will find ourselves with a minimum of two political parties for every scientific branch represented. And these political views will consist purely of various interpretations of those individual branches and will have little in common with any other branch.

    5) By permitting only the scientists to vote, the common people will feel detached from any role they once played in government. To compensate for this loss, the individual branches would have to consider the recommendations made by the masses. I don't think this will present much of an issue if we incorporate the internet into the process, and permit the people themselves to refine their own ideas.

    For that is the single greatest advantage of science: There is a right answer. There is no right answer in politics.
    "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. " --Friedrich Nietzsche

  6. #6
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oakville, ON Canada
    Posts
    4
    Reply to "Ozymandias"

    Given that what flaws it may possess, those flaws would still pale in the shadow of the grave insults to human and planetary well-being perpetrated by our current state of affairs. Though, serious issues would still exist, unless adequate regulatory measures are taken.

    Yeah, you gotta wonder why we end up selecting on of these assholes to lead our country. Why are they the only choice? Why are they "politicians"? It's such a horrible system currently, it breeds corruption.

    I'll address your questions below:


    1) As long as people retain any sense of power, we should assume the worst at all times.

    The panel members should not have any power themselves; they are essentially glorified senators/MPs who are voted into the position by the public. I'm thinking it may even be wise to not have people running for the position at all. The public (primarily their peers) would vote for who "they" want on the panel to represent them. If the person who is voted for does not want to go, they can decline and it goes to the next person. It's a big sign of respect and honor doing it this way.

    2) Would they be true in a scientific environment? I would hope so. But I fear that then we would find ourselves in the midst of relative ignorance. Not all scientists are equally intelligent. Then, perhaps, the most intelligent and qualified amongst the scientists might be perceived as radical and ostracized as a result. Understanding this possibility, precautions would have to be taken to ensure an equal environment.

    True, but I believe the majority of other scientists would vote for the leading voice of the times. There will always be fringe scientists who may be proven wrong or ultimately prove their theory correct later, then it will be there time. Due to the very nature of science (with no profit motive mind you), there is no bias built in, so even the mainstream beliefs would have to make a lot of sense. The fringe guys will always get their chance if they can start validating their results.

    3) We will also have to consider how the common rabble will react to having their only semblance of power in society striped away from them. I don't think this will reveal the best of us. And, for this reason alone, I don't think we will ever reach this society.

    This is definitely the biggest caveat, and will be a big roadblock. I'm recommending this shift be tried in Canada first, because we're a smaller, more liberal country. I'd be scared of some of the politicians in the US gov't, even Obama scares the crap out of me now (it's a few moments away from a police state at this point, scary stuff). Anyways, if we can get a big enough grass-roots turnout here in Canada, for example a few thousand people marching on Parliament Hill, we should definitely get some attention. And the effect of changing the Canadian gov't system would definitely put more pressure on the US to follow. Not a lot of pressure of course, but at least some. Canada may convince France, which may convince Spain, and so on.

    4) I fear also that politics are an unavoidable anomaly of the voting process. So we will find ourselves with a minimum of two political parties for every scientific branch represented. And these political views will consist purely of various interpretations of those individual branches and will have little in common with any other branch.

    If it's kept purely scientific in the decision making approach, I don't see political party views popping up too much. We do know that scientists are a pretty liberal bunch to begin with (which the right will hate completely of course), and the very process they learn and use daily, is one based on no beliefs. Math doesn't lie, science doesn't lie, we may just not interpret the data correctly, but nature always tells the truth.

    5) By permitting only the scientists to vote, the common people will feel detached from any role they once played in government. To compensate for this loss, the individual branches would have to consider the recommendations made by the masses. I don't think this will present much of an issue if we incorporate the internet into the process, and permit the people themselves to refine their own ideas.

    I agree, the public has to have some say here. Perhaps their peers are the ones who elect (based on vote numbers alone), who is in the running. Let's say we pick the top 3 from each scientific department, and the public is shown these 3 choices that were "elected" by fellow academia, along with their full professional background, past notable research projects, scientific breakthroughs or papers published, and their overall contribution to society. At which point we can have an actual vote to appease the public. Keep in mind, there will be a vote for every scientific department of the Gov't (Environment, Education, Health, Social Well-being, Transportation, Economy etc.

    Can you imagine if we could see our politicians full profile, work experience and "contribution" to society! LOL If that was required, you'd see a lot less people running for office..


    For that is the single greatest advantage of science: There is a right answer. There is no right answer in politics.
    Last edited by Canuckdian; 01-11-2013 at 03:45 PM. Reason: Removed expletives - Added sentence after Q5.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    143
    I'm reminded of having tried this approach with a technocratic organisation, things did not go well in practice..

    It seems from experience the following happens:

    Whoever gets in 1st, decides who gets in 2nd, if whoever wants to get in 2nd disagrees with the view of who got in 1st, they create some rule to exclude you from being eligible to apply.

    Science, the truth, appears to have no function at all in the decision making process.
    droneBEE likes this.

  8. #8
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    I'm reminded of having tried this approach with a technocratic organisation, things did not go well in practice..

    It seems from experience the following happens:

    Whoever gets in 1st, decides who gets in 2nd, if whoever wants to get in 2nd disagrees with the view of who got in 1st, they create some rule to exclude you from being eligible to apply.

    Science, the truth, appears to have no function at all in the decision making process.
    Yes in truth scientists advise and in a true democracy the majority would decide.
    droneBEE likes this.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian View Post
    Yes in truth scientists advise and in a true democracy the majority would decide.
    Its what we have right now, results are awful... time for change no?
    Ernest likes this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    Its what we have right now, results are awful... time for change no?
    Not true...we're not even close to 'science' being the adviser (SEE TRUMP), nor is democracy enough of a reality for everyday people that everyone/anyone can and does utilize it....

    Until a movement is Global...failure will be the norm...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1