Spew All About Politics Here

[Anathema]

wow, you want a foreigner to decide how your local community should be run? Whatever happened to the WISHES of the community? Your government is turning barbaric. How would you like a bunch of USA Texans coming into your little Dutch town and making decisions on how you are going to live, then they go back to Texas and have a barbecue, meanwhile you are stuck with their decisions. This is beyond absurd, it is rediculous. If you think for one instant people of the Northern Ukraine will be HAPPY with a bunch of suntanning belly dancing Hawaiian Tropical beach surfers setting policy in their home communities, you are delusional. Furthermore you contradict yourself, you want people to be knowledgeable, yet no one has as much knowledge about a local community then the people that LIVE THERE!

The solution is simple. Outlaw Texas and Hawai.

If your neighbour starts geneticly manipulating anthrax bacteria next to your house, wouldn't you get a little worried? Just an example.

[Edric O]

Emprworm, we have neither the time, not the wish to waste MONTHS (or even YEARS) of our time working out the fine details of a system that is an on-going work! We haven't even finished defining the general rules yet, and you want us to go into particulars?

Furthermore, the particulars are fundamentally different depending on the country/region we're talking about. How the hell are we supposed to know in advance WHERE is Consiliary Dynamism going to be implemented, so we can work out the particulars for that place?

[nemafakei]

"Does the actions of one council get voted on by ALL THE WORLDS COUNCILS or just a select few "governing" councils?"

One council for one decision. simple.

The councils might vary in size.

"I dislike the idea of having local councils deciding their own affairs "

That came out REALLY wrong. What I should have said was I dislike the idea of local councils making decisions which might affect others. But councils making decisions over certain areas must not be comprised only of locals, but also those trained in the fields in which the decisions will be made - impartial people as well.

There is no governing council. There will be councils to decide on crimes, and some other councillors might be... referred to these councils. Members of these councils can be investigated, too.

"and just who decides and directs these councils as to how many votes any particular issue requires"

A council will likely decide that for themselves, depending on the decision that must be made.

"Obviously the Tiny council denies the claims"

What Tiny Council? There would certainly be no set Tiny Council.

"500,000 other complaints against councils "

Are we talking about against racism or against councils?

All suggestions will go through basic filtering means - a few councils will a minute or so to filter through each proposal to see if it isn't a bit of a joke, or whatever, and then they will be sent to other relevant councils depending on the nature of the suggestion.

Suggestions range from passing simple laws to allegations of fraud, abuse of power, anything.

[emprworm]

TO EDRIC:

Emprworm, we have neither the time, not the wish to waste MONTHS (or even YEARS) of our time working out the fine details of a system that is an on-going work! We haven't even finished defining the general rules yet, and you want us to go into particulars?

well obviously then, your system isn't very well thought out in a practical sense. Because you have no idea how the particulars could work, it is impossible for you to declare that it would work at all. My questions weren't even that specific. I asked very reasonable questions that should at least have an answer if your system is even half thought out. I can see that you have a dream of a futuristic society, but you have not really put a lot of serious thought into it. If you did, you would have answers for my questions, because I put serious thought into my questions. Most people are not concerned with generalized philosophical idealism- they are more concerned with day to day living- the things that happen when you wake up in the morning- and this usually does not consist of talking about grandiose philosophical ideologies. Therefore, your government to me is nothing more than happy-sounding whimsical wishful thinking. Sounds good on the outside, yet is just an empty shell void of any real depth of function.

NEMA

The councils might vary in size.

"I dislike the idea of having local councils deciding their own affairs "

That came out REALLY wrong. What I should have said was I dislike the idea of local councils making decisions which might affect others. But councils making decisions over certain areas must not be comprised only of locals, but also those trained in the fields in which the decisions will be made - impartial people as well.

that is an acceptable answer. Good to hear that. What you are talking about is jurisdiction. So, going back to Edrics claim of a web-system with no heirarchal power, just how are local councils held accountable/overriden/challenged by a citizen who feels their decisions are unjustified?

There is no governing council. There will be councils to decide on crimes, and some other councillors might be... referred to these councils. Members of these councils can be investigated, too.

i haven't even gotten into the justice system yet- whether innocent until proven guilty, or the rights of the citizens and the rights to appeal a council decision made against them. And you would have a lot of this in your society: example - One of your councils decided that I didn't work hard enough one week and deducted my pay. I am outraged over this and I want to appeal their decision.

"and who decides and directs these councils as to how many votes any particular issue requires"

A council will likely decide that for themselves, depending on the decision that must be made.

i dont think you understood my question. I am talking about national law here- laws that are global and span all local communities. Obviously a local council cannot soley decide how many votes a global law would require.....can it?

"Obviously the Tiny council denies the claims"

What Tiny Council? There would certainly be no set Tiny Council.

I thought that all communities had their own councils. Now you're telling me something different. SO exactly, how is jurisdiction decided? And to those that delegate jurisdiction of power for all the councils, that would seem to indicate that they themselves have power greater than local councils. So how is jurisdiction decided if not by community demographics?

???

"500,000 other complaints against councils "

Are we talking about against racism or against councils?

we are talking about people that are unhappy with council rulings. When a council rules that someone needs to "work harder or lose pay" and that person feels he already was working hard enough, he wants to challenge a council ruling. Or are local council rulings absolute and your citizens have no recourse to appeal anything?

All suggestions will go through basic filtering means - a few councils will a minute or so to filter through each proposal to see if it isn't a bit of a joke, or whatever, and then they will be sent to other relevant councils depending on the nature of the suggestion.

Joke? Its no joke. There are 6 billion people in the world. People do not tolerate being judged by others very well. In any free society- whether capitalistic or not, you have people protesting EVERYTHING. No matter what you put out, SOMEONE will despise it. When councils judge that their new town is going to get a huge shopping mall and put it on A Street, some citizens feel their queit, peaceful home on B street is going to suddenly be ruined. I can think of 6 billion reasons why 6 billion people would, at various times, file complaints against council rulings. having some little pee-on government worker just arbitrarily "Tossing them out as a joke" is an unacceptable dis-service to your citizens. Most People do not go out of their way and waste time to file a prank. You obviously don't care much about them. And that is what is so ironic: i thought you were doing all this for the benefit of the people- yet all this time, everything you say seems to counter that. If you really care about your citizens first, I would think you would give them more consideration than someone's arbitrary decision to toss out something important to them that is causing them grief and directly deals with people in your government. I guess, for you, having food in your belly and a roof over your head is the end all to happiness. Everything else beyond that I take it, must be unimportant. Well you are in for a surprise.

And 500,000 complaints in any given week among 6 billion people seems like an extremely conservative number. Thats only 1 complaint per week per every 12,000 people!!!! If you ONLY had 500,000 per week that would indicate a very successful government. I would say "congradulations- only 1 complaint per 12,000 people- your people must be very happy" Yet it would more likely be much higher number than that since there is so much more judging going on in your system (like how hard did you work this week....what kind of stuff are you selling.....how fair are your prices....ect, etc)- with so much personal judging against all your people, I think 1 complaint per week per 12,000 people is actually a dream number. It would probably be significantly higher.

[Edric O]

well obviously then, your system isn't very well thought out in a practical sense. Because you have no idea how the particulars could work, it is impossible for you to declare that it would work at all. My questions weren't even that specific. I asked very reasonable questions that should at least have an answer if your system is even half thought out. I can see that you have a dream of a futuristic society, but you have not really put a lot of serious thought into it. If you did, you would have answers for my questions, because I put serious thought into my questions. Most people are not concerned with generalized philosophical idealism- they are more concerned with day to day living- the things that happen when you wake up in the morning- and this usually does not consist of talking about grandiose philosophical ideologies. Therefore, your government to me is nothing more than happy-sounding whimsical wishful thinking. Sounds good on the outside, yet is just an empty shell void of any real depth of function.

For one thing, you should remember that I've only been working on this system for a few months now. OF COURSE it's not finished yet. And it won't be for some time. You can't pull a miracle political system out of a magic hat! It takes time to think up all the particulars. For now I've only worked out the general outline.

And I don't know what your idea of the perfect system is, but I'm certainly NOT going to tell you what to do in the morning when you wake up...

[Anathema]

Edric once again please summarise your society layout. I gave one of mine before. Here's the tweaked version.

Costitution

Only one part is unchangable: everybody must respect the human rights that were defined in the delaration of human rights. The rest is changable, but not easily, because society changes continuously. A council of supreme judges (that hold their position as supreme judge for life, so they aren't in a corruptable position- however, they may be forced out of office- I'll explain later) can make alterations to the constitution if a certain percentage of them agrees to it- let's say 75 %.

Below the supreme judges we'd need a larger council of judges that do not have the same authorities of the supreme judges but can force one out of office if a large majority of them agrees- say 75 %. Since this there's nothing else to it in this job, they can also be "normal" judges- but no supreme judge can also be in the council of judges that oversees the supreme judges.

Supreme judges also have the responsibility to monitor the activities of political parties. Any judge can start an investigation in the activities of a particular party- the rights of the enquirers will be considerable.

The supreme judges will have another responsibility, described in the section below.

Democracy

There should be at least several parties (more then 2). Parties that do not oppose violation of human rights are forbidden.

The decisions are made by a cabinet- the way it is composed will be described later. The cabinet is closely monitored by the parlement- I'll explain the election of the parlement now.

It is similar to the Dutch system. There is a set amount of "seats" in the parlement, let's say 150. One seat is thus equevailant to 1/ 150 of all votes put together. Each party makes up a list of the electable members of that party. If a person doesn't vote to a particular member of that party, but just on the party as a whole, the vote goes to #1 on that list. If candidate #1 has enough votes to get a seat in the parlement, the residual votes go to #2. If #2 has enough votes to get a seat, the residual votes go to #3 et cetera. A person can also vote on say #3, but then the residual votes always goes to the highest candidate that does not have residual votes (that could be #1, though he/she is likely to have far more then the required amount of votes).

When the votes are count and the seats distributed, the supreme judges come into the picture. The supreme judges vote for a person that will compose the new cabinet (government). That person will see wich parties are willing to form a new government together. The government can however not do anything if the majority of the parlement doesn't agree to it. Theoreticly the person appointed to compose the government can be bribed to put a party in the goverment that had a relatively low amount of votes, but that won't be of any use because that government is unlikely to get any support from the parlement.

The difference from the Dutch election system is that the person that composes the new government is not appointed by the queen, but by the supreme judges.

Economy

Individual private property is allowed. One man companies such as small stores are allowed. Not allowed are companies that employ others (so that the only employer is the government). All industries are in the hands of the government. Wages are variable. A minimum wage is determined each year to ensure everybody that works can afford the basics of life and some luxuries.

Tax and social security

There will be a minimum wage, wich is slightly above the money sum deemed necessary to stay alive, so the badly paid people can still buy some luxuries such as a TV. Different levels of income are taxed in different manners. The first, say 30,000 euro, are barely taxed at all. The next 30,000 is more heavily taxed etc. There will also be a maximum wage. Persons that earn this, however, cannot sit back, thinking that hard work won't pay off, because the government can lower his wage if his superiors feel he doens't put enough effort into his job.

Unemployed people will get social security- slightly below minimum wage- provided they are looking for work or in school for education. If a person doesn't apply for any job in a month and is not in school either, he will be stripped of social security- a motivation to start looking for work again. If he/she prefers to live on the street rather then to look for a job then that's his/her choice.

Punishment

No suspect should ever be released because of formal mistakes- it's happening now and it's stupid. Furthermore, no death penalty- you are never 100 % sure a person is guilty and death is irreversable. (1 on 7 persons executed in the US turns out not guilty).

Healthcare

Health care will cost money, but any employed person must have a health insurance- and I mean must. If an unemployed person requires treatment, and can't pay for it himself, the treatment will be administered nonetheless, but that person will carry the debt of his payment, and when he finds work, he'll be forced to pay back part of his debt over every dollar he earns.

Education

Every kid younger then 16 years has to go to school. The schools will be funded entirely by taxes. Religious schools are allowed. If a person would wants to start running a school for a particular religion, he must get a certain amount of people from the region to sign a petition- to be sure the school has enough pupils.

If a kid decides to go to college, he will receive a scholarship wich will be high enough to live, but so low it will be beneficial to get a job as well. If his/her grades are low as a result of not enough effort, he will be stripped of his seat in college and his scholarship.

Patent and individual achievement

IF a person were to create say a song independantly from a government ruled institution, he is allowed to sell his song on his own. However, he can't mass produce CDs because all industries are in the hands of the government. He can at any time form a contract with a record company (in the hands of the government). He will get credit for it, and if he wishes the government will fund any concerts provided that there is demand for it. However, most of the money earned from the sale of the artist CDs will be considered state income. The artist will be paid maximum wage as long as the sale of CDs is still profitable.

If a person would invent something independantly from a government ruled institution, he is forced to share the knowledge with the government. He will however be paid considerably for this. How much will depend on how much time and recources it cost to develop this. Any research costs will be included plus maximum wage for the time it cost.

(note that if the artist or developer didn't work independantly but as employees of the government, the creation will be the property of the government because it was their job to write a song/ develop something)

[nemafakei]

I cannot respond to everything yet; I am short on time.

""Tossing them out as a joke" is an unacceptable dis-service to your citizens"

Not to do so is a waste of someone else's time, if councils have to seriously debate whether pheasants should be painted red on Thursdays.

That is what I mean by a joke; with no filter system in place, you will get jokes.

One thing I would that you be clear about is the idea that a local council is different from a global council. The only difference is the matters in question considered. You seem to worry about 'global' issues being dealt with by 'local' councils; remember that people are selected for individual decisions; no 'local' council would have to decide a 'global' issue - it is a contradiciton in terms.

"And what if they don't quantify their findings?"

Then their application will have to be assessed. If they fail to qualify them, especially, they could be tried for abuse of power.

"SO exactly, how is jurisdiction decided"

One council for each decision or set of similar-type decisions. e.g. a coucil might be formed to decide on traffic bollards for the cisalpine highlands.

"I am outraged over this and I want to appeal their decision"

You will look at their decision writeup, why they made it, and if you still feel it is illogical, you will submit a complaint based on the fact that they have not considered something, or they have come to a conclusion based on a flaw you have found. If you don't like their decision, but can find no error, then you have no right to appeal, because you are not in the right...

You have recourse to appeal whenever there is something the council against which you appeal has missed - and you have made this manifest in your appeal application.

[emprworm]

fair enough Edric. Only a few months, then you are correct, it is unfair of me to put a demand of particulars on someone who has only had a few months to think about it. I guess I assumed you have thought about it much longer.

well, when you do think it out, i'd like to hear about it.

like i've said to you and Nema, I am open for a new system, yet i need a lot of questions answered first. The council thing with a computer selecting people at random scares me. Councils as elected officials are more appealing to me, yet I see no ability for a 'web' to function at all without some sort of delegation of jurisdiction and appeal process. This also causes great questions for your judicial system, which I haven't even addressed yet.

[Edric O]

A system where people get elected into power is far more susceptible to corruption than one where they are chosen at random from a pool of competent people.

Just look at all the empty promises, propaganda, manipulation of the masses, ilegal funding, bribing and utter incompetence of our current leaders. Elections have degenerated into a popularity contest between corporate lap dogs.

The thing with our judicial system is that we really haven't thought about it yet, at least I haven't. But it's "coming soon". :)

[nemafakei]

What is the judicial proces but decisions. Indeed, the system I have rather resembles jury service as it is. The difference is that juries will not exact penalties which will not function, and they can punish people for all offences discovered in the course of the trial.

Greater crimes will, of course, require more than one council.

[emprworm]

random from a pool of competent people.

this scares me even more. who decides who is "competent" and who is not? This is absurd and open to FAR greater corruption than the WISHES OF THE FREAKING PEOPLE

lol

wake up edric...snap out of it

o wait, i forgot, the wishes of your people mean nothing! Instead some dumb ignorant Freudian psychologist is going to be deciding the "qualifications" to be an "elected" leader. The true power of your government is run by intellectual elitists who impose their elitism upon other people, stripping them of their free voice simply because, in your elite mentality, they aren't "smart enough" to have a vote. So guys like you and Nema who are just as elitist as Bill Gates- except not with material wealth, think that it is your moral duty to 'protect' the stupid little citizens from themselves by 'deciding' for them how their own government is going to be run. You and Nema think you are better than everyone else - all those low-IQ dumb grunts running around without a clue dont deserve to have a vote in your elitist society. So you and Nema, being everyone's Daddy are going to "protect your little children" (your citizens) from themselves because you know whats best for them!

*PUKE*

I would take up arms in such morally repugnant society, gather as many people as I could, and fight for freedom

This form of elitism is far more threatening than having a few rich people running around. Your so-called "qualifications" as Nema once referred to will be some kind of 'competency exam'- drafted by WHO? By intellectual elitists that think they know "whats best" for their people. Well let me propose an alternate government for you and Nema:

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE WHATS BEST FOR THEMSELVES WE DONT NEED INTELLECTUAL ELITISTS IMPOSING THEIR WILL UPON US

wow, what a concept eh? The people of a government deciding how that government should function. That is called "government that serves the people". In your elite world, the people serve the government...UNLESS you are an intellectual elite- if you are part of the 'opulent pseudo-intellectual' crowd, then you have the real power. But the majority of your citizens will just be a bunch of dumb idiots too 'stupid' to hold an office and too 'stupid' to know whats best for them.

Did anyone ever tell you how utterly insulting that view is?

No? Ok, I will.

That view is insulting.

Your government is corrupt on so many levels it is beyond absurd- worse than Communist Russia of 1928. Yes, I am serious about that.

but why do i have the feeling that the answer to my question "Who decides, exactly, what is 'competent'" will go unanswered by you?

[Anathema]

Aside from the fact you probably don't have the guts to pick up arms against your government, I'm sure you prefer a dumb rich person like Bush to rule instead of smart people. This system is okay as long as the system really is random.[

Or, as you say, we can all become anarchists! Down with authority!

[emprworm]

no, earthnuker, i prefer to let the voice of the people determine who rules- not some intellectual elitist who thinks his superior intellect "knows what is best" for the people.

and bush is not doing a poor job either.

whatever reasons you have for despising him, I do not share.

he went through the UN as the people of the world wanted. he is doing precisely what was asked. he is light years better than clinton

and besides, he is who the people WANTED. I'll take even the deplorable Bill Clinton (who was also what the people wanted) any day over some intellectual elitist chosing whats best for me.

[Edric O]

I will summarize it, Earthnuker, I promise. But I really don't have the time now, sorry. :- I'll post it sometime in the weekend.

but why do i have the feeling that the answer to my question "Who decides, exactly, what is 'competent'" will go unanswered by you?

Because you apparently STILL don't know me very well. I don't back out of arguments. Unlike you... *cough* locking the "Go Bush" topic *cough*

The answer to your question is so simple that you could have easily figured it out for yourself if you hadn't been so busy throwing a tantrum.

THE PEOPLE decide who is competent!

Elitism is repugnant. It is the exact oposite of everything I believe in. ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL. I will never support elitism.

All I'm saying is that a council position is like any other job. In order to join a council, you need two things:

1. You need to WANT to join the council, obviously.

2. You need to pass a basic test on the issue that the council regulates. For example, if you want to be on a council regulating, say, something about agriculture, you need to actually know what the main crops are and what they need to grow.

The "tests" will constantly change as the general situation of the country changes. And the people have the right to veto them.

Or do you think any farmer should be able to join the nuclear power council? Don't be fooled - you have the same situation right NOW in the USA. Could a poor homeless man ever become president?

[Acriku]

How do you know if the people who decide the people who are competent, are competent themselves? We don't want uneducated people choosing people they think is competent, now do we? Then, who picks who is competent enough to pick competent people?

[Edric O]

People whom we already know are competent. Namely those who work in that field. Nuclear engineers would decide the requirements for someone in the nuclear power council, for example.

[Acriku]

Ok, but who HIRED the nuclear engineers? It all has to start somewhere, and how do we know if that "parent" is competent enough?

[Edric O]

It starts either with people who are already working in that field before Consiliary Dynamism is implemented, or (in the case of new inventions) with the one that invented the new field of work, of course.

[Acriku]

Scenario: A person who smoked crack most of his life decided to cheat on everything and become a nuclear engineer, through every way possible. He is now an engineer, now there is a shortage of engineers in one sector. In fact, this crackhead is the only one in this sector (due to accidents and strikes, etc), so he rose the ladder pretty quickly. Now he is the head guy of engineers, don't know the term for boss of engineers, and has done this for a year before Consiliary Dynamism was implemented. It is now implemented, and full of engineers who were way below standards previously set, but taken out thanks to crackhead. It is easier to become an engineer than it is a bagboy. Now the "children" of the parent, the crackhead, are assigned to vote on somebody as head of the Nuclear Committee. They pick a guy who looks cooler, and he becomes the head of the Nuclear Committee. He is part of the head council and is assigned everything considered nuclear. He passes laws and regulations that inevitably destroy the environment. Woohoo for Consiliary Dynamism!

Consider this scenario. It could happen, and can you afford the possibility of this to happen, without having any outside influences, like people who thought the head shouldn't be the head and took him out, but who knows if they are competent to do that? As I have said before, there is always a parent that might not be educated well enough that will not be able to provide educated decisions to the tables.

[Edric O]

Good point.

Notice that the same problem applies to capitalism, however. It's easy to have an incompetent fool ruling over the competent people, for reasons of pure luck (or corruption).

But this must not happen in Consiliary Dynamism. I need to think on this issue. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Acriku]

Yeah it works in capitalism, as well, that's what sucks. But hopefully they will form capitalism into a better indistinguishable form of government, Acrikuism. Ah, sounds good no?

[nemafakei]

Do you not find it repugnant that people could vote in a total idiot, just because they promise to legalise things for that region that would damage other regions?

The tests are basic proficiency tests, in most cases, merely to stop idiots misusing power! What you're saying is that it is better if power is shared between people who both can and can't use it properly, rather than left to the responsible people who are capable of using it. This is absurd, and large orange text doesn't make it any better.

"intellectual elitist"

Just because someone can do some basic thinking doesn't make you an intellectual elitist. Listen to what you are saying; aside from exaggeration, you are basically accepting by implication that you, as a person capable of (I really hope...) rational thought, are an elitist.

Besides, remember that the clever ones are also those in control now. They are the spin doctors behind the parties, the advisors with high wages, there to keep their candidates (and therefore themselves) in power. NOT to make fair decisions. And there is little system to mke sure they're doing sensible things...

"Now the "children" of the parent, the crackhead, are assigned to vote on somebody as head of the Nuclear Committee"

Hang on... who? Are we talking too-involved-to-be-councillors here?

[emprworm]

THE PEOPLE decide who is competent!

Elitism is repugnant. It is the exact oposite of everything I believe in. ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL. I will

the irony Edric is that you and Nema are both elitist, you just dont see it. You want to control people, and you feel that you know whats best for them outside their own will. That is a perfect definition of an elitist. I dont need you, Nema or anyone else telling me what I want and don't want for myself. If some elitist thinks that an elected leader is an idiot- well thats the opinion of the elitst- NOT the opinion of the majority of people that elected that person. if the intellectual elitist (aka, Edric and Nema) think that THEIR opinion on an elected leader who was voted in by the majority of the PEOPLE is SUPERIOR to the opinion of everyone else, and then want to actually SILENCE the majority by imposing their elitist views on everyone else (namely that they are better able to decide who runs a population, instead of that population), then as far as I'm concerned, such a government is an abomination.

You spew contradictory rubbish. On one hand all are equal, on the other, they are inferior to you. The moment you dictate that the voice of MAJORITY of the people are incompetent and should submit to the voice of the FEW (like you and Nema), then you are now an elitist.

Now, I dont mind you having the view that the majority of popular free-will decision by people is incompetent, so long as you do not try to IMPOSE your views upon them (namely that they aren't fit to decide what they want for themselves). That is just rediculous.

And then you contradict yourself again by saing that "

THE PEOPLE decide who is competent!"

Well that is EXACTLY what a popular election is. Yet you, like Nema, want some machine to decide who is going to hold office based upon a pool of people who have to pass "competency exams"-- this is NOT the same as saying "THE PEOPLE decide who is competent!" You contradict yourself. In yours and Nema's elitist viewpoints, it is the COMPETENCY EXAMS that decide who is competent...NOT the people. The people have nothing to do with your government, except submit to the intellectuals. Daddy knows best right?

Do you not find it repugnant that people could vote in a total idiot, just because they promise to legalise things for that region that would damage other regions?

3 things:

idiot to whom?

I find it more repugant that a few intellectual elitist who dont like the free choice of the majority would actually support the idea of silencing that free voice just so their candidates will come into power. This is abhorrent and far worse than an idiot being elected by popular vote. You CANNOT impose your will on a society anymore than I can impose my religion upon you. If you dont like what the majority of society freely chooses, then GET OUT.

lol! Its not your place to put yourself in a superior position to them and then dictate that their voices are too "stupid" to speak.

The tests are basic proficiency tests, in most cases, merely to stop idiots misusing power!

3 things:

#1. Idiot to whom? Idiot just to you? Idiot to the intellectual His ideologies may be different than the intellectual elitists- does that make him an idiot? He doesn't believe in machines selecting people at random for positions in public office and he has already professed that if he gets a position in government office, he is going to take active steps to change that policy. So is he now "unfit" to serve in public office?

#2. and you actually think a stupid Freudian test is going to stop someone with a malicious will? Or do you think that all malicious people are idiots? Have you not ever considered that there are brilliant people in the world who are also filled with wicked motives? And you really think a little test is going to weed them out? You dont think a con and a cheat with an IQ of 175 is capable of 'passing' your exam? Its much harder for a scoundrel to fool the GENERAL POPULACE than it is to fool a pitiful exam. There will be MORE CROOKS in your government than in a free democracy.

#3. JUST WHO EXACTLY ADMINISTERS, EDITS, UPDATES THESE EXAMS?

What you're saying is that it is better if power is shared between people who both can and can't use it properly, rather than left to the responsible people who are capable of using it. This is absurd, and large orange text doesn't make it any better.

no, what I am saying is that it is better for power to rest with the people, rather than intellectual elitists that determine A) what is best for everyone else, regardless of what they think, and B) who is 'fit' to hold office based upon their own imposing ideologies.

"intellectual elitist"

Just because someone can do some basic thinking doesn't make you an intellectual elitist.

it does when you think you can do the 'thinking' for someone else- namely the free voice of the general population.

Listen to what you are saying; aside from exaggeration, you are basically accepting by implication that you, as a person capable of (I really hope...) rational thought, are an elitist.

no. a rational person becomes an elitist when he thinks that he should be doing the thinking for other people. I rationally conclude that a society IS the people. A society is NOT the government. SOCIETY = PEOPLE. And if PEOPLE want Candidate George and a few intellectuals want candidate John and those intellectuals then think they should IMPOSE candidate DESPITE what the people want, simply because it better suits their 'conclusions' then they become elitist. Elitists impose. That is what you are doing.

When people elect leaders, the power rests with the people. That is where it belongs. When a minority of intellectuals take away that power from the general people and hand it over to themselves and a bunch of exams, machines, ect., then we have elitism. I say that if the elitists dont like it, then they can leave and start their own country.

I'd rather have an elected idiot like Bill Clinton any day as president than some unchosen product of a few intellectuals. At least Bill Clinton represented what SOCIETY wanted. The unchosen product of a few intellectuals represents what the ELITISTS wanted. I choose, therefore, what society wants.

And i liked the orange letters! :)

[nemafakei]

"it does when you think you can do the 'thinking' for someone else- namely the free voice of the general population"

Your only alternative would be an elitist who is merely a popular elitist; there is no reason for an intellectual to be elitist, but politicians are more likely to be politico-elitists, having entered into politics anyway!

And we know that there are malicious people who are good at being politicians and can rally support well for their own power.

"If you dont like what the majority of society freely chooses, then GET OUT."

Do you honestly think that the populace of the world has much of a real choice? Of course! They are free to choose Corrupt person A or corrupt person B! Wow!

Come on, this is what I've been saying from the start, and you have not told me how you're going to maintain a real choice for all the people.

"You dont think a con and a cheat with an IQ of 175 is capable of 'passing' your exam?"

He can pass the exam, yes. And when he gets a job, he will not get enough to manipulate it to his own personal benefit, is he?

The point of the exams are to stop idiots getting in. The point of the selection process is to stop greedy people manipulating power. Don't confuse the two.

"he is going to take active steps to change that policy"

Only if that is the decision to which he is assigned is he.

I've already dealt with almost all of your points, like the exam-setting, elsewhere in the thread (probably just worded differently)... do you have something new?

[Edric O]

the irony Edric is that you and Nema are both elitist, you just dont see it.

Yes, I'm sure you know what we think much better than we do. In fact, we should all bow before your unbound wisdom. ::)

Yet you, like Nema, want some machine to decide who is going to hold office

LOL! There's no all-powerful "machine". It's just a random selection. Now, the easiest way to do that is with a machine, but if you hate machines for some reason, you can choose from a number of other ways.

In yours and Nema's elitist viewpoints, it is the COMPETENCY EXAMS that decide who is competent...NOT the people.

The competency exams don't just pop out of thin air. They must be approved by the people.

One of the basic principles of Consiliary Dynamism is that NOTHING overrides the will of the majority. (with the exception of judicial processes, like criminal trials - justice is not democratic)

A popular election is a popularity contest, and you need to spend millions of dollars to stand the slightest chance to get into office.

I ask you again: Could a homeless man become president of the USA? How about YOU? Could YOU get elected with your current social and financial status?? OF COURSE NOT!

Every US president was/is a white male. Gotta love democracy ::)