Transformation

[Davidu]

I'm amazed what amplitude of politics and religion debates are here in this Dune forum. I'd say you all are obsesed by theese things (not a bad thing, neither too good either).

//---

A question: if you had the chance of ruling a nation (fiction) how would you rule it?

//---

I would use a mixture of parliamentary democracy and dictature.

The parliament does the paper work and the leader (and its cabinet) should take care of the extarnal politics, the aplication of laws... and so on...

the leader should be elected by the parliament - he should be a competent person.

[Andrew]

I would rule the same way Leto II (Dune) did. it would be fun.

[nemafakei]

I would start off as a stand-in dictator and create advisory boards until I can get the following system up and running, at which point I will go back to linguistics.

The basic principle of this government and syatem is that we co-ordinate better, as a world (if possible). That is to say, rather than working against each other in the antagonism that prevails today, causing things like poverty and its humanitarian effects, (and so catastrophes like those on 11/09/01), we would create a way by which we could work together. This will entail refocusing greed, one of the banes of modern civilisation into something constructive. That is, I would have it that the concept of making profit impossible. For profit means that someone or everyone else loses; a system by which everyone makes profit is a contradiction, since money is an expression of buying power of a percentage of the world's resources; the more money in the system, the less the money is worth. A system by which only a few make profit means that others become poor - this is unfair and immoral. We must refocus greed for the self to seek prosperity for the community that is our world.

To co-ordinate well, we must find a system that does not merely agree on a few rules of thumb and let things be - aside from being lazy, this will fail to protect people. Moreover, a government can never be based on the representation of self-interest. One village should not simply damn a river that another village relies on for a water supply. All plans must be drawn up with the intrests of all parties concerned in mind. For any dispute, negotiations are quicker and easier if the only negotiators are ones who are not involved parties. Moreover, better decisions will be created, since it is not in the interest of the negotiators to make a bad decision, the like of which happen today - especially when parties that would be harmend do not even get a lookin as to the decision.

It is not that individuals are all too stupid to decide for themselves what to do, it is that they may often be biased in their approach to a decision involving them, so arbitration must start.

To clarify a misconception.... The idea is not that people serve some hazy body called "The Government" (which would be made up by the populace themselves anyway). The people serve each other, being part of a community. No-one has the "right" to do something that is harmful to others. And inaction can be an active decision in of itself, and one which can indirectly hatm others. The government is merely an influence by which we protect each other from coming to harm, not some end in itself. However, we must make sure that it functions well, and to do this, we must help the governmental system to help each other.

However, it is not requires to sacrifice everything for others - we are just as much on the receiveng end of benefit.

Let me also dissuade you from the overused notion that everyone has certain rights which are somehow paramount. The idea in the form we know today was conceived in times when people were very worried about systems which would create wars and otherwise lead to general hardship. "Rights" is one tool that was used to stop prevent oppression. However, in systems designed specifically for the purpose of the benefit for all, whereby "rights" are not needed as a check-and-balance to stop misuse of power, we can safely dispose of the notion that is pleaded as a purpose in of itself.

That is not to say that we should not be free, that we should not be allowed to speak our thoughts, that we should not be given choice as to what we do, who we talk to. Indeed, to stop people doing these things would be counterproductive. But to enshrine these ideas as something we must protect at the expense of others is not sensible. Of course, no-one can go around imprisoning, gagging, or restricting people. But before providing for luxuries, we must make sure that we put our effort into getting everyone fed, educated, and in a position from which they can maximise their potential and be useful to society.

Let us consider the phrase "power corrupts". The idea of democracy is that power shared across the entire population will not be sufficient in any individual to corrupt any one. However, modern democracy fails in two ways: firstly, democracies elect representatives who individually hold power that would otherwise be spread across thousands of constituents - possibly sufficient to corrupt. Secondly, there is the problem that politics in a democracy where the people do not use their power or do not use it sensibly turns into a popularity contest, or a choice between larger parties so similar that the public are apathetic about any, and therefore about all politics. We see here the opposite to "power corrupts" - "weakness breeds disinterest" - without the choice of something different, people take what they are given for granted, and begin to ignore it.

However, note that in both cases that it is not the power or weakness itself which has this effect - it is someone's belief in the magnitude of their power that corrupts, and someone's lack of faith in their own ability to change something that makes them stop trying. Note especially that the illusion of power is relative - individual voters feel weaker if there is an omnipotent president, but stronger if there are larger groups who are unable to vote.

Therefore, when constructing a system of government, it must be considered that no-one should believe they have sufficient power to manipulate it to their own wont. Equally, no-one in the system should feel that they are so weak that the decisions they are asked to make are not needed or useful. To do this, we must make each decision universal, but no decision can be so great that it might be manipulated by greed, so that the balanced belief is supported by truth. This seems impossible. I believe it is not.

At this point, I will remind you of another political idea that is relevant. The idea of checks and balances to stop corruption by limitation of power is essential. It can be through scrutiny panels like corruption courts, or the electorate. Or, it can be through division of power - separate executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government are common to many European democracies. Of these options, both will stop any manipulation of decisions for the purpose of greed, but only the second allows (some) decisions to be universal - in that decisions made by the Judiciary usually cannot be revoked or affected by decisions by the legislative. However, in most countries with such a system, we still have conflicts between different stages of the system - local legislative groups might pass a bye-law, but a national parliament might declare that the bye-law will be damaging to the country as a whole, thus over-ruling it. Therefore, the solution again seems to be to divide up the roles of of each body further, so that any one decision can only be made by one governing body - no single body can make decisions which are superior to those of another body. There are two reasons for this - first, the idea that one council is any better at making decisions than another is absurd. Secondly, as previously stated, the illusion of power is relative; if two councils composed in the same way were to make decisions on the same problem, making one council's decision constitutionally superior to that of the other will cause the 'better' council members to feel more powerful - and they would be more prone to corruption, whereas the 'worse' councillors would be more prone to disinterest.

So decisions should only be made once - this considerably reduces red tape, but appears to leave no route for appeal. This is not true, however. If the situation (or evidence) has changed considerably since the initial decision was made, then that decision will not be made again if an appeal is mounted - the decision could well be a different one, since it will be made concerning different circumstances, even if the topic and question are the same.

Next, it must be found how to best do this. It is obvious that no decision can be made by one person alone. But equally, it is difficult to keep an overlarge group informed well enough that they can contribute to the decision and the discussion of the decision. These are considerationsthat must be taken, but it is not my place, nor is it within my ability to assert or otherwise prescribe a set size for each body. However, it is known that there must be a great number of these bodies, each to deal with a different set of issues. Each council will have an equal amount of power, because each decision will be irrefutible by other councils. Some councils will be permenant (the members, of course, will not), but some will be temporary (councils to run enquiries into reasons for problems, crises, and disasters). Some will deal with research and analysis to provide information for other councils, others will make executive decisions. Some will deal with the administration (creation of, removal of, assignment of personnel to, liasons between) other councils.

So, once we have developed such a format for a council, we need to know about its members - specifically, how they are chosen. Since, in a vast network of councils, it is impossible to elect every single one democratically (plus, see above the problems of democracy, eg the tendency to elect figures for their popularity, not their ability), they must be elected in some other fashion. Moreover, this method cannot be relative to any form of political weightings, because that would be subject to opinion, as well as corruption. The only fair method is to select people randomly from the population to contribute, in the same way as National Service works in some European countries. Note that proficiency tests in such decision making would be required - perhaps in the form of written examinations, coupled with oral work and interviews. Those passing a minimum standard in capability and willingness will be put on a database, from which possible candidates for each council will be randomly selected, based on their preferences and interest in particular topics (so that people are not chosen to work on topics that bore them. Equally, someone who feels passionately about a particular topic is unsuitable to work as an unbiased opinion in a council). Testing methods for these attributes will have to be refined. It'll be difficult at first, but will become easier in the long run.

All finances are government-controlled. Your wages will be calculated on how well you serve the community compared to your potential. Therefore, a brilliant accountant will be paid more for doing accounting than otherwise. If you are serving the community at your full potential (ie no laziness, doing whatever will help the community most), then you will receive the maximum payment, based on how much is being produced by the country. NB, if there is a lack of teachers, an accountant might be paid more to be a Maths teacher. Council work will be paid at a good level as well.

Hence, shopkeepers will not profit from what they take in; goods will be bought by plastic card, shopkeepers will be paid by the government. Corruption is impossible, because there is no means by which it can occur, if all money is issued by the government.

That's most of it. I think it could work; if you want to contribute or understand it more easily, please IM me.

[Anathema]

Hmmm, I digged this up from an old post.

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)

[DukeLeto]

Hmm, simply put:

Government system: Representative democracy

Economic system: Socialism

Education: Free, tax-funded education, required through age 18, optional college. Strict barring of religion in schools.

Rights: Freedom of speech/the press/religion/etc. Equal rights for all, regardless of race, sex, or creed.

Kind of like a socialist United States.

[Edric O]

Well, basically... What Nema said. :)

[emprworm]

i wouldn't rule a nation. power corrupts....anyone....everyone.

Nema believes he can withstand the immense corruptive force of power as a "stand-in dictator" and later give it up. Well I'm sure he truly believes that, but I don't.

Given any human being on earth as a "stand in dictator" who will later give up their power...I would not trust any of them. NO one. This is not meant as an insult on Nema or anyone else....because I wouldn't even trust myself.

Would any of you here actually trust a "stand-in dictator" to later on give up his/her power?

[Andrew]

As in God Emperor of Dune:

Safaris through ancestral memories teach me many things. The patterns, ahhh, the patterns Liberal bigots are the ones who trouble me most. I distrust the extremes. Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat. It's true! Liberal governments always develop into aristocracies The bureaucracies betray the true intent of people who form such governments. Right from the first, the little people who formed the governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course, all bureaucracies follow this pattern. but what a hypocrisy to find this even under a communized banner Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it's that patterns are repeated. My oppressions. by and large, are no worse than any of the others and, at least. I teach a new lesson.

-The Stolen Journals

Page 141

So you would become corrupted and thus pass on the corruption maybe.

I love Dune, so handy.

As for ruling a nation, if it paid well why not? I could become corrupted doing anything else.

[Gobalopper]

Any "utopia" would be impossible in this world. No matter how many rules and restrictions you have in place people will break them. It would be great to see happen but impossible to attain.

[Colonel_Worf]

I would be sole dictator and give everyone equal oppurtunity and all that good stuff. :P

[Edric O]

There will always be people who break the law, Gob. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the system.

[Caid Ivik]

Question is, how much non-supporters should have been granted by influental abilities. There should be some control, but not too big. If we won't do nothing, it will be a chaos like in USA, where fanatical opposers of war are going to target country to "stop bombs with their bodies".

[Davidu]

I agree that power corrupts, but wouldn't be interesting to test each of us to see if this would really happend?

I mean something like a psichological test for us "political-freaks"? ;D

It would be interesting to know how much power I can handle before I loose control of myself.