EPTThe LiquidLegends Lounge - Page 1821
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
| ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
In reality, it's just another system to be abused. There will be whole swathes of society that can't meet the merits for one reason or another. And those people will be upset about it. There will be people in power that will effect the system or lives however they can in order to stay in power, and to get the people who want to vote for them into place. It's a nice idea, but you're basically saying "wouldn't it be great if society was even more haves vs have nots?", to which the answer will almost always be "no, because France still gets nervous around the word guillotine". | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
as a counterpoint you could say that the soviet union 'fell apart' but that's just in terms of the actual union, almost all of the past member states still exist with some form of a 'nobody gets a voice' system. they aren't 'doing fine' by western standards maybe, but they understand the value in keeping your subjects ignorant and stupid insofar as as long as the population thinks they're doing fine everything works out for you as a leader. absolutism and totalitarianism just tends to attract dumbasses to the top so their failrate is higher, they're not inherently doomed - looking beyond the last ~200 years of history will tell you as much. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
But you could be sure that even if that happens, it would fall apart. Because either a group of stupid people will think that their best interests aren't being met (because they're greedy or stupid), or a group of people who want that power for themselves will convince them. I don't think there's a system that greedy or stupid people can't find a way to ruin. I'm not saying what we're using right now is any better, but claiming that any form of government is above that is, frankly, shortsighted. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5010 Posts
On January 12 2018 05:04 Holyflare wrote: Who decides whether something goes ahead or not? Who decides where cuts happen? If it's the people your country will go very bankrupt very fast. That's where I still need to flesh it out haha, but I'm sure there's a solution. Also, why need cuts when a there's a system in place that's much more efficient with a budget? On January 12 2018 05:08 Requizen wrote: The blue sky dream is that with a meritocracy, the cream of the crop gets to make the decisions because they're the most well informed, passionate, insightful, or intelligent people on that subject. And in this blue sky, everyone is ok with that. The people who don't get to vote will be pushed to be better, the people who do get to vote will be encouraged to help others. In reality, it's just another system to be abused. There will be whole swathes of society that can't meet the merits for one reason or another. And those people will be upset about it. There will be people in power that will effect the system or lives however they can in order to stay in power, and to get the people who want to vote for them into place. It's a nice idea, but you're basically saying "wouldn't it be great if society was even more haves vs have nots?", to which the answer will almost always be "no, because France still gets nervous around the word guillotine". If elected officials can be dethroned just as fast as they can be elected (no term to sit out), they'd be much more weary of doing a good job. They'd be under much more scrutiny than they'd be now, with instant feedback. I think that if we keep certain things regional, with an overarching nationwide summit every so often, I guess that could work? I don't know man, lately I've been into the more communal, split up way of how a society should be experienced. Most people don't care about more than just their local shit anyway.. | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
It's not the system that matters so much, it's ourselves. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On January 12 2018 05:22 Uldridge wrote: That's where I still need to flesh it out haha, but I'm sure there's a solution. Also, why need cuts when a there's a system in place that's much more efficient with a budget? If elected officials can be dethroned just as fast as they can be elected (no term to sit out), they'd be much more weary of doing a good job. They'd be under much more scrutiny than they'd be now, with instant feedback. I think that if we keep certain things regional, with an overarching nationwide summit every so often, I guess that could work? I don't know man, lately I've been into the more communal, split up way of how a society should be experienced. Most people don't care about more than just their local shit anyway.. If an official could be dethroned easily, it would just lead to constant smear campaigns by opponents to try and get them voted out asap. You think two party systems are bad now? Imagine if (and I'll use American terms because I'm not familiar with other countries) every time a Democrat was elected it was nothing but shitflinging by Republicans until they were out, and vice versa. Even "clean" officials could be dethroned by enough people saying that they're "not representing them correctly". | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5010 Posts
On January 12 2018 05:30 Requizen wrote: If an official could be dethroned easily, it would just lead to constant smear campaigns by opponents to try and get them voted out asap. You think two party systems are bad now? Imagine if (and I'll use American terms because I'm not familiar with other countries) every time a Democrat was elected it was nothing but shitflinging by Republicans until they were out, and vice versa. Even "clean" officials could be dethroned by enough people saying that they're "not representing them correctly". Two party systems don't work. Even representative democracy doesn't work imo (and that's the closest you can get to representing the general population). Let's say we have a society with basic human values: food, water, housing, heat, internet and electricity, health care. I'd say this is pretty basic (although hot debate in other countries still...). You don't really need a lot of policy changes. You don't need a spectrum any longer. You just need good ideas. People will rise up with good ideas and will be backed if they are sound. I also think most of the changes don't have to be done on a national level, that's too big. You'd still need some form of governmental body for that, but like I said, I'll need time to flesh it out lol. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On January 12 2018 05:30 Uldridge wrote: So you need a system that's in everyone's best interests. A system where abusers are found and exposed quickly and one where good contributors are kept in place. A system where a significant amount of people would want to contribute to. Because now, I feel like there's too much nonchalance. If you only have ~50% of the US population voting for the most mainstream things, you can say there's problem. You're not wrong. Call when you find one, lol. | ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On January 12 2018 05:24 iCanada wrote: The problem with any system is the the ability for it to be abused / mistreated. It's not the system that matters so much, it's ourselves. There's the bingo. Corruption doesn't arise out of the various systems we've created throughout human history, it always exists and always finds the cracks within them. That doesn't mean don't attempt to come up with better ideas, but anything that wholly revolves around the idea that it can't/won't be abused should pretty much instantly be thrown out because it's going to happen. Our best bet is trying to limit abuse constitution style, we just maybe need to update it because you know, it's old and corruption evolves. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5010 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 12 2018 05:22 Uldridge Most people don't care about more than just their local shit anyway.. People care even less about their local shit. They get riled up by a politician who says he'll do things for people halfway across the country or even halfway across the world but CBA to vote in elections for their locality. The more tedious you make the process, the less people give a shit. Corruption thrives on apathy, and making the system of checks and balances more involved just makes people more apathetic. On January 12 2018 05:39 Uldridge wrote: I know there'll always be people that operate in bad faith or who can be influenced super hard by entities operating in bad faith, but yeah, I guess the rewards of not being corrupt should just outweigh the benefits of being corrupt I guess. GL with that. The material gain that bad actors can promise a politician is orders of magnitude than what they can get for acting in good faith. You can't beat arbitrary sums of $$$$. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5010 Posts
They don't care about their local politicians, sure, but all you need is ONE guy that talks about a problem he sees with the daily route he takes, YOU also take to get to your work and bam, you might be interested to suddenly streamline the traffic so you don't sit in the jam and can come hope 10 minutes earlier. I can and I will beat arbitrary sums of money, Yango, you watch me! | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On January 12 2018 05:40 TheYango wrote: People care even less about their local shit. They get riled up by a politician who says he'll do things for people halfway across the country or even halfway across the world but CBA to vote in elections for their locality. The more tedious you make the process, the less people give a shit. Corruption thrives on apathy, and making the system of checks and balances more involved just makes people more apathetic. People would care more if they thought it would make a difference. We're apathetic because we know no local government actually makes a difference, at least any more than the one before (which may have been the same or different, it doesn't matter). If a local person got elected and changed things within a year, you'd see at least a little more interest. On January 12 2018 05:40 TheYango wrote: GL with that. The material gain that bad actors can promise a politician is orders of magnitude than what they can get for acting in good faith. You can't beat arbitrary sums of $$$$. I often wonder what it would take for money to become obsolete (in like a Star Trek Federation type of way). I guess it won't until we have free, unlimited energy and food supplies. But then power will still be power. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5010 Posts
| ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
On January 12 2018 05:32 red_ wrote: There's the bingo. Corruption doesn't arise out of the various systems we've created throughout human history, it always exists and always finds the cracks within them. That doesn't mean don't attempt to come up with better ideas, but anything that wholly revolves around the idea that it can't/won't be abused should pretty much instantly be thrown out because it's going to happen. Our best bet is trying to limit abuse constitution style, we just maybe need to update it because you know, it's old and corruption evolves. I agree here, except that I would add that even if you do design a good system and put good people in power that goodness can slowly decay over time as it crumples against the steady force of human fallibility and self-interest. Not to mention that a system that's good today can be terrible 100 years from now. But a good system is definitely better than a terrible system. So trying to make a better system is far from pointless. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On January 12 2018 06:44 phyvo wrote: I agree here, except that I would add that even if you do design a good system and put good people in power that goodness can slowly decay over time as it crumples against the steady force of human fallibility and self-interest. Not to mention that a system that's good today can be terrible 100 years from now. But a good system is definitely better than a terrible system. So trying to make a better system is far from pointless. But are the systems already in place terrible? Or are they good systems that are being abused? Is it worth trying to tear down what we currently have instead of just flushing them out and cleaning them up? If you could remove every person from office in every country right now and put a vote up to replace them with new candidates, would that be better or worse than building something new from the ground up? | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5010 Posts
Everyone can do what they want, everything is everyone's, state is run by people that know what they do and are guided by technology, as paradigm shifts (ideological, infrastructural, individual) should be solely technology based (space travel/colonization/mining, transhumanism, AI, automation, energy production, ...) I feel like we are heading towards technocracy anyway. As long as we keep advancing knowledge, technology will change and become better and more complex. We have to be able to keep up as a society, but I feel like we can't keep up. From a biotechnological perspective for example: we're at the dawn of synthetic biology, integrating machine with man, robust gene therapy (with a microbial given cut and paste gene editing machine), ending (or at the very least significantly prolonging) the effects of senescence. And people still debate whether evolution is real or not... If the rift becomes too big, we're either going to have to cut certain ties anyway, or we're going to collapse on ourselves super duper hard. | ||
|
DarkCore
Germany4194 Posts
And when that happens, shit is going to break loose. I honestly hope a dystopian future where the rich hide in their impenetrable fortresses from the seething masses doesn't happen, but I also wonder if Universal Income is really just a ploy to continue running an artificial economy so that the rich will stay rich. Also feel that because of said technology, AI overlord is a real alternative. At the very least, taking into consideration data from massive data mining projects to determine people's pressing concerns might be a lot better than only having representative politicians. | ||
| ||
