As kids, we’re told only people who go to college/university for politics/economics/law are qualifiable to make/run a country. As adults, we see no nation these “qualified” adults form actually work as a nation, with all manifesto-driven governments failing. Which to me validates the ambitions of all political theorist amateurs, especially as there are higher hopes now that anything an amateur might throw at the wall can stick. Here’s my favorite from a friend.
I think anyone who wants to lead a country or hold office should be forbidden from it. Figure out some qualifications to disqualify anyone truly unfit to lead and have a lottery for everyone else. Maybe give out extra entries for volunteering or other public service, but make the process uncorruptable.
Then at the end of their term everyone gets to vote on how good a job they did. Maybe execute or imprison anyone who gets a bad enough score. If you get high enough, you get a nice pension and favorable mentions in history books. Either way, no one is eligible to be picked again. They could advise the next administration if everyone agreed.
I can think of a hundred ways this could go badly, but I’m not sure the result would be any worse than what we’ve got.
and have a lottery for everyone else.
Man I hate being the head of budget and finance for the city…
Then at the end of their term everyone gets to vote on how good a job they did. Maybe execute or imprison anyone who gets a bad enough score.
Fuck…
I’m not really a fan of execution. It would be a shame if that happened in any but the worst cases. Just trying to motivate doing one’s best. Maybe you only need the carrot and not the stick.
This is not an idea I came up with, but I haven’t seen it anywhere else and I don’t remember where I heard it.
Basically the rules are:
- Every vote on every question is handled by direct democracy
- But, you can assign your vote to another person at any time. ie Give them your voting power so now they have two votes on any topic
- Furthermore, a person to whom you’ve assigned your vote can in turn assign it to someone else.
- You can always see who’s wielding your vote power, you can see who assigned it to whom
- Any time you want, you can take your vote back
So basically I can assign my vote to Bob because I trust his judgment. Bob can assign mine and his own to Alice, because Bob trust’s Alice’s judgment.
I can check what’s happening with my vote, and see that it’s been assigned to Bob, who assigned it to Alice, etc.
There is no limit to the number of reassignments that can happen.
Basically it’s direct democracy by default, but with an infinitely and dynamically scaleable structure of delegation layers in between.
A person can be as involved or uninvolved as they want. Their minimum involvement would be choosing which friend they trust to handle their vote. Maximum involvement could mean seeking to convince millions of others to trust you with their vote. Or getting thousands of intermediate delegates to delegate all their voting power to you.
I won’t fire you if you give me your vote. Or only rent an apartment to you if you give me your vote.
I will also lobby for “common sense” limitations on who can see the vote delegation (i.e. hide it from the plebs).
Also, my buddy owns most of the media, so expect them to fear-monger about the dangers of making the votes public.
I feel like we’re in the garbage-age of MMOs, but when the next golden age of MMOs happens, I want to see worlds where these experimental forms of government are attempted. At least digitally.
The problem with experimenting with government in video games is there’s no death in video games, and handling death is one of the most important roles of government.
That is an interesting thought. If humans were immortal, would we have any government?..hm, yeah, I believe we still would. I think it’s less about the threat of death for an individual and more about the management of resources for a population.
But the intent would not be to see what works in a video game and try to use it IRL, the intention is to see where these systems breakdown in unforeseen ways when implemented at scale.
But mostly, I just want to see new fun ideas in the genre. There are no new MMOs willing to take the risk of letting one player’s experience be dependent on the behaviour of another player, let alone allow a fully player-managed government. For now we live in a world where Destiny 2 is what qualifies as an MMO. But I digress.
I would rather just fix the one we have.
Reps nor the kids nor their partners can own stock and anyone found taking bribes or lobbyist money is immediately kicked out of their position and all money they received while being a rep is stripped from them and given to a healthcare or social program.
All gerrymandering is undone and fuck the electoral college.
Everyone listens to me and gives me things. I eventually get shot in the face which causes societal collapse. Or something.
Personally I favour a council socialism where all are equal, regardless of any circumstance; none has lasting power, no central government is apparent, no permanent imprisonment exists, and direct representatives can be called and revoked at any moment for specific issues. Everyone has free studying, healthcare, housing, and food.
Where one can enjoy the fruits of another’s property, that should be fairly shared, instead of the “owner” being able to set prices. This would be done by nullifying any possibility to set prices or gains from this property.
There would be only multiple random ballots if votes occur. All options proposed shall be on the ballots, regardless of circumstance.
The challenge is making not only a central government not exist, but making it impossible for such a central government to gain foothold, and also to make it unattractive for communes to grow too big lest they become authoritarian.
This can be achieved by two methods:
-
Revolution, preferably peaceful.
-
Or by reform. One possibility is living together in a commune. To make money effectively meaningless, first all must benefit equally from the influx of money, without sensing a need of money. All people’s income towards a collectively owned bank account, for example, that buys basic needs like food, housing for everyone, and gives personal property. Nobody has money themselves.
Ideally, this would start from one suburb, as then a core of a moneyless world can be built, but can be done internationally too.
A commune is delineated by: being the smallest amount of people that can sustain itself on its own labour and own populace, and being the largest amount of people where everyone could know one another.
This would in practice mean a commune of about 100-500 people, maybe 300.
