If you could create your own government, what would you want

[Tarragon]

Without necessarily getting into present partisan politics, but accepting politics is part of it, how would you structure government? This will probably also include economics at it's core. If you want, you could reform a present government or design a new one out of whole cloth. Maybe it would be pure socialist, pure libertarian, theocratic, despotic, or something in between, but how would it work? Imagine you're at a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia (ca. 1880 or 2018) and you havethe opportunity to be a Founding Father/Mother (or Framer if you prefer).

From what I've seen, any political-economic system will work as long as the subjects want it to. Of course this could include multi-ethnic apartheid systems or monocultural systems Japan. (Ainu who?) Maybe we could discuss how different mechanisms of governance can work, as opposed to moralities of why they shouldn't be allowed to.

You can talk about core principles first, and figure out the mechanics later. Some of us may have had a head start, since we've been thinking about it for a long time. But if someone introduces us to a new idea, that could change everything.

I'll put my ideas in a separate post.

[Tarragon]

Principle: Consent of the governed
Even God got consent from the Israelites at Mount Sinai according to the stories, so that should help sell it to the segment of the population that tends to presume consent, because history. You know, the types that say if you don't like it here, leave. In this system, people would have somewhere to go.

* Continuous Consent
Each election is a referendum. A certain percentage of the eligible population must vote, or else the government is no longer legitimate. To win, a candidate must receive a majority of the eligible voters. Instead of mandatory voting, induce them with entry into a lottery. Another inducement is surveys, because a lot of people will love to BMR at the government.

* Special Consent.
Another way to get voting up is Revenue Referenda where people who oppose an expensive project, or service can vote against it, but people who want it not only vote for it but can buy extra votes by putting their own money into escrow. To keep the wealthy from running away with it, we might separate acceptance votes from payment votes, with a minimum threshold for both.

* 3 Internal Participation levels
If someone doesn't want to participate in government or society, give them an out.
Citizenship has all the rights and responsibilities of voting, holding office, gun ownership, and a possible military draft or other service requirement.
Residency allows them to own land, own and operate most classes of vehicles, and work in important jobs like banking or teaching, and maybe vote in Revenue Referenda.
Migrancy is for people who want to have no responsibilities. Migrants can still work in non-essential jobs and lease housing, and might be permitted to drive personal vehicles or not. Migrancy includes foreigners who are living in-country seasonally or permanently as workers or students, but not tourists or business visitors who have residency or citizenship elsewhere.

* 3 External Participation levels (it's fractal)
Local government, as explained above.
Wilderness is outside of government where people live without rules of governance.
Supra-government maintains the status between the wilderness and the local government and other local governments. Joining is optional. There are additional rules, taxes and responsibilities, but there are more rights, privileges and immunities as well. The idea is to increase personal liberty while constraining corporate liberty. Only members can hold positions in the supra-government. Companies that do business with the Supra-government must be chartered under it, which means their executives and boards must also be members. People and companies that violate the rules can either accept punishment or avoid it by rescinding their membership (because consent).

* 3 levels of Wilderness
Free Wilderness can be optional for decent people who want to do their own thing.
Penal Wilderness for exiling criminals.
Idealistic "wilderness" enclaves can be set up for observing strict religious, social, political or racial ideals.

* Moral laws ("put your money where their mouth is")
Some people want to live with strict religious or idealistic rules. Instead of fighting it out with laws, courts, or a "culture war", we provide them contracts at their request. If they violate their own rules, the government punishes them. If they change their mind, they can cancel from the contract at any time if they're in good standing. However, if they are found guilty of violating their contract, they can only avoid punishment by rescinding their membership/citizenship (because consent).

Thoughts?

[Swift]

I generally have been pro-democracy (well, actually, pro-republic / representational democracy), but I've been seriously reconsidering that position (and well before Trump ran for office).

The ugly truth is a lot of people are idiots, and shouldn't have any say in how the planet is managed. I've become increasingly convinced that this democracy thing may not be such a good idea. Maybe people need to prove some fundamental understanding of some of the issues and the basic nature of how the country works before they are allowed to vote.

But fundamentally humans are unmanageable, and I don't have a clue as to how it should be done. The only thing I can imagine worse than designing a system to govern them would be to actually have to govern them.

And no... none of this is a joke.

[SciFiFisher]

I generally have been pro-democracy (well, actually, pro-republic / representational democracy), but I've been seriously reconsidering that position (and well before Trump ran for office).

The ugly truth is a lot of people are idiots, and shouldn't have any say in how the planet is managed. I've become increasingly convinced that this democracy thing may not be such a good idea. Maybe people need to prove some fundamental understanding of some of the issues and the basic nature of how the country works before they are allowed to vote.

But fundamentally humans are unmanageable, and I don't have a clue as to how it should be done. The only thing I can imagine worse than designing a system to govern them would be to actually have to govern them.

And no... none of this is a joke.

I honestly think everyone should have to earn the right to vote. I.e. some form of national service. Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Military, and etc. I know that some feel that would be unconstitutional. But, I agree with Swift that we have allowed too many ignorant people the right to vote.

As for managing humans I often tell people that if offered a job herding nurses or cats you should always choose cats.

[Thumper]

However aligned you are against cats, they are usually predictable...

[vendic]

Basic understanding of policies should be a pre-requisite.
If you're so gun ho about repealing Obama care but are on and love the Affordable care act, you are too stupid to vote. My 2 cents.

[vendic]

Personally I'd put in a list of policy stances by each party as a multiple choice questionnaire to what people want as opposed to who they want. The party that gets the most favorable policy numbers gets to run and then everyone knows why they were voted in.
The idea of voting for politicians as opposed to ideas is the problem imho. Politicians lie, change their minds and generally don't care about what the citizens want. They are in it for themselves.
Grade the questionnaire so if people claim they hate Obama care and love the ACA, their stance on that is neutral so basically the stupid can null itself out of their ability to vote if they are so stupid to get almost everything wrong.
In essence, people that know what the policies are will have more influence, those that have no idea what they are voting for will have less. It's fairer in terms of Democracy and reducing the impact of the stupid.

[Tarragon]

Personally I'd put in a list of policy stances by each party as a multiple choice questionnaire to what people want as opposed to who they want. The party that gets the most favorable policy numbers gets to run and then everyone knows why they were voted in.
The idea of voting for politicians as opposed to ideas is the problem imho. Politicians lie, change their minds and generally don't care about what the citizens want. They are in it for themselves.
Grade the questionnaire so if people claim they hate Obama care and love the ACA, their stance on that is neutral so basically the stupid can null itself out of their ability to vote if they are so stupid to get almost everything wrong.
In essence, people that know what the policies are will have more influence, those that have no idea what they are voting for will have less. It's fairer in terms of Democracy and reducing the impact of the stupid.

I really like that idea. The parties will try to cheat by giving people cheat sheets, but at least it will be in writing and that may make them think critically about it. Although, fake news sites and issue PACs may make it messier by giving out cheat sheets full of "Alternative Facts" and twisted logic so that the parties can later claim plausible deniability. If that kind of activity can be prevented by law, the system might work.

I think we need more parties too. In parliamentary systems, there seem to be more and the extremists have their own party. That means they feel like they participate by voting for someone who shares their views, without actually electing an extremist. If we adapted the US legislative system for more than two parties, I wonder if that would help non-extremists get elected. We could keep the presidency a separate branch, but allow a coalition government in the legislature to wheel and deal committee chairs and the speakership, and maybe a few would be elected to cabinet positions instead of the way they are appointed and confirmed now.

However, there's no way to know if people would vote for multiple parties enough for any other than the main two to get any districts. So, maybe there could be some "at-large" districts. That expansion could make up for the small states having too much representation per capita.

Another idea I like is to have a third legislative branch that can only negate laws and acts like a veto on the other houses. Representatives wouldn't be elected to it, a number would be chosen at random from among those candidates for legislature that lost in the election. This group would probably consist of lots of extremists and nutjobs at odds with each other, so it's unlikely they'd manage to do much of anything except grandstand. However, if the upper houses passed anything so onerous that a lot of the losers agreed to hate it, then it's probably a bad law.

[Tarragon]

I generally have been pro-democracy (well, actually, pro-republic / representational democracy), but I've been seriously reconsidering that position (and well before Trump ran for office).

The ugly truth is a lot of people are idiots, and shouldn't have any say in how the planet is managed. I've become increasingly convinced that this democracy thing may not be such a good idea. Maybe people need to prove some fundamental understanding of some of the issues and the basic nature of how the country works before they are allowed to vote.

But fundamentally humans are unmanageable, and I don't have a clue as to how it should be done. The only thing I can imagine worse than designing a system to govern them would be to actually have to govern them.

And no... none of this is a joke.

I honestly think everyone should have to earn the right to vote. I.e. some form of national service. Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Military, and etc. I know that some feel that would be unconstitutional. But, I agree with Swift that we have allowed too many ignorant people the right to vote.

As for managing humans I often tell people that if offered a job herding nurses or cats you should always choose cats.

I like that idea. My supra-government idea above sort of does that by having extra responsibilities, but they're not prerequisites like in Heinlein's Starship Troopers. I didn't go into the responsibilities I was thinking of, but I wanted an annual, two-week labor requirement or Corvée. This would depend on skill, but it could meaning working on a public works project or charity work. A national guard or emergency auxillary for military or disaster response could be another requirement, but I was thinking of using that as a specific requirement for gun ownership because many gun owners consider themselves militia already, so I'd ask them to put their money where their mouth is. (That seems to be a recurrent theme in my ideas for government: "put up or shut up.")

[Tarragon]

I generally have been pro-democracy (well, actually, pro-republic / representational democracy), but I've been seriously reconsidering that position (and well before Trump ran for office).

The ugly truth is a lot of people are idiots, and shouldn't have any say in how the planet is managed. I've become increasingly convinced that this democracy thing may not be such a good idea. Maybe people need to prove some fundamental understanding of some of the issues and the basic nature of how the country works before they are allowed to vote.

But fundamentally humans are unmanageable, and I don't have a clue as to how it should be done. The only thing I can imagine worse than designing a system to govern them would be to actually have to govern them.

And no... none of this is a joke.

Voting is a hassle. Who really wants to bother with democracy when we can pay someone else to do it?

I don't think any particular form is good or bad. Some people think it's a form of Social Darwinism. It's not. It depends on the need. Different societal needs are better suited to different political structures. Anyone who's experiences a disaster knows that a dictatorship and socialist economy tend to work best. It's a cycle. Oligarchy, both political and economic, tends to come from rapid growth. Democracy is most viable with stagnant or low growth because it tends to be stable and monocultural. A republic is halfway between democracy and oligarchy and is suitable for moderate growth and economic expansion, like in eighteenth-century North America.

[Swift]

I generally have been pro-democracy (well, actually, pro-republic / representational democracy), but I've been seriously reconsidering that position (and well before Trump ran for office).

The ugly truth is a lot of people are idiots, and shouldn't have any say in how the planet is managed. I've become increasingly convinced that this democracy thing may not be such a good idea. Maybe people need to prove some fundamental understanding of some of the issues and the basic nature of how the country works before they are allowed to vote.

But fundamentally humans are unmanageable, and I don't have a clue as to how it should be done. The only thing I can imagine worse than designing a system to govern them would be to actually have to govern them.

And no... none of this is a joke.

Voting is a hassle. Who really wants to bother with democracy when we can pay someone else to do it?

I don't think any particular form is good or bad. Some people think it's a form of Social Darwinism. It's not. It depends on the need. Different societal needs are better suited to different political structures. Anyone who's experiences a disaster knows that a dictatorship and socialist economy tend to work best. It's a cycle. Oligarchy, both political and economic, tends to come from rapid growth. Democracy is most viable with stagnant or low growth because it tends to be stable and monocultural. A republic is halfway between democracy and oligarchy and is suitable for moderate growth and economic expansion, like in eighteenth-century North America.

Either I don't understand what you are talking about, or I completely disagree.

I don't think it has anything to do with economics. I don't know what you mean about "pay someone else to do it".

I think that democracy and related forms are participatory, which requires the participants to have at least some knowledge of the issues and their possible solutions.

For whatever reasons, entirely too many Americans are ignorant of these things; heck, a lot of them don't even understand the basic structure of our government (I can't speak to the situation in other countries).

I think some of the ignorance is willful; if you can't be bothered to know at least some of the basic facts, you shouldn't be voting. Some of it might be from bad education, or whatever; I almost don't care. If you don't know the difference (or lack thereof) between Obamacare and the ACA, if you don't have a clue about global warming other than some lies you heard on social media, if you don't understand the roll of the Supreme Court or who your Senators are, if you can't be bothered to learn the major positions of the candidates or our two main political parties, you should not be allowed to have any say in our governance.

[Rommie]

I generally have been pro-democracy (well, actually, pro-republic / representational democracy), but I've been seriously reconsidering that position (and well before Trump ran for office).

The ugly truth is a lot of people are idiots, and shouldn't have any say in how the planet is managed. I've become increasingly convinced that this democracy thing may not be such a good idea. Maybe people need to prove some fundamental understanding of some of the issues and the basic nature of how the country works before they are allowed to vote.

But fundamentally humans are unmanageable, and I don't have a clue as to how it should be done. The only thing I can imagine worse than designing a system to govern them would be to actually have to govern them.

And no... none of this is a joke.

Voting is a hassle. Who really wants to bother with democracy when we can pay someone else to do it?

I don't think any particular form is good or bad. Some people think it's a form of Social Darwinism. It's not. It depends on the need. Different societal needs are better suited to different political structures. Anyone who's experiences a disaster knows that a dictatorship and socialist economy tend to work best. It's a cycle. Oligarchy, both political and economic, tends to come from rapid growth. Democracy is most viable with stagnant or low growth because it tends to be stable and monocultural. A republic is halfway between democracy and oligarchy and is suitable for moderate growth and economic expansion, like in eighteenth-century North America.

Either I don't understand what you are talking about, or I completely disagree.

I don't think it has anything to do with economics. I don't know what you mean about "pay someone else to do it".

I think that democracy and related forms are participatory, which requires the participants to have at least some knowledge of the issues and their possible solutions.

For whatever reasons, entirely too many Americans are ignorant of these things; heck, a lot of them don't even understand the basic structure of our government (I can't speak to the situation in other countries).

I think some of the ignorance is willful; if you can't be bothered to know at least some of the basic facts, you shouldn't be voting. Some of it might be from bad education, or whatever; I almost don't care. If you don't know the difference (or lack thereof) between Obamacare and the ACA, if you don't have a clue about global warming other than some lies you heard on social media, if you don't understand the roll of the Supreme Court or who your Senators are, if you can't be bothered to learn the major positions of the candidates or our two main political parties, you should not be allowed to have any say in our governance.

I remember being frustrated by this as a teenager who was very into current events, and knew a lot of idiots above age 18 who voted. (I was likely also influenced by my immigrant friends taking the citizenship test, who had to learn a lot about how the government worked that are not a requirement if you're born here.) Why not have a test, and no rules for who can take it based on age, gender, jail sentence, etc.

Granted now that I'm older I realize one serious issue behind that is a history of disenfranchisement in the guise of a literacy test, in multiple countries beyond the USA even. But I guess if we're talking ideals why not include that as a possible thing.

[Tarragon]

Either I don't understand what you are talking about, or I completely disagree.

I don't think it has anything to do with economics. I don't know what you mean about "pay someone else to do it".

I think that democracy and related forms are participatory, which requires the participants to have at least some knowledge of the issues and their possible solutions.

For whatever reasons, entirely too many Americans are ignorant of these things; heck, a lot of them don't even understand the basic structure of our government (I can't speak to the situation in other countries).

I think some of the ignorance is willful; if you can't be bothered to know at least some of the basic facts, you shouldn't be voting. Some of it might be from bad education, or whatever; I almost don't care. If you don't know the difference (or lack thereof) between Obamacare and the ACA, if you don't have a clue about global warming other than some lies you heard on social media, if you don't understand the roll of the Supreme Court or who your Senators are, if you can't be bothered to learn the major positions of the candidates or our two main political parties, you should not be allowed to have any say in our governance.

I was referring to a republican form of government by hiring representatives to vote on things instead of direct democracy. I hope that wasn't too glib.

Government can have popular participation, but doesn't have to. These days many people think it's necessary for a government to be legitimate. In the past people argued that it was a divine right of kings to rule. Others argued that a despot could be legitimate unless and until the people rose up against him, thus demonstrating the emperor no longer had the mandate of heaven. The other major way to determine legitimacy of a government is effectiveness. So, it's really hard to separate politics from economics and why people compare presidents by the price of gasoline, the stock market, and the unemployment rate.

I wish it was merely willful ignorance, but it's often not. A lot of people subscribe to alternative facts that support their preconceived notions. Sometimes it's religious, economic, idealistic, and sometimes pseudoscientific They don't think they're ignorant, they think they have a good bead on things. Sometimes it's not wrong facts, but a narrow focus on one aspect of a quantifiable measurement. This is made worse when bad people are full of certainty and good people are full of doubt. Sometimes they weigh things differently and sometimes they just don't think things through to their logical (or absurd) conclusion which is willful laziness, like you say, but sometimes because they've been led to believe the truth is unknowable.

Unfortunately, too much confrontation can setup cognitive dissonance and prevent them from looking further. An Israeli study suggests that to overcome that, you play the straight man and without sarcasm take their idea to absurdity in a literal manner. They posted Nazi-esque signs about getting rid of the Palestinians that were so extreme it drove extremists back toward the center.