h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm starting this conversation ask people about their idealic government. What should it do and control and what should it not do and not control. How should it function, etc. I also have an entry about my own idealic government, accessable through my space.

No government of any sort is the only answer.

Anarchy

turvy

"No government of any sort is the only answer."

To which I can only answer: Somalia.

"Anarchy"

The anarchists were 19th-century idealists who rejected government in any form and believed in absolute personal liberty. Unfortunately (and they pretty much admitted this at the time) anarchism can only work if everyone is as intelligent, high-minded, fundamentally-decent and capably independent as those who followed the ideology. The only notable Anarchist movement was during the Spanish civil war when it provided the only far-left resistance to communism within the anti-fascist side. However, even there, it's ideology failed to work effectively. Certainly, it didn't stand a chance against the organised, centralising and far more popular communists and it has pretty much died as a political movement. Modern 'anarchists' actually tend to be anti-establishment demagogues who like the imagery. Ironically, anarchism is also arguably responsible for libertarianism (indeed, early anarchists referred to themselves as 'libertarians') which has become associated with free-market capitalism. Ironic as anarchists, being a product of the 19th century, were opposed to capitalism as it was (and, to a large extent, still is) a tool of organisational and bureaucratic entities and largely benefitted those close to the State.

I completely agree, anarchy works in concept but not in practice. People are the flaw in any type of government.

Indeed, a sentiment that was is as valid now as it was in November 1947...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sir_Winston_Churchill#On_democracy

Call me naïve, but I would suggest that pro-active participation (by the 'masses' i.e. us proles) would be a far more sensible strategy than anarchy ever could be in regard to effecting desired change

In so many other, patently less 'important', areas there's a prevailing attitude of 'you pays your money, you takes yoor choice'

But in the governing of democratic countries, most of us are seemingly content to sit back and simply re-act to decisions made on high - by people whose salaries we pay... v. odd

"But in the governing of democratic countries, most of us are seemingly content to sit back and simply re-act to decisions made on high - by people whose salaries we pay... v. odd"

I'm not sure it is odd. The business of government is immensely complicated, and I think that keeping up completely with even one part of it is more than a full time job. It makes sense that we should have professionals to carry out the job for us and to run the country as well as possible so that the rest of us can live our lives. The democratic input is really just to set the tone, priorities, and (dare I say it) ideology of the way in which the country will be run.

Democracy is always limited by the wisdom and understanding of the electorate. Modern states are now so complicated that it's getting harder and harder for even the most interested voters to keep up with developments everywhere.

Representative democracy is the best we've got, but there is room for improvement. I'm fond of the American model because there is more inherent accountability (if Britain had a US model Blair would be out), but obviously it has very deep flaws, and is contrary to my moderate libertarian principles. Basically what I'm looking for is a society that reflects the US government, with a system of checks and balances between the people, the corporations, and the government. Currently, the government is owned by the corporations, and both control the people through the media, effectively minimizing their ability to check the government. Here are the ways in which I would improve upon the model:

1) Expand the Bill of Rights, as apparently the Tenth Amendment is not sufficient to prevent the government from greatly exceeding its scope and authority. Included rights would be the right to end your own life with dignity, to abort a pregnancy, and to put whatever chemicals into your own body you desire.

2) I would place new limitations on the government that regulate the means of employing force overseas, corporate welfare, and eliminate corporate sponsorship of elections. The overwhelmingly largest expense for an election campaign is advertising time. I would place new requirements for media outlets to provide free time for candidates to air their messages during election years, on an equal basis, in new and renewed FCC licensing agreements.

That'll do for a start.

"The anarchists were 19th-century idealists who rejected government in any form and believed in absolute personal liberty."

That's not quite true, anarchism has a slightly richer history than that. I was very impressed when I read William Godwin's 1793 "An Enquiry Concerning Social Justice". Godwin is sometimes described as the first anarchist philosopher.

Godwin argued that under anarchism we had no active rights (right to do something regardless of the consequences), but that everyone had a "sphere of discretion" free from imposition by others. He also came up with the idea of the withering away of the state that is usually attributed to Marx. "In proportion as weakness and ignorance shall diminish, the basis of government will also decay." That is, he recognises government as a necessary evil that will hopefully eventually disappear altogether. "The true and only adequate apology of government is necessity; the office of common deliberation is solely to supply the most eligible means of meeting that necessity... Every man ... has a sphere of discretion; that sphere is limited by the coordinate sphere of his neighbour. The maintenance of this sphere ... is the first business of government."

Personally, I believe that the last sentiment of the quote above is extremely important and correct. But, I think the consequences of maintaining individuals spheres of discretion are very far reaching and I would like to think that a somewhat socialist form of government could be justified from this principle alone. I don't think I'm going to try to do that here though, wait for my book. (You might be waiting some time.)

I want benign dictatorship.

An ideal goverment to me would be one that did the most to ensure peoples freedom to do and say what they wanted, without imposing on other people's freedom. And no, I don't know how to achieve that.

There's some great quotes on that Churchill site.

A Government hich actually LISTENS might be a start. As would be one which actually did what it's manifesto claimed it would.

Oh, BTW , telling the truth might be a good idea too, and keeping it's nose out of our 'legal' business , plus keeping it's hand out of our pockets a bit more.

Novo

Listens? To whom?

Hi Bouncy

I detect a loaded question , - but I mean - listens to US the voters, either through surgeries , letters to MP's , BBC Question Time, both sides of the press - any source of public opinion.

Perhaps if the politicians concerned in Europe had listened they would have been more in touch with the voters views?

Novo

But an important trait in a leader is also to know when to ignore the people, and do what is necessary.

Through Tony Blairs first term he was frequently criticised for listening too much to focus groups, running the country according to what opinion polls said, and only caring about being reelected.
Now we have 'strong' government Thatcher style and we don't like that either

I think the government should be trying to find out what their people's most basic underlying desires behind their public opinions are, and then to formulate their own informed and rational plans in order to best fulfill those even if it means going against the conclusions the public came to.

"to put whatever chemicals into your own body you desire."

I might agree if it realy would only hurt them but I believe the negative affects would spill over. The employer gets less productive workers and even if they're old enough to make the decision, their families and friends (very possibly children) could be negativly affected also.

"I would place new requirements for media outlets to provide free time for candidates to air their messages during election years, on an equal basis, in new and renewed FCC licensing agreements."

I like the idea but it would get realy complicated and ultimately, somebody has to get paid for something to air. Also, I thought I'd point out that its something of an authoritarian act. You called yourself a moderate liberaterian farely accurately.

That's what we have over here:

Party Political Broadcasts are made, on a regular basis during election campaigns. Every channel has to show them, at pretty much the same time.

Poltical parties have a limit to how much they can spend on the election, and they have to declare who all their major donors are.

There's a ban on political television advertising (paid for television advertising):

Also all the television channels, and broadcase media have to remain politically neural and give equal air time to every candidate. So on the news you will have five minutes on Labour, and five minutes on Conservative, five on Lib Dem, and five on the Other candidates standing.

You can call it authoritarian if you want.

But I think that without regulations everything ends up being ruled by money. This means that you don't have to raise huge sums of money to stand for Parliment, which means that more people have the chance to.

A benign dictator would be best. They could then do what is best instead of pandering to popular opinion. Demorcracy I think should try to approximate to this and therefore it is not too important that we don't have PR

Benign dictatorship
So how does 1 get to be a benign dictator
If elected you're not a dictator
If you come to power by force you're not benign
If hereditary like 18th century 'Enlightened Despots' you successor could be mad, bad and/or dangerous to know