some people just don't get it...

[Whaleboy]

4 years seems long enough for me, given that a shorter period spurs innovations and corrections. Making the terms longer will not help democracy, but will rather encourage one man to take control of things for himself.

I don't want to help democracy, I want to eliminate it in all but a very limited sense. Where that one man is capable of making better decisions than the popular politicians, that one man is the better leader. With technocracy (or a hell of a lot of safeguards) the former could be a lot more efficient, and now free of the shackles of popular opinion, is free to address issues such as global warming, HIV/AIDS and third world poverty without the concern that he would be thrown out of office if he doesnt make short term decisions to appease the public at the expense of those more critical long term aims.

[Whaleboy]

Kucinich: Agreed, that would seem to work better than the British system or heaven forbid proportional representation (read Weimar Republic). The more "democratic" the system, the more prone to foul-ups.

[Kuciwalker]

The British system actually scares me - all power seems to be placed in a unicameral legislature (as it picks the PM).

[Ben Kenobi]

With technocracy (or a hell of a lot of safeguards) the former could be a lot more efficient, and now free of the shackles of popular opinion, is free to address issues such as global warming, HIV/AIDS and third world poverty without the concern that he would be thrown out of office if he doesnt make short term decisions to appease the public at the expense of those more critical long term aims.

So you would rather disenfranchise yourself and to submit to the rule of a king rather than an elected president?

A king rules absolutely for life, and has a much better capacity for making decisions than the uninformed commoner.

You have far too much faith in people, that when given such power, that they would use the power responsibly, and for goals that you agree with.

For example, could not this enlightened despot strip away everything that you hold dear in society, just as likely, as he would be to improve the things you desire?

The best form of government is the one in which people would live under should they disagree with their ruler.

[Whaleboy]

So you would rather disenfranchise yourself and to submit to the rule of a king rather than an elected president?

Provided my social liberty (freedom of expression and association) remained intact, yes. I see no necessary correlation between totalitarianism and dictatorship. Most dictatorships are malevolent due to human corruption, which brings me on to your other point:

You have far too much faith in people, that when given such power, that they would use the power responsibly, and for goals that you agree with.

I realise it is not ideal. My idea is perhaps reminiscent of Plato's "philosopher kings" concept. That is why technocracy is preferable. Only a really advanced intelligence is capable of corruption. As for goals I agree with, if the nation is run on highly libertarian principles, those goals become the canvas to the respective painting, where todays policians paint, I would have them maintain a canvas.

For example, could not this enlightened despot strip away everything that you hold dear in society, just as likely, as he would be to improve the things you desire?

As we have seen countless times before, yes. That is why dictatorship requires safeguards and a specific political idea to be superior to democracy. Failing that, democracy is preferable.

The best form of government is the one in which people would live under should they disagree with their ruler.

I concur, but that need not be removed from a society run by a benevolent dictatorship (needn't be just one person of course). For example, I may wish to ban abortions, in which case I would need to place a better argument to the "government" than the one they currently use, as opposed to starting a peasants revolt of sorts (blackmailing with votes) to get what I want.

Nonetheless, must catch some beauty sleep

[PLATO]

The trend toward mediocrity could best be shown, in the US anyway, by the civil service...which meets most of the qualifications that you outlined. The leadership changing at regular intervals is what keeps it from utter stagnation. The fact that a professional core exits at the center lends some credence to your ideas, but Kuchinic rightly points out the danger of using them completely (i.e. judges versus elected officials).

I would submit to you that we already have a system that utilizes some aspects of your dream while still holding the government accountable to the people...(see This November )

Logic would further say that "the sheep" will, to some extent, recognize the limitations of their expertise...hence political parties were born (The vetting process to which you refer). This also answers the question of longevity of government that you desire (For example...Reagan-Bush...1981-1993...12 years), while still being answerable to the people(11/84, 11/88, 1nd finally rejected by the people 11/92).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
With technocracy (or a hell of a lot of safeguards) the former could be a lot more efficient, and now free of the shackles of popular opinion, . . .

Such was the reasoning of dozens of would be military saviors overthrowing democracies. Out with politics, let the technocrats do their jobs. They were mostly collosal failures, with a few Asian exceptions.

[Whaleboy]

Logic would further say that "the sheep" will, to some extent, recognize the limitations of their expertise...hence political parties were born (The vetting process to which you refer). This also answers the question of longevity of government that you desire (For example...Reagan-Bush...1981-1993...12 years), while still being answerable to the people(11/84, 11/88, 1nd finally rejected by the people 11/92).

That is true, but does not deny that as long as you have the length/issue of office linked to the views of the populus, the government is limited in what it can do. I refer specifically to taking measures to stop global warming, and such that will not / can not occur in democracy. The greater the degree of separation between legistlature and people, the better, though of course as established it is wise to not completely separate them. Note that I refer to the longevity of a political system to mean the length of time a single system has existed (democracy in US/UK for centuries for example) as opposed to the life of a single government.

holding the government accountable to the people

I see little merit in that. Probe that term, it seems somewhat empty in the light of democracy as a popularity contest / rule of idiots, or a means to maintain a given political system for the sake of the ruling elite.

Such was the reasoning of dozens of would be military saviors overthrowing democracies. Out with politics, let the technocrats do their jobs. They were mostly collosal failures, with a few Asian exceptions.

I don't consider Singapore a success because though it is a benevolent dictatorship, it is highly authoritarian. The link between dictators and malevolent societies has been historically established, but not conceptually, in the sense that there has no necessary link between the two, and it is that which I am exploiting here, for if we disassociate malevolent/corrupt elements from dictatorship, and run a society to (my) specific libertarian principles, it could work rather nicely .

[Whaleboy]

Nonetheless, going off at tangent, we were supposed to be discussing free speech, and how JSM would not support a classical utilitarian limitation of freedom of expression as his father might.

[Pax]

I believe we should have some type of leadership that is above politics whose main purpose is too protect the people from themselves and the politicians. A system with a PM or President, Parliament/Congress, judges and then some type of leader independent of all these with powers of limitation or even power of proposal.

I think it's a failure on the part of the British system that they don't use their monarchy in such a manner. Connecting all the dots. It's true that sometimes the population don't know what's good in the long run for them. It's also true that politicians make a some amount decisions based on appeasing the people. It's also true that the people have less power when the corporations, unions and various other groups provide the funding for politicians to get their message out. The more money needed to campaign the less voice the common people have. Why not set up a voice that cannot be bought or sold. Why not set up a voice to weigh the issue of freedom of speech, prochoice and etc and come to the conclusion is this really in the public interest regardless of how the lawyers, big tobacco and other lobbyists feel about the situation.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Kucinich and BK: Let them all run wild and free!!

/me can't help but imagine wild and free love between Agathon, Whaleboy and Kucinich

[Spiffor]

...and I don't see the fundamental difference between swinging knives, death threats, and wearing swastikas.

Except that swinging knives can be dangerous when performed by unskilled hands, but it wasn't the point of the illustration in this thread.

[Whaleboy]

...and I don't see the fundamental difference between swinging knives, death threats, and wearing swastikas.

On the face of that, I concur. Stabbing (physical violence and what have you) is a different matter to wearing swastikas. Death threats is a funny one though.

[Kuciwalker]

A monarchy doesn't work. A monarchy is accountable to nothing, thus it languishes. The only way to ensure excellence in government, or even adequacy in government, is to have an outside measuring stick, a way of rejuvenating the government. The only such device is democracy.

[Whaleboy]

To avoid corruption, keep government in some vague concurrence with the people and to prevent revolution (after all one can't steer an oil tanker through too narrow a gauntlet), democracy is useful. An election once a generation. Excellence? Adequacy? Please elaborate on those terms? Getting back to basics, under a libertarian scheme, a governments role consists of analysing a situation and determining if it is legal according to its (my ) libertarian basis, and running the economy. Not out of the realms of feasibility for a technocracy (though obviously I'm not tabling this as a real solution now), thus avoiding human corruption. If you have a means of avoiding human corruption, then democracy (and its associated failings read global warming) is useless and irrelevant. Before a feasible alternative is put in place, it is my view that we should limit democracy and place people in power who know what they are doing, and not influenced by the masses who for the most part, do not.