/lit/ - Literature

>>>/pol/

The accessibility of the government is one of it's fundamental flaws. The simple truth is that the majority of the people that populate a nation are hardly capable of managing the administration of an entire country. If anything, the process should be made more stringent. As it is, there are far too many people without the qualifications.

>>3825020

There is no guarantee that people we are electing at the moment are any more qualified - there are plenty of idiots elected into government. The fact in my system there are only one or two people means they don't have so much power if they turn out to be idiots to screw things up.

However, for fans of proper demarchy they say that it encourages further engagement by the public and that on average it produces better results in terms of domestic issues.

However, by the sounds of it you seem critical of accessibility to begin with.

>>3825032
Can't really be bothered, will I be keepin' my dole likes?

I know it was probably tragic if someone died at the time but it is pretty awesome that the IRA attacked the SIS building with rockets from the river.
I think that's what happened anyway.

>>3825076

That's not the SIS building. I work in Vauxhall and that's St George's Wharf. However, it's about 100 ft from the SIS building.

Yeah, I think no one was hurt, the building had shockproof glass or something so it did little damage.

>>3824993

You can't see into my flat in this photo. Too low res. This is good.

I prefer looking down at the random people in Vauxhall. This is also good.

>>3825139

You live there? How rich are you?

I think a partial-demarchy would be good. Where one chamber is elected and one chamber is chosen by sortition.

However, the second chamber would be more like the House of Lords in the UK than one of the two houses in Congress. Unable to propose law but once it passes through the first chamber, the second chosen by sortition gets to vote on it too.

>>3825522
Just a few more tweaks.. just a few more and democracy will stop being a sack of inept horseshit..

I don't know if I'd be in favor of completely random choices, but there does need to be more variety. Where are the hard science doctorates?

The way the government is structured is basically such that if you haven't devoted a large portion of your money/life to being in government, chances are you won't be. And if you've devoted your life to government, you don't know much about anything else, and you derive a significant portion of your income from your government job, which is why lobbyists are so effective.

>>3825543

Well a demarchy overcomes some of these problems as the people chosen do not spend time worrying about elections and trying to raise money. They are likely to be made up of politically interested members of the public rather than a group usually quite alien to the public.

That said, demarchy has the disadvantage that it results in people who can be ignorant about the processes and functions of government.

That is why I think a small percentage of the legislature being chosen by lot is bet. Helps improve fairness and access but it is not a large enough group to overpower those who know what they are doing.

A structured version of this would work wonders. Say, qualified people interested in government could earn a degree or certificate or what have you that would place them in a pool. From this pool government positions would be filled by lottery.

This way you get a random sampling of people who are interested in serving, as opposed to making Cletus from down the street president.

captcha: ctrotic council

I think we should call it that.

>>3825562

As in there must be some specific qualification you earn which teaches you how government operates and all then you are eligible to be chosen by lot?

I think that might work but you would need to ensure that the qualification is accessible by all. Not that everyone can pass and earn it but that everyone at least gets the chance to try and get it.

>>3825574

Yes accessibility would be key. That said, it should be rigorous enough to keep away the slugs. Perhaps something like an associates degree's worth of work required.

>>3825591

There are still a few issues though:

-How would you have people representing the issues of specific regions?
-Would the public support this? Surely they could complain that there are a bunch of people that don't represent their views at all?
-Isn't the person who issues the qualification all-powerful? Able to dictate and educate people to whatever ideology they want?

I think half elected, half by lot is best.

>>3825562
>earn a degree or certificate or what have you that would place them in a pool
who would offer these degrees? the can of worms this would open would be horrible

>>3825616

You could have the exact same structure of American government today, just fill the positions this way. That would allow representation from every state.

As far as who's giving out the degrees. I'd say any accredited university.

There would indeed be a very large can of worms opened in the adoption of any such system. That said, I'm just positing here a simple framework which would put people in office interested in government, and who don't spend half their terms trying to get reelected.

>>3824993
This is how democracy actually worked in Ancient Greece. This corrupted crap we call "democracy" nowadays has nothing to do with what it really is supposed to be.

>>3824993
>a government which is made up of randomly decided people?
Who's going to be the decider?

>>3825701

A lottery, you horse's ass.

Christ, as if democracy wasn't disgusting enough.

>>3824993

Was pretty rad in Athens back in the day

>>3825721
So edgy

Issue with demarchy is the ignorance of the people selected.

Means you will essentially have the advisors and staff running the show.

Then again, not that different from now.

>>3824993
>What does /lit/ think about the possibly of a demarchy - a government which is made up of randomly decided people?

The stupidest idea I have heard all week, and I have heard a painful amount of stupid ideas this week.

>>3825822
>Implying it hasn't been done to some success

>>3825092
I know it's not the SIS building in OP but it's a very similar architecture in a similar area.

>>3824993
Stupid, because it's probably not going to be libertarians chosen.

>>3825858
>Implying everything from theocracy to absolute monarchy to communism hasn't been done "to some success"

>>3825721
it's hardly perfect, but it's better than anything else
call me when they invent perfect, omniscient, benevolent computer heads of states

>>3825881
Benevolent dictatorships are always the best. Sadly they come along once in a blue moon.

>>3825875
Eh..
>absolute monarchy
>communism
For example?

>>3825910
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Kingdom#Reign_of_Numa_Pompilius

>>3825890

>>3825918
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Kingdom#Reign_of_Numa_Pompilius
He was chosen by a senate. This is not the kind of stuff I thought about when thinking of a king.

>>3825910
For communism, he probably means something like primitive communism. The Russian Mir would be an example of that. Marx spoke pretty highly of it, as well.

>>3825890

>>3825910
>absolute monarchy
Reign of Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Suleiman I, Louis XIV, etc etc etc...

>Communism
USSR ("to some success")

>>3825964
>USSR
>Successful

At least you didn't say Albania.

>>3825964
By "some success" I mean "not a shithole where, except the rulers, people starved and most died before being 30" and such stuff.

>>3825964
The USSR was a horrible place. They made some admirable scientific progress, but even in that area were still eclipsed by the US, and they produced no art worth mentioning and couldn't feed their citizens.

>>3826009
Cuba then.

>>3825989
>interpreting "to some success" as synonymous with "successful"

Why are you even posting on the /lit/ board?

>>3826014
Same goes for this poster.

>They made some admirable scientific progress
>"some success"

Reading comprehension in this thread: 2/10

>>3826014
>they produced no art worth mentioning
Most was banned.
>>3826028
Well, it's far less worse than the USSR, but that's a pretty mediocre and twisted form of communism if you keep in mind what Marx wrote.

>>3826009
That had almost nothing to do with the political system, almost everything to do with the lack of scientific knowledge about hygiene, medicine, diet, and agriculture.

>>3826028
Why do you keep listing state socialist countries as communist?

As for Cuba, after the USSR collapsed, so did the caloric intake of the average Cuban - from 2,500 calories a day to 1,900. Cuba is still dependent on foreign aid just to feed its population. The government is beginning to leave the agricultural sector because of how poorly they managed it.

>>3826014
>and they produced no art worth mentioning

In other words: "I haven't heard of or seen any so obviously it doesn't exist."

>let's make it easier for the average moron to get in the government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
congressmen are already this fucking stupid
let's just abort the government all together and let computers run the world already

>>3826042
This is not an excuse after the Roman Empire.

>>3826048
Go ahead and try to prove me wrong if you want. But it's impossible to seriously argue that the artistic output of the Communist sphere even came near that of the West.

>>3826054
You don't know much about history, do you?

>>3826035
>Why are you even posting on the /lit/ board?

Because /pol/ is boring.

I'm not even sure how we're measuring success here. The 'success' of the USSR was certainly not a communistic success, since their society remained stratified, reinforced one-man management against workers' self-management, and attempted to emulate, in almost aspect, the American system of production.

>>3826035
>Why are you even posting on the /lit/ board?

Because /pol/ is boring.

I'm not even sure how we're measuring success here. The 'success' of the USSR was certainly not a communistic success, since their society remained stratified, reinforced one-man management against workers' self-management, and attempted to emulate, in almost aspect, the American system of production.

>>3826057
>mfw Yockey supported the USSR precisely because its extremely hierarchical character was more reminiscent of traditional European society than America.

>USSR
>communist

Pick one.

>>3826049
>congressmen are already this fucking stupid
It's not a matter of stupidity. it's a matter of being corrupted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Selection_by_lot_.28allotment.29

>>3826043
If China placed a trade embargo on Japan it would be p dependent on foreign aid as well

>>3826056
speaking of which, I bet u think China produces no literature of note because you can't read Chinese, too

>>3826067
he
asked
if
an
island
would
tip
over

he's a retard.
watch giants need midgets for further proof

>>3826036
>implying marx invented communism

Lel.

>>3826058
The rules have always had those benefits you were talking about. It was not a matter of technology or development, it was a matter of rulers not giving a flying fuck about the populace.

Pseudo-democratic centrism is the future and everyone knows it.

>>3826068
>speaking of which, I bet u think China produces no literature of note because you can't read Chinese, too

No, I don't think that, and I think that the artistic output of the PRC compared to the USSR is almost entirely due to the fact that the PRC is authoritarian while the USSR was totalitarian.

>>3826060
Meanwhile they put humans into space before the Americans. In other words, they enjoyed "some success."

Back to /pol/ please. Reading comprehension actually matters here.

>>3826043
>Why do you keep listing state socialist countries as communist?
Well if you want to be strict, capitalism doesn't exist either.

>>3826014
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch?

>>3826070
>implying not all communist dictators weren't influenced by his works.

Hurrrr

>>3826071
>This is not an excuse after the Roman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time

>Hellenistic Greece: 28
>Rome: 28
>Medieval Islamic Caliphate: 35
>Medieval Britain: 30
>Early 20th CE: 31

Stop making up your own versions of history, please.

>>3826082
>disregard that first "not"

>>3826068
>If China placed a trade embargo on Japan it would be p dependent on foreign aid as well

Funnily enough, the US is one of the largest donors of food aid to Cuba.

>>3826076
Yes, putting humans to space would qualify as a success if we determine success in the same way capitalists do. I'm less worried about public spectacles like manned space travel than I am about the existence of class stratification and managerial apparatuses separate from the producers themselves.

>>3826076
The Americans still vastly outstripped the USSR in terms of accomplishments in space. Moon Landing, GPS, Voyager etc. etc.

>>3826091
EMPHASIS: "some success"

What are you, 12?

>>3826087
Life expectancy wasn't everything I was talking about. Anyway, that's taking into account the slaves and people who fought wars too.

>>3826098
Success is relative. Their society was an utter failure if compared to their main rival (America).

>>3826100
>Anyway, that's taking into account the slaves and people who fought wars too.

Exactly. Hence life expectancy. Life was so bad for many that they were either human property or died in Rome's many, many, many, many wars. So bad were the wartime deaths in Hellenic Greece that it was the leading cause of death for a considerable time.

Anyway, back to the original point, life expectancy alone is not the only way to measure the "success" of a civilization, nor the political system at work in that civilization (which is what this thread was about).

>>3826108
"some success"

>Still can't wrap his head around how this is a different concept from "success"
>Automatically strawmans this into a debate about USA vs USSR

Sub-90s IQ and /pol/ to the very bone.

>2013
>not embracing Tradition

Why are you even posting on /lit/?