|
|
Post by Total Reverse on Aug 17, 2014 0:14:43 GMT -5
Me and Urban once had a lengthy discussion about love, and I enjoy chatting with others about stuff like that.
Recently, systems and structures of have captured my attention. I learned about ancient Greece's (specifically Athens') government today, and I compared their democracy to modern USA's democracy (and therefore the basic template for modern democracy).
I reached the conclusion that they had it right, and democracy got f**ked up when the Founding Fathers modified it for their nation.
So, since I was also starting an Alliance on CyberNations, I decided to use the ancient form of democracy as a template for my new small-scale government. And since I had to modify numbers, and a centralized power normally has as many benefits as liberal power, I aslo incorporated ancient Sparta's government structure.
I call the resulting government "Polis" which is greek for City-State and has both centeralized power and liberal power.
It has a Triumvirate, or 3 rulers, who act similar to an Executive Branch.
Then there is the General Assembly, a group of randomly selected citizens who has certain qualifications, that acts as a legislative and judicial branch.
Finally, there are Directors who are appointed by the General Assembly. They act as ministers or cabinet members.
There is a whole system of checks and balances, but it would take too long to write them down and post them.
If anyone wants to discuss how I could make the system better, feel free to make suggestions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 3:06:23 GMT -5
I rather go back to days where racing was dangerous and sex was safe, XD.
Now, you already know what Fan I am.
Also the democracy in the world as a joke.
Do you really think you're entirely free?
|
|
|
|
Post by RenegadeMizu on Aug 17, 2014 3:50:53 GMT -5
We're talking about ancient civilization? Just wait until Urban finds this thread...
I enjoy deep conversations, but sadly government (and ancient civilizations) are outside of my expertise, so I'll obverse...
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanknight4 on Aug 17, 2014 9:46:11 GMT -5
Ancient Greek Democracy was a direct democracy, meaning every elegible citizen had a vote in every matter of state. Normally, this is a horrible way to conduct government affairs (eg, a couple hundred people decide to sink the voting process and the government literally grinds to a halt over a trivial matter; there's also the fact that EVERY issue must be voted on, including war and local stuff, like teacher's wages). The reason why it (kind of) worked for the Greeks was that they lived in small city states, not a country as big as the US. Even something bigger than Rhode Island would be too big to manage this way.
Also, a direct democracy is incredibly slow. Since everyone votes, everyone has to either drag themselves to the polls, or send someone for them. Which isn't a great idea when someone is invading you. When Persia attacked, the autocratic Sparta responded well and sent some troops, hoping to add to their numbers the Athenian fleet. Why didnt the fleet join them? The population chose to "Respect their holiday" and party for a few more days, THEN send troops. We all know how that ended.
Same thing happened when the Romans attacked. The Greek city states ceased to exist. They became a Roman province because there was no Leonidas to defend them this time.
This will take a while, so I'll post again
|
|
|
|
Post by RenegadeMizu on Aug 17, 2014 9:52:32 GMT -5
Yup, there it is.
You know way too much, kid.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanknight4 on Aug 17, 2014 10:11:00 GMT -5
This ain't evun mai final form, m24
So to resume, the American democracy- representative democracy- also has its flaws, but they're lesser than the Greek's.
so this democracy is about people being represented by "professional politicians" and trusting in them to have their best interests in mind. Usually, this works. But corruption, greed, and human flaws always exist, so the system isn't perfect.
The fact that people know almost nothing about their own government (I laugh at those Americans that think the president is the leader of the country) doesn't help. They'll elect whoever looks the nicest, whoever talks best, but not someone who will have their interests in mind.
And the party system was actually denounced by G-Wash. He said it would create a rift in politics where none was needed, and he's right. People hate people of other parties simply because of their affiliation, not their actual thoughts. It's ridiculous.
So there. Neither of those democracies are great. There needs to be a better alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Total Reverse on Aug 17, 2014 14:04:23 GMT -5
And I think that a somewhat-Direct Democracy is as close as we'll get.
For example, you could scale the system in a way that you can control large countries with it, while keeping the direct part of it. And just because the Athenians made bad decisions doesn't mean that the system doesn't work.
And to keep the ignorant public from holding office (no matter the country, almost no regular citizen is fit for government) you could institute a rule that allows only citizens who have taken a certain test to be eligible for selection. And of the course the test would be extensive and so on.
As far as I've seen, Athens had a better government than America.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanknight4 on Aug 18, 2014 8:49:24 GMT -5
I frankly don't know what the best government is. What I do know is that:
1. Anarchy doesn't work. If it did, governments wouldn't have been created in the first place.
2. Dictatorships don't work. Power in a single, fallible human is never good.
3. That said, any government that has either absolute power or a single person commanding won't work well (eg. Monarchies, Autocracies, etc)
4. There needs to be a balance of power. Even in the Roman Empire, the Emperor bowed to the Senate. Technically he could oust them, but he would risk a civil war. An example of a failure in the state because of a lack of balance in Russia. The Czar Nicholas II created an Imperial Duma (basically a Senate) that would check on him, but he retained the power to veto their decisions and even disband them, which he did. Various times.
In short, autocrats are ineffective at maintaining a nation. If they are simply beginning an empire, like Napoleon, Alexander, or Caesar, they work famously because of the speed by which military decisions are made in regards to war. But after the conquests are over, a more complex system has to be set in place. Napoleon was ousted from his Emperor's seat by all of Europe because he overextended, Alexander was killed in a battle on the other side of the world, and Caesar was murdered by the Senators he ignored when he became Dictator of Rome.
|
|
|
|
Post by RenegadeMizu on Aug 18, 2014 16:08:26 GMT -5
I have to come in and say that I just read the thread title as "Philosophical Diabetes"...
|
|
|
|
Post by Total Reverse on Aug 18, 2014 17:27:09 GMT -5
I frankly don't know what the best government is. What I do know is that: 1. Anarchy doesn't work. If it did, governments wouldn't have been created in the first place. 2. Dictatorships don't work. Power in a single, fallible human is never good. 3. That said, any government that has either absolute power or a single person commanding won't work well (eg. Monarchies, Autocracies, etc) 4. There needs to be a balance of power. Even in the Roman Empire, the Emperor bowed to the Senate. Technically he could oust them, but he would risk a civil war. An example of a failure in the state because of a lack of balance in Russia. The Czar Nicholas II created an Imperial Duma (basically a Senate) that would check on him, but he retained the power to veto their decisions and even disband them, which he did. Various times. In short, autocrats are ineffective at maintaining a nation. If they are simply beginning an empire, like Napoleon, Alexander, or Caesar, they work famously because of the speed by which military decisions are made in regards to war. But after the conquests are over, a more complex system has to be set in place. Napoleon was ousted from his Emperor's seat by all of Europe because he overextended, Alexander was killed in a battle on the other side of the world, and Caesar was murdered by the Senators he ignored when he became Dictator of Rome. We probably won't have the best possible government until we have interstellar travel. Then people will have much more freedom on colony worlds and different worlds will have different laws. But then we encounter another problem. The "Halo" problem where a population grows so large that the whole system implodes on itself because it can't support trillions and trillions of citizens across dozens or hundreds of planets. I wonder how the Forerunners, Precursors, and 1st Stage Humans managed to do it..... |
|
|
|
Post by urbanknight4 on Aug 18, 2014 20:15:51 GMT -5
I don't understand what interstellar travel has to do with anything. In fact, it's going to hinder a perfect government because the farther the gap between the government center and the citizens, the bigger the chance for corruption and revolution.
For example, Earth would be the government center and Uranus would be colonized. Let's surmise it takes 1 month to get across planets, and communications lag behind 1 week. This time lapse means that the officials in Uranus have a bigger chance to just simply secede from Earth, accept bribes, do whatever they want, etc, because Earth won't know what's happening until weeks later, much less formulate a response.
This holds true for bigger countries like Russia and the US. Can a central government truly function well in a situation where it has to rule over an excessively large amount of people in an equally big place?
|
|
|
|
Post by Total Reverse on Aug 18, 2014 20:50:29 GMT -5
I don't understand what interstellar travel has to do with anything. In fact, it's going to hinder a perfect government because the farther the gap between the government center and the citizens, the bigger the chance for corruption and revolution. For example, Earth would be the government center and Uranus would be colonized. Let's surmise it takes 1 month to get across planets, and communications lag behind 1 week. This time lapse means that the officials in Uranus have a bigger chance to just simply secede from Earth, accept bribes, do whatever they want, etc, because Earth won't know what's happening until weeks later, much less formulate a response. This holds true for bigger countries like Russia and the US. Can a central government truly function well in a situation where it has to rule over an excessively large amount of people in an equally big place? By the time we can set up livable colonies on other planets, and have them be prosperous enough to gain a major pop. base, we'll have the tech to get there in a few days and communication would be instantaneous. |
|
|
|
Post by urbanknight4 on Aug 18, 2014 21:04:05 GMT -5
Well... I guess...
But you're still faced with the same problems: dissenters, revolution, corruption, and invasion. Only now it's even bigger thanks to you having to manage stellar systems.
I don't think that a nation should be bigger than a planet, or even a continent, at least for now. Russia and the US suck at everything and are only world powers because they used to be imperialistic.
There has to be a government that:
1. Can manage war and conquest efficiently and correctly, like Napoleon and Alexander.
2. Can realize its limits and stop conquering for the sake of conquering. The Roman Empire fell in part because its economy was based on the spoils of war; the patricians lived so well and had great privileges because there were entire nations being destroyed to provide money for that.
3. There needs to be an efficient way of dealing with corruption and strife. In the Roman military, brutal methods like the decimation of men kept the entire army in line. I'm not saying be brutal and immoral, but punish offenders severely to limit corruption.
4. Speed. The American Congress is extremely slow at deciding things because it relies on the opinions of hundreds of men, all with different opinions. A government needs to respond quickly to its citizens, and assure them that their voice carries weight.
5. Checks and balances. Congress is bad, but dictators are also bad. No branch can be greater than the other.
6. A reasonable approach to economy. Capitalism is good for empires. Socialism is good for nations rich enough to afford it. Communism is for Utopia.
I think that if nations were to follow those guidelines, we would see a great many successful countries in this world , devoid of many of the problems that plague us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Total Reverse on Aug 18, 2014 22:07:32 GMT -5
Well... I guess... But you're still faced with the same problems: dissenters, revolution, corruption, and invasion. Only now it's even bigger thanks to you having to manage stellar systems. I don't think that a nation should be bigger than a planet, or even a continent, at least for now. Russia and the US suck at everything and are only world powers because they used to be imperialistic. There has to be a government that: 1. Can manage war and conquest efficiently and correctly, like Napoleon and Alexander. 2. Can realize its limits and stop conquering for the sake of conquering. The Roman Empire fell in part because its economy was based on the spoils of war; the patricians lived so well and had great privileges because there were entire nations being destroyed to provide money for that. 3. There needs to be an efficient way of dealing with corruption and strife. In the Roman military, brutal methods like the decimation of men kept the entire army in line. I'm not saying be brutal and immoral, but punish offenders severely to limit corruption. 4. Speed. The American Congress is extremely slow at deciding things because it relies on the opinions of hundreds of men, all with different opinions. A government needs to respond quickly to its citizens, and assure them that their voice carries weight. 5. Checks and balances. Congress is bad, but dictators are also bad. No branch can be greater than the other. 6. A reasonable approach to economy. Capitalism is good for empires. Socialism is good for nations rich enough to afford it. Communism is for Utopia. I think that if nations were to follow those guidelines, we would see a great many successful countries in this world , devoid of many of the problems that plague us. Communism promotes lower quality products, dissent, power abuse and so on. Socialism is the way to go. It's not terribly expensive, and any country that can afford Capitalism can afford socialism if they stop being phallic organ for five minutes. I think the government system I proposed has all of the requirements of a great structure. |
|
|
|
Post by Bobbyjoeangus43 on Aug 18, 2014 22:30:26 GMT -5
I have a feeling this thread is going to get many, many posts....
|
|
