Figuring out a better form of government

Isn't this a science board?

That's pretty much the response you'll get from science enthusiasts, OP. Scientists will generally vie for technocracy/communism (something even a supercomputer would run into problems handling) because their egos demand it, yet they can't even solve their own problem of academia and peer-review incentivizing bad science.

Technolibertarianism

/thread

Fascism desu.

All national laws are regarding criminal law.
Other laws are local by-laws.
No charity organisations or organised religion.
Nationalised health service.
Term limit on all positions including civil service.
Separation of powers (excutive, legislative and judiciary).
Compulsory military service.
Constitution with right to free speech.
National bank that sets interest rates.
Nationalised transport system.
Two-house system consisting of a house national representatives and a house of regional representatives, both elected by proportional representation.
Elected politicians needn't be natural born citizens.
All crime punishable by death.

Military junta. Any other answer is objectively wrong.

No niggers

this but if not possible

then this. either way, big improvements

what is libertarianism anyway?

what's the foundational philosophical principles and what are the most important laws of the society?

I think what a lot of societies get wrong is that they try to change human nature or think they can change it.

>All national laws are regarding criminal law.
>Other laws are local by-laws.

literally fucking retarded

>National bank that sets interest rates.
Stopped reading right there. This thread is completely hypothetical but you must be fucked up in the head. You get the chance to restart society from scratch and you put in money? Not just money, but banking and interest rates too? Let me ask you this, what do you think is wrong with current forms of government?

good luck getting rid of money.
and as long as you have money you have banks
as long as you have banks you have loans and interest
as long as you have interest you have a regulator trying to keep everyone on the same page so one region doesn't boom and bust another.

oh man i really didn't wanna get into this because brevity is not my strong suit but I will try to be concise:

Libertarianism as I see it (more specifically, "little l libertarianism") focuses on one main tenet: the Non-Aggression Principle (known commonly as the NAP). Breaking it down, it essentially asserts that you may not use violence unless threatened, you may not be fraudulent, and you may not steal. There are no such thing as victim-less crimes, all crimes require a victim. Libertarians believe no man has the right to steal, act violent against, or defraud another man. Since the government also comprise of men who are equal to you, they are also included in this. This principle is applied to both social issues and economic issues, as the NAP really sees no distinction. Government as we currently know it infringes on MANY of these things and violates the NAP in multiple ways. This does not mean, as some crazy people claim, that there are "no laws" or whatever. Generally, most libertarians agree the government has 3 roles:

1) Military to protect the country from outside invaders (you need a military to protect yourself and your country from those who violate the NAP from the "outside system")
2) Local police force (although a private police entity can still exist [just like security guards exist currently] and many believe towns also have the right to vote *away* their police force)
3) Public criminal court and a smaller public civil court (most civil disagreements would more than likely be solved with private arbitrators [which also currently exist])

You are correct that most societies get it wrong that they try to "change human nature" or as most libertarians articulate it: "legislate morality." Governments routinely try to legislate morality (war on drugs and jim crow laws are the two most egregious examples) and always fail. The libertarian belief is that as long as you do not violate the NAP by harming anyone, you're free to do as you wish.

Government fails when one person accumulates too much power or is put in a position of power. All humans are fallible, the greater power a single person has, the greater the consequences of their mistakes WHEN, not if but when, they occur.

All citizens have equal power in their government. All citizens take part in all decision made by the government in a 100% anonymous way. Anonymity is compulsivity and enforced. All citizens must be intelligent, and are required to take a yearly qualification exam. Education is free and qualifying for citizenship is encouraged. Qualified citizens have their base living expenses paid, and have free health coverage. If this becomes too burdensome for the government to afford, then decrease the number of qualified citizens by increasing the difficulty of the yearly exam.

what do you do with your uneducated and presumably unwashed masses, then?

Billy Gates, Elon Muskovitch, and Mad God Mattis make all the rules and the rest of us do what they say.

>All citizens take part in all decision made by the government in a 100% anonymous way. Anonymity is compulsivity and enforced. All citizens must be intelligent, and are required to take a yearly qualification exam. Education is free and qualifying for citizenship is encouraged. Qualified citizens have their base living expenses paid, and have free health coverage. If this becomes too burdensome for the government to afford, then decrease the number of qualified citizens by increasing the difficulty of the yearly exam.

elitist technocracy ain't gonna work. too many people won't pass the exams and in todays age there are enough people that they will all get together and over throw the man, remember the millions that protested in Egypt?

there are so many people now.

How is this science?

There is a political board on Veeky Forums. This is not it.

Organize 13 bloodlines and have them run everything no questions asked. Always inbreed and have multiple layers of fake governments which are displayed beneath them to the masses until they are incapable of rising up then enjoy all they can provide.

You could list metrics which define a good society and then select or create a form of government which does the best job of maximizing those metrics.

seriously what is it about asians, guys? muh fuggin diigg

A N A R C H O E G O I S T

What do libertarian think about monopolies ? What do you do when a company becomes too big ?

Give me ONE good reason why linking up the brains of all the smartest people in the world to create an AI which rules and governs all of humanity would not create the best form of government possible

>pro tip: you can't

benevolent dictatorship

I think most of the problem is to get people involved in the decision making process. We must get rid of the political class as it is in many countries.

We have societies turned toward production and consumption, which are useless for the most part of them. We need to turn the society into more political implication.

>you don't need roads when you can build flying cars

Define within reason. Also define is shown not to.
Also I'd never live in such a place.

>What do libertarian think about monopolies ? What do you do when a company becomes too big ?

Let it collapse like has happened with all non-natural monopolies that were left alone.

If it's a natural monopoly, the answer is much harder but, aha, governments don't have a good solution either.

>Let it collapse like has happened with all non-natural monopolies that were left alone.

What the fuck ? The history is full of monopolies that needed government intervention to be dismantled.

Well why did they need dismantling?

тpoлoллoлoлллoлoo

"he is jailed/executed."
- Part of the best system
...

If everyone wants a car, but there are not enough cars, everyone gets the same and are equal, no'one gets cars?

Why even think about creating a better government, when there already are ones near perfection, such as systems in the northern countries.

Is that a serious question ? Monopolies are an obvious threat to a free market situation.

Technocracy

Not really possible, companies get fined here if they try to run down the prices, make the smaller ones go out of business, happened a few times e.g. with some ones selling milk for too low.

Because they were literally blowing up their competitors. Seriously, Standard Oil used industrial sabotage to ruin anyone who tried to compete, and their immense wealth and clout allowed them to avoid legal consequences.

And how would they not evade legal consequences in a society where they could own their own private fucking army ?

The way the US government works is basically the way software development works.

You have many levels of management (legislative branch) trying to represent the best interests of stakeholders (public). Said people make large but tone deaf decisions about what needs to be done (legalisation). These decisions are passed to a bunch of nameless developers (equally nameless employees) who have to figure out how to actually implement this shit into the master repository (US Code). Eventually these individuals work out a bunch of approved patches and this shit gets merged.

The problem is that the US does this in a really low tech slow inefficient way that's optimized for bureaucracy. I purpose forming a government designed around modern technologies like git. This would increase transparency, atomicity, efficiency, public participation, and reduce the amount of dumb broken shit.

Standard Oil held only 14% of the oil resources when it was at it's maximum (~80% of the market)

Their competitors, having the remaining 86% of the market resources in a fresh boombing industry, were too inept to compete. In fact, to this day, Standard Oil was so efficient at it's job, all the top oil companies that mirror it's practices still exist that splintered off from it. Go figure, combined they *still* comprise of +80% of the market, proving that "splitting up" the "monopoly" didn't do anything at all for the competitors of Standard Oil!

What libertarians argue is that monopolies cannot exist because people are individuals and you simply cannot please everyone, but the most efficient company will always become the market leader. There's isn't an issue with someone leading in their market, I'm sure you'll agree, which begs the question: at what point do you break up a "monopoly"?

A private army does not absolve you of paying restitution when you lose a case. If you choose not to pay and use your "private army" to defend yourself, would you still use products from that company? Do you think most people would, knowing that if the company hurt them either intentionally or negligibly, they wouldn't give you restitution as they are supposed to? I'm sure some people still would assume that risk, but I am sure most other people would not, and a competitor would clearly rise up and take advantage of this situation as well.

In short, monopolies cannot exist, or even if they do cannot exist for very long in a true free market

What when these monopoly also owns most of the press ? How will the people know ?

Or maybe more realistically, what happense when the biggest companies, that would control the press even more than they do know, agree to get away with the rules ? The mainstream press would cover it, how would the people know ?

They already do, and how don't you know already?

Are people refraining from buying from these companies ?

Yes. Look at viewership of the news over the past 15 years. This is exactly why smaller news outlets pop up, and why the large ones are calling it "Fake News."

No "scientifically" designed form of government can be better than the order that evolved naturally. The ones who think otherwise, be they from the left or the right, are idiots who do not understand the limitations of science and the nature of complex systems.

low IQer

Idiot.

btw I think I cracked it.

All of your posts are retarded by the way. Fucking brainlets. I'll post it to sci by sunday.

wrong

I just have a higher way of thinking that is far more advanced than you. It's not my fault you never ascended past basic thought patterns. You obviously valued something other than becoming refined.

No, he meant you are an idiot compared to the ones even a more advanced way of thinking than you.

So you are wrong.. and stupid in this case.

Since this is still s science board.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bosanquet/state.pdf

Also, I think there has to be some reason why there's no Englisch version of:

Theory of states

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatstheorie

I haven't posted any of my actual thinking in this thread. I can assure you even if bad the processes and ways of how i think are superior to any posts so far.

You did show your thinking, how is that different from your actual thinking?

Are you fucking retarded?
You don't need actual bills, but you need some kind of transactional hub that allows you to trade something for another

The only right way for a society to actually work is this form: techno-meritocratic anarcho-collectivism

What's wrong with socialism or so, like the Swedish system works quite nicely and smoothly?

Too bureaucratic. It cloggs up the system. Isn't efficient and natural at all even though it relies on natural principles.
Socialism is like the clostest thing to working though, without actually doing it.

But Sweden is a very stable and well dong country, people are happy in there, that's part of a perfect country, what should be changed?

While it is true that the Scandinavian countries have the happiest demographic, I'm pretty sure they have flaws in their systems. I'm not an expert on what's going on in their country so I can't really talk about it (their laws, societies, ...), but I live in a pretty socialist country (actually it's more representative with strong social security) and see problems left and right.

Democracy

There are not that many downsides to a Swedish type of a system. I'm from Finland, where are you from?
Life is pretty awesome here, obviously it has it's downside, you are allowed to be lazy and still get money to live and get stuff you want.
And if you are picky, you might not get a job and so on..
overall it's pretty ideal.

Democracy but with a catch: you don't magically have right to vote, but you have to obtain it. To do this you have to pass a test where they give your document to prove that you can vote.
For this test the government HAS to put various courses to make sure that if a citizien wants to get his right to vote, he can prepare himself for the test.
The problem with this is, however, what would be in the vote, which is why you would need multiple tests for when, for example, a referendum on a particular subject pops up.

Belgium here, it's basically the same where I'm at though. However, the system not being ideal is why I'm leaning towards something else. I could write volumes about why it's something we shouldn't endure, or at least reform, but this is not the place to do it. If strongly suggest you read the principles Bakunin stood for (his Wiki page would be quite sufficient)

I expected at least one person to realise I deliberately mixed in some good ideas with some bad ideas.
However, you are just fucking retarded. Are you an anarchist by any chance? If so, I'm pretty sure your entire political position can be shattered just by asking you how roads would work.

Ah okey. What is the biggest flaw do you think in Belgium's system?

This list is a crime, you should be put to death.

The inability to progress with an overarching system because everyone wants something else (or there are large different tendencies at least).
So we have some core ideas and some variation between them, but it never really changes.

Think about it. What /really/ changes in society with politics, other than some small things? There's never a really huge overhaul of busted things (like the school system here that's been on the table for years or land management) because people don't have enough time/incentive/support/...
Contemporary politics are a stagnating thing untill a revolution comes along (French revolution, fascism, communism, ...)

Governments are always led by retard psychopaths (trump), pansy, faerie, pretty-girl wimps (trudeau), killers (duterte and putin), rapists and other corrupt criminals...
Governments and leaders ARE the problem: they are anti-social, liars, bullshitters, unfair and lazy. Only other retards would allow trudeau or trump anywhere near children or not notice they never say anything; only babble mindlessly.

This system can and will be abused by the ruling elite to safeguard their position.

The point of elections is not to let the best and the brightest decide the future of the country. It is to replace a civil war. A man who can vote to get his candidate into power will not kill to get him into power. And a man who was not able to pass that test of yours and who cannot vote will still be able to hold a gun.

>All crime punishable by death.
It sure is impossible to put a heroin package in the pocket of a guy who is inconvenient for the authorities, so that he can be legally executed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth#Go.C3.B0or.C3.B0_system

I think monarchy and other authoritarian systems are really underrated.

Having an individual as the state really changes the incentive structure and you can get a lot more done in a lifetime than in 4 or 8 years.

this is basically confuncianism

>A coalition of democratic city states (i.e. the way the greeks/founding fathers intended democracy to work).
Federal government should have only two jobs; border security/national defense, and arbitration of inter state disputes. Everything else should be the jurisdiction of the state, or preferably the jurisdiction of a smaller governing body.

fuck that shit, small government only does small things. I want a big government to build megascale engineering projects

Its like communism, but also with feudalism. (Oxymoron I know, but bear with me.)

We have a massive slave class of a subservient, and possibly melanin enriched people act as labor at gun point, then we take a more intelligent race of people, possibly with smaller genitalia, and make them the "slave drivers", with the major class maintaining a economic system that keeps the slave master class in its place with debts and the like.

This master class can do this task almost autonomously and live like gods without work.

I shall call this system, Judaism.

I'd like a local council that handles the everyday issues and can also decides the majority of the laws in the region. Everyone should get representation in this council, but it won't be a party system where the people vote who gets the most power but just representatives of groups that life in the region who vote according to the need of the people they're representating.
This is to prevent herds of idiots ruling the country because "muh will of the majority". Every group gets an equal say in everything. This also prevents people from other regions from making laws that might fuck over the people of another region, if you don't like the laws simply move to another region.

All these local councils will send one person to represent their region in a national council, here they will discuss things that effect the entire country. One person gets to represent the entire country, but thats it, he/she has to according to how the council orders.

Also in the law everyone is equal no matter the gender/race, even if we're not physically equal (which we should just accept), because I believe in the end everyone just wants to lead a happy life and as long as they're cool I'm cool with it.

>tl;dr: I want a system where the majority can't fuck up things for the minority

only problem I see with my system is that a few differences of opinion might lead to segregation between groups, whoops.

qed: first post is not always best post

>better form a government
>don't

I think it should be a legislative government in which only those who have served in the military can vote and/or hold office because military training teaches one to value the needs of the group over the individual.

I thought of this because in my opinon the only way to make most people informed and aware of what your vote is going to do is to force them.
I quickly skimmed through articles explaining what Confucianism, but they mostly tackle on the religion aspect of it. Care to expand?

Liquidate the government and let the people control the land they own.

I hear you. But luckily we all have some objectives we all want, like peace.. freedom, we have that.. why do there even have to be changes if everything's okay overall?

Get rid of money, which is literally useless. It's holding back all of our progress. That's why we have dumbasses "in charge", because they know how to fuck around with money.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination

this system was in place for like 1300 years. it wasnt technically a democracy, you got decision power by moving up the ranks, but the test was a preqrequisite for any power over government

the modern chinese system is somewhat similar too. power in government is ostensibly decided by merit and dedication rather than by citizenship

money is just an abstraction over resources, without money, the rich would still lord over the poor

Everybody knows how much it takes to sustain a human life so make a law that prevents anybody from hoarding resources that are unnecessary. It's so obvious. Why would anybody ever need luxury cars, or a house with 30 rooms, or a billion potatoes.

because people arent optimization problems that you can solve with linear programming. We're lazy irrational little monkeys who stop working the moment that you remove personal incentives.

it was like one year from the end of the first five year year plan to the start of hoholmordor

>we're lazy irrational little monkeys

Most people are. That's fine. It's really not difficult at all to provide basic necessities for everybody. They can be lazy and live their lives as brainlets and it won't really hurt anybody else.

The ones who want to do more can be given more resources (i.e. education/training, not money). Actually, most education or training should be freely accessibly to begin with.

Make self-sacrifice for the greater good of the state, the only requirement for gaining power in the state.
Like all Starship Troopers like.

> Anything freely given, has no value.
Our founding fathers knew it
> The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Our contemporaries know it
> Freedom isn't free. It costs a hefty fucking fee.

pardon my rantiness. i'm a lil drunk