Sign in or 

|
BigLoki |
Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 1:13 PM EDT
Marsden has a thread up, outlining a leadership scenario. I usually participate in his scenarios, unless there are already 200 posts on it, or the initial description is a page long ;). I've seen a few like this, and my question is this:How do you prevent your leadership, or your system of leadership from becoming what you despise right now about the one you live under? I'm in the US, and can only really speak from that point of view; however, I have seen similar complaints to my own from those in other countries. How are you going to keep yours from being that? It's a familiar system, it's established and understood... does that make it acceptable when you're given the chance to start over? Would you form a new system, go with one of the old favorites? Do you even think the current system is acceptable, just poorly executed? I'm very curious about this, I hope there are a few responses at least. Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
None
|
|
The_Anomoly |
1. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 1:54 PM EDT
I like the current government administration that we have, however I feel it is ineffective. In a way, the president can be nothing more than a figurehead if he does not have the support of both the house and the senate. Not goin' too much into the current administration, I believe that President Obama has not been able to do many of the changes that he had wanted to (not agreeing or disagreeing with him) because of disagreement between the three branches.I think an elected official in a parliamentary democracy would be more effective as they require the support of the "Senate" or their term will be suspended. I think this helps to relieve one of the main problems with the U.S. Government with inefficiency due to too many ppl in the kitchen at once. Pick a cook, and if you don't like their meals, get rid of 'em. Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
2. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 1:58 PM EDT
Fair enough. So revamp the current system, and hopefully execute it more effectively?What changes would you make (if any) to keep that system from devolving into what it is now? Would there be a constitution in your government, if so would it be a "living document" like the current one? Subject to redesign, and reconfiguration at will? Do you find this valuable? |
|
rabidbeaver |
3. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 4:31 PM EDT
| Post edited: Apr 25 2012, 4:32 PM EDT
I don't like the word leadership because I don't believe leaders are that important. The world has to many leaders. I think the evolution of leadership is to be a catalyst, someone who influences change but is not the leader of it. I like to think of myself as a catalyst always in control but never in charge. As for the our current system I think it could use changes. For one I think the president has way to much power and always has had too much power. I also think that we need more regulatory positions in our government. I am not talking about law regulation or economic regulation I am saying we need political regulation. More checks and balances. We also need to get rid of the electoral college or at least reduce the amount of power it has to equal or less than equal to the popular vote. I also think to be able to vote on certain legislation people should have to take a test to prove that they have sufficient knowledge of the policies and world that they are going to influence. I am tired of ignorance controlling the world.Edit: wording Do you find this valuable? |
|
Uzzgub |
4. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 4:31 PM EDT
| Post edited: Apr 25 2012, 4:39 PM EDT
I would go with an Absolute Ruler, one man to make decisions, one man to take the praise, and one man to take the blame.I think that person should have a council to give advice on things, but he has the finale word on ALL decisions. But he is elected every 8 years by everyone one over the age of 18 who are residents of the colony, and anyone can put there name in to be elected, but you cant be in for 2 terms in a row, so as long as there is a gap between your terms you can be elected as many times as you can. There would be a Constitution but unlike what you in the States have it would not be able to be changed unless 100% of the colony agree to the changes. I know this would only work in small scale "colony" and you couldn't run a city, let alone a country like this, but for a village sized colony it would work well IMO. P.S. I don't have any desires to be a ruler, and I wouldn't put my name in the pot to be elected, but I think that if you have a senate/parliament/council like most country's have now then there would be to much bickering (like there is now), to many delays on decisions (like there is now), and everyone would have to be honest otherwise there will be rampant corruption (like there is now), as well as stupid decisions made when any "normal" person would be able to give a better decision even tho they have no political experiences Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
5. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 4:38 PM EDT
| Post edited: Apr 25 2012, 4:39 PM EDT
I use the terms "leader" and "leadership" very loosely; being the voice behind the curtain certainly still counts in both cases.So you would also keep a semblance of the current system then rabidbeaver? Two "modifications of the current systems", and one Absolute ruler... all 3 interesting ideas. I suspected there would be a good bit that want to modify what exists. Familiarity is comfortable, whether right, wrong or otherwise; it's usually the beginning point when starting over. Not just politically, but in nearly every aspect of day to day life. Do you find this valuable? |
|
rabidbeaver |
6. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 4:42 PM EDT
Yes I would keep a semblance of the current system. The reason is because it is the best way to control people. If you think about it giving people the illusion that they control their lives makes them much less likely to revolt. Dictators are just idiots who haven't realized that they are taking unnecessary risks.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
BigLoki |
7. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 4:49 PM EDT
"Yes I would keep a semblance of the current system. The reason is because it is the best way to control people. If you think about it giving people the illusion that they control their lives makes them much less likely to revolt. Dictators are just idiots who haven't realized that they are taking unnecessary risks."I hope you don't think I was making a judgement call, i wasn't. It makes sense that people would stick with some form of what they're used to. I didn't put up a thread to judge the responses I asked for...hahaha Do you find this valuable? |
|
rabidbeaver |
8. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 4:53 PM EDT
Haha no I was just clarifying the basis of my post. I think this is a very interesting thread. I think I should apologize because my response was indirectly judging Uzzgub's response. I did not see his response when I posted.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Uzzgub |
9. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 5:12 PM EDT
"Haha no I was just clarifying the basis of my post. I think this is a very interesting thread. I think I should apologize because my response was indirectly judging Uzzgub's response. I did not see his response when I posted."lol fine by me =) But if you read what I said it wont be a Dictators as such as they will be voted in, after 8 years there out again, with little or no chance to change the rule to stop them being taken out of office. But Dictators can by good, as long as they don't go mad with power, but the only example I have of this is Lord Vetinari http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Havelock_Vetinari if you have no experience with him witch isnt really a great argument for a dictator, but its the best I can come up with Do you find this valuable? |
|
Necromonger |
10. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 6:21 PM EDT
The rules between groups will be different. Some dictatorships, some republics. I'd imagine that others would also be prevalent in such a situation. I see band societys being the most likely to emerge short term.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
IrishHitman |
11. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 6:30 PM EDT
Dictators? You mean tyrants.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Uzzgub |
12. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 6:36 PM EDT
"Dictators? You mean tyrants."There's a slight difference between them as I understand it, but not much of one Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
13. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 8:37 PM EDT
"How do you prevent your leadership, or your system of leadership from becoming what you despise right now about the one you live under?"Meritocracy is more easily achieved in small groups where everyone knows everyone elses skills. Large groups have a hard time, because how do you evaulate the competency of someone you never met for a job you are not an expert in? It's one of the reasons that capping the size of a colony at around 150 (the approximate social maximum level) keeps things manageable. Larger than that and you need to look at a transitive trust system. That's what current democracy in the UK is about. We elect MPs locally, and they elect a party leader from their circle. We should trust who we elect, they should trust who they elect, and by the transitive trust property, we should trust who they elect. Now, I don't trust any of the *******, but that is a whole other can of worms. For the most part, a meritocracy is the one that appeals most to me. Measuring the competency is the challenge there, but is kept simple by the size of the group. Do you find this valuable? |
|
timberrattler |
14. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 8:51 PM EDT
ANARCHY!"...it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples, that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society" Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
15. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 9:30 PM EDT
"There's a slight difference between them as I understand it, but not much of one"Dictator is one person telling people what to do. A tyrant does this for their own ends, whilst a dictator can be a Benevolent one. Imagine one person running things for the benefit of the people instead of themselves. Doesn't happen much in real life, and the only one that springs to mind is the fictional Lord Vetinari. But maybe someday a real-world government official won't turn out to be using the office as their own printing press. Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
16. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 25 2012, 9:34 PM EDT
"ANARCHY!The problem with anarchy is that people set up hierarchies naturally, and some people will act in their own selfish interests to the detriment of the group. New book by Bruce Schneier, Liars and Outliers is a good place to pick up things on this subject. It deals with trust models in society. Do you find this valuable? |
|
ubersoldat |
17. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 26 2012, 9:47 AM EDT
"I don't like the word leadership because I don't believe leaders are that important. The world has to many leaders. I think the evolution of leadership is to be a catalyst, someone who influences change but is not the leader of it. I like to think of myself as a catalyst always in control but never in charge. As for the our current system I think it could use changes. For one I think the president has way to much power and always has had too much power. I also think that we need more regulatory positions in our government. I am not talking about law regulation or economic regulation I am saying we need political regulation. More checks and balances. We also need to get rid of the electoral college or at least reduce the amount of power it has to equal or less than equal to the popular vote. I also think to be able to vote on certain legislation people should have to take a test to prove that they have sufficient knowledge of the policies and world that they are going to influence. I am tired of ignorance controlling the world.leadership and rulership are not the same thing. everyone leads, even you, everyday in the manner that we live our lives. every person you meet you influence in some small way and you are in turn influenced by them. everytime you make a decision and someone else is effected that could lead to a moment where you where actually leading by example wether or not it was your intent to do so. what most people think of as a leader is usually either someone who enforces control over others. this isn't necessarily leadership and usually works to a specific situation, why do you think so many people have a hard time with us ex-militery types running the show without being asked to? Do you find this valuable? |
|
rabidbeaver |
18. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 26 2012, 11:30 AM EDT
"leadership and rulership are not the same thing.Yes I have been a leader and I still am a leader but what I am saying is better than a leader. A catalyst is the evolution of leadership. It is someone who spurs change by just being present. It is someone who does all the roles of a leader but never has the risk of being a leader. The result is someone who the people like and has a complete hold over everyone even the figurehead that was unknowingly put into place by the catalyst. A catalyst in a group setting spurs improvement and conversation. While also being creative and paving the road for others in the group to stand up. Any leader can be a catalyst but they must give up one thing and that is the center of attention. You see this philosophy started in the business world were everyone try's to be a leader. In today's world there are to many traditional cooks in the kitchen so we need something more. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Redrighthand |
19. RE: Have we thought this through?
Apr 26 2012, 10:34 PM EDT
I've often thought that most laws are largely unneeded, and therefore, in any assembly, it should be really difficult to pass them. I'd suggest a 2/3 majority to pass any edict. This would probably kill any likelyhood of a 2 party system evolving.More imporantly, to me, would be the system of random selection of assembly members, with the lottery happening on a regular basis. Electioneering is curtailed, you pull council duty every so often, and do your bit, working with a group of other people who perhaps only share one thing - the idea of getting the community to improve. Do you find this valuable? |