Creating Your Own Government - A Thought Experiment

Paleocon wrote:

Considering our life expectancy is easily twice as long as it was when populations of cities with self supporting agriculture first came on the scene, I would say the price has been way worth it.

I will take the possibility of dying of an autoimmune disorder at 80 over dying of a tooth infection at 20 any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

That's so far down the reductio ad absurdum rabbit hole that I don't even know where to start with a response.

How 'bout, "I will take living til the ripe old age of 60 healthy as a horse from good food and clean air over hacking up a lung at 35 due to cancer cause by mercury in the food chain"?

EDIT: Also note that I never suggested going back to the level of knowledge that we had thousands of years ago.

Squee9 wrote:

What if two villages got in a fight though? I bet the bigger village would win, which is a fantastic motivator to have a big village. I'd rather go the other way. We can fit the whole population of the earth in to Texas, and maybe a few other states, depending on how dense we make our super-metropolis. Then we can have continents of pristine wilderness.

Equally unworkable.

Overpopulation is a problem for sure, and I'm 100% down for more responsible reproduction up in this piece. I agree that many problems are caused by having too many people. However, I also believe that we can come up with more creative solutions than, "have fewer people."

Why is "have fewer people" a negative? How is more people intrinsically good?

I'd say "fewer people" is negative because it gives you less to work with. You have access to a smaller pool of skills. I also think aiming for a specific population is a hugely difficult and potentially massive pitfall. There's going to be a need for some flexibility, and of course having a massive population can be problematic, but so can having a small population.

If we're really talking about government, then I think we want to start here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

I'd add things like "gender" to Article 16(I), but I think this is a good place to start.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Considering our life expectancy is easily twice as long as it was when populations of cities with self supporting agriculture first came on the scene, I would say the price has been way worth it.

I will take the possibility of dying of an autoimmune disorder at 80 over dying of a tooth infection at 20 any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

That's so far down the reductio ad absurdum rabbit hole that I don't even know where to start with a response.

How 'bout, "I will take living til the ripe old age of 60 healthy as a horse from good food and clean air over hacking up a lung at 35 due to cancer cause by mercury in the food chain"?

EDIT: Also note that I never suggested going back to the level of knowledge that we had thousands of years ago.

How so? The idea of having governable entities restricted to 400 people necessarily limits the viability of market goods, industries, and the size of public works projects. Stuff that we take for granted like electrical tape or antibiotics would be simply impossible to produce. And I, for one, hardly think that is an improvement to my quality of life.

And in anticipation of your counter that multiple governable entities could provide the necessary population critical mass, I would counter that the only difference between that and the population growth we have today is that it would be an artificial restriction and needless hobbling of our ability to effectively govern ourselves.

I think large population is getting blamed for a lot of problems that aren't caused by having too many people. We have the technology to have clean air, fresh healthy food, and support a large population all at the same time. Currently that style of living is not incentivized.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

EDIT: Also note that I never suggested going back to the level of knowledge that we had thousands of years ago.

That's true, but you said a couple things about agriculture that kinda overlooks the role intensive agriculture had in gaining said knowledge in the first place. It's hard to make new discoveries when your society's Einsteins are forced to work in the fields because you don't want to use tractors or other implements of industrial farming.

Your village is going to quickly get left behind knowledge-wise (and production-wise) if 60 or 70 percent of the population is growing food and the village down the road only has one or two percent of its population doing the same.

As for me, I think any form of government I created would build on the ideals, rights, and freedoms expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but pay more attention to the practical side and the economics of it all. It's one thing to say "all men are created equal," but it's a far harder problem to create a system of government where that equality is actually ensured and someone with fat stacks of cash can't become more equal than others.

At the very least I think I'd be talking with a lot of evolutionary and organizational psychologists to figure out how to write laws in ways that harnessed or co-opted our natural drive to be selfish little f*cks and channel that effort into the common good.

OG_slinger wrote:

It's one thing to say "all men are created equal," but it's a far harder problem to create a system of government where that equality is actually ensured and someone with fat stacks of cash can't become more equal than others.

At the very least I think I'd be talking with a lot of evolutionary and organizational psychologists to figure out how to write laws in ways that harnessed or co-opted our natural drive to be selfish little f*cks and channel that effort into the common good.

I've always fantasized about the House of Representatives being representative by income bracket rather than district. I'm sure that's a logistical nightmare to figure out how to do, but if we're going thought experiment here, then I wonder what it would be like if there was at least one branch of government where the 99% does, in fact, have 99% of the power guaranteed.

Paleocon wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Considering our life expectancy is easily twice as long as it was when populations of cities with self supporting agriculture first came on the scene, I would say the price has been way worth it.

I will take the possibility of dying of an autoimmune disorder at 80 over dying of a tooth infection at 20 any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

That's so far down the reductio ad absurdum rabbit hole that I don't even know where to start with a response.

How 'bout, "I will take living til the ripe old age of 60 healthy as a horse from good food and clean air over hacking up a lung at 35 due to cancer cause by mercury in the food chain"?

EDIT: Also note that I never suggested going back to the level of knowledge that we had thousands of years ago.

How so? The idea of having governable entities restricted to 400 people necessarily limits the viability of market goods, industries, and the size of public works projects. Stuff that we take for granted like electrical tape or antibiotics would be simply impossible to produce. And I, for one, hardly think that is an improvement to my quality of life.

And in anticipation of your counter that multiple governable entities could provide the necessary population critical mass, I would counter that the only difference between that and the population growth we have today is that it would be an artificial restriction and needless hobbling of our ability to effectively govern ourselves.

The reductio was in response to your suggestion that current status quo is "possibly dying of an auto-immune disorder at 80", and that a dramatic lowering of tech and population equals "dying of a tooth infection at 20". There are indications that current tech has introduced or increased the incidence of things like allergies, asthma, diabetes, MS, Parkinson's, and other auto-immune related illnesses, so it's not like these are unusual or end-of-life only things. Also, I'd be very surprised to learn that many otherwise healthy 20 year olds died of tooth infections in any society with even rudimentary medical knowledge.

I don't expect that the world at large would continue as it currently is with enforced small settlement sizes. I expect the tech level would drop dramatically. I also expect that the rest of the world would have a much better chance at survival, and I think that's important.

OG_slinger wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

EDIT: Also note that I never suggested going back to the level of knowledge that we had thousands of years ago.

That's true, but you said a couple things about agriculture that kinda overlooks the role intensive agriculture had in gaining said knowledge in the first place. It's hard to make new discoveries when your society's Einsteins are forced to work in the fields because you don't want to use tractors or other implements of industrial farming.

Your village is going to quickly get left behind knowledge-wise (and production-wise) if 60 or 70 percent of the population is growing food and the village down the road only has one or two percent of its population doing the same.

I think current agricultural practice is abhorrent, and it has nothing to do with using a tractor or not. My favourite term for it is "totalitarian agriculture", where no other creature is allowed to eat our food or our food's food. It produces massive surpluses - and damages virtually everything around it, not least because it also produces tons of extra people. Hence my stricture on living off of what is available.

Frankly, we haven't done particularly well with all our "discoveries". We're sh*tty stewards of the land, and I think it's only appropriate that, given the opportunity, we abdicate the role.

A one world government based on the George Guidestones?

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.

Unite humanity with a living new language.

Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.

Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

Balance personal rights with social duties.

Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.

Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Has anyone heard about this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...

I think everyone - regardless of whether or not they are employed - deserves to have a basic income. Something like this would be great policy in our fictional government.

A couple things I've been considering.

First, minimum living wage - I believe that nobody should have to starve. My government would have a factory pumping out MRE bars (basically a block of whatever nutrients a human body needs to survive), and 'government housing' which would supply ultra-basic needs - food, shelter, sanitary facilities. You'd get a minimum guaranteed living space of something like 25 sq. m per person.

The idea being that no matter how bad it gets, you will *always* have food on the table and a place to stay - but it SUCKS. No entertainment, no provisions for happiness, etc- that's not my government's job.

Second, taxation would be a flat percentage, although I'm not enough of a tax expert to figure out how to work it to make everyone pay an equal percentage of tax.

Third, a fixed percentage of the tax would go towards education in the form of a non transferable 'ticket' that allows the child to go to school for the year - the school then gives the supplies needed to the student (clothing, books, educational supplies, etc). Possibly break it down into several categories so the parents have more choice in where to spend their allocation.

Fourth I'd abolish patents & copyright entirely, and possibly turn it around to be a government grant to companies that submit an invention that others take up and improve upon it.

I think the biggest, perhaps the only real problem is this: from everything we know about human history, we literally do not, as a species, as a whole, have the capability to manage our appetites (resource consumption).

Pawz wrote:

Fourth I'd abolish patents & copyright entirely, and possibly turn it around to be a government grant to companies that submit an invention that others take up and improve upon it.

You're forgetting incentive, but an official royalty rate is the easy solution.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

I'd say "fewer people" is negative because it gives you less to work with. You have access to a smaller pool of skills. I also think aiming for a specific population is a hugely difficult and potentially massive pitfall. There's going to be a need for some flexibility, and of course having a massive population can be problematic, but so can having a small population.

I dunno man, the Smurfs seem to have everything figured out.

nel e nel wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

I'd say "fewer people" is negative because it gives you less to work with. You have access to a smaller pool of skills. I also think aiming for a specific population is a hugely difficult and potentially massive pitfall. There's going to be a need for some flexibility, and of course having a massive population can be problematic, but so can having a small population.

I dunno man, the Smurfs seem to have everything figured out.

The hell they do.. goddamn sausage fest.