What else is there?

Luftwaffles

We all know that democracy is generally hailed as the most desirable form of governance but then again there's not set definition for democracy anyway. In any case it's also common knowledge that democracy is flawed and imperfect, but what other rational choice is there? There's variants of democracy that have been proposed, for example meritocracy which I favour.

Meritocracy is governance by elected officials who've proven themselves through their own merit to be the most suitable for the position allocated to them in it's simplest interpretation. Seems's good yeah? There's going to be flaws with that too; is democracy even anywhere near the perfect system or is there still something that anyone has yet to theorise that would suit better? Are there any other systems yet to be fully realised or pioneered?

It seems to me that Ireland has an oligarchy, controlled by the same old bloodlines and supported by a stubborn electorate. Said electorate only votes for the politicians they feel tell them what they want to hear or a particular party because the family has always voted for them.

I'm just curious what you guys think because I'm interested in that type of thinking, but I'm still young and I know any opinions or idea that I've formed are infantile and under developed.

Seachmall

There's actually a surprisingly advanced political system found in communities of Gorilla. It relies on a hierarchy and voting mechanism very similar to our own democracies but with minor differences that distinguish it and, in my opinion, make it clearly superior to our own. It establishes a socio-political baseline that ensures all parties are given fair and equal treatment exempt from personal or ideological bias up until a leader is clearly defined. That leader is only in power not for a defined period of time (during which they could stray from their original policies) but up until his policies are challenged. This is to ensure the "elected" leader maintains his loyalty to the community and does not abuse the system for his own gain.

They fling poo at each other.

dr.bollocko

Your username is excellent because it subtly and humorously suggests you agree with the teachings of Hitler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQYQTFudrqc

I think we can all get behind that.

Luftwaffles

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Your username is excellent because it subtly and humorously suggests you agree with the teachings of Hitler.

That's not the case at all. I saw it on The Simpsons and thought it was funny. I didn't really mean to imply that at all. Sorry.

dxhound2005

Luftwaffles wrote: »

We all know that democracy is generally hailed as the most desirable form of governance but then again there's not set definition for democracy anyway. In any case it's also common knowledge that democracy is flawed and imperfect, but what other rational choice is there? There's variants of democracy that have been proposed, for example meritocracy which I favour.

Meritocracy is governance by elected officials who've proven themselves through their own merit to be the most suitable for the position allocated to them in it's simplest interpretation. Seems's good yeah? There's going to be flaws with that too; is democracy even anywhere near the perfect system or is there still something that anyone has yet to theorise that would suit better? Are there any other systems yet to be fully realised or pioneered?

It seems to me that Ireland has an oligarchy, controlled by the same old bloodlines and supported by a stubborn electorate. Said electorate only votes for the politicians they feel tell them what they want to hear or a particular party because the family has always voted for them.

I'm just curious what you guys think because I'm interested in that type of thinking, but I'm still young and I know any opinions or idea that I've formed are infantile and under developed.

Where did you get your education? If everyone was as clued in as you then there would be a perfect system.

Immaculate Pasta

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs

:cool:

Where To

PK2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B1uF9gmkVw

Leo Dowling

In a perfect world a mix of schoolteachers, estate agents and accountants would sound like a good idea for who you would want to run a country. Hasn't worked out so well for us though.

Ricardo G

2 words..............BROWNE VINCENT

im invisible

Benovolent dictatorsip is the way to go

TeddyTedson

Ricardo G wrote: »

2 words..............BROWNE VINCENT

Yea but if you put those words in a different order it will make more sense, well actually, perhaps not!
Why does everything always come come down to Hitler. People need to forgive and forget!!!!! We're not all bad.

guitarzero

You'd probably have to look into what other countries do/have done to see what might work. Scandinavian countries have always been used as good examples but now they're saying their country isnt doing very well, you have socialists cheering on Cuba but I dont know what the Cubans actually think. Milton Freidman promoted the free market with minimal government influence which seemed like a good idea.

I think as long as there is fear, greed and pain then it may be an impossible dream.

inagoodway

A good king would be better than democracy

squod

inagoodway wrote: »

A good king would be better than democracy

I've always said we should go back to having a Royal family (or families). 'Think the threat of having your head removed from your body might effect decisions made in parliament. Also might unify a people moreso than the tribal politics of FF & FG.

inagoodway

squod wrote: »

I've always said we should go back to having a Royal family (or families). 'Think the threat of having your head removed from your body might effect decisions made in parliament. Also might unify a people moreso than the tribal politics of FF & FG.

i could support a good king, but is there anybody in modern Ireland who could be a good king. i think i would be myself , but nobody knows me, so why should they support me.

i honestly couldn't nominate anyone off the top of my head

Bannasidhe

squod wrote: »

I've always said we should go back to having a Royal family (or families). 'Think the threat of having your head removed from your body might effect decisions made in parliament. Also might unify a people moreso than the tribal politics of FF & FG.

What happens when the monarch starts:
Talking to trees (George III).
Executing spouses (Henry VIII).
Believing God has given them absolute power (James I, Charles I, Louis XIV, Peter the Great - just to be getting on with...).
having difficulty swallowing as they are so inbred they are nearly their own grandmothers (Spanish Hapsburgs).

Monarchy....all well and good as long as they are restricted to waving and ribbon cutting...

inagoodway

didn't we say a good king?

CreepingDeath

Luftwaffles wrote: »

We all know that democracy is generally hailed as the most desirable form of governance

I read a book on philosophy and they proposed that democracy was fundamentally flawed because everyone voted in their own best interests rather than the good of society.

Instead they proposed that a group of educated and impartial people should make the decisions and not be swayed by public opinion unduly.

SafeSurfer

Its a tough question OP. Democracy has serious limitations but at least, in theory all of the citizens that enjoy the franchise have an equal say in their society. In reality, democracy is a competition between competing, vested interests to control society by appealing to the masses. The United States for example is basically a two party state, with very little difference between Democrats and Republicans. What differences there are, are accentuated to emphasis the differences between the parties but realistically there ideological difference is an illusion, just like Labour/Conservatives or Fianna Fail/Fine Gael here in Ireland.

Democracy is fundamentally flawed, but arguably less flawed than alternative political systems.

Bannasidhe

inagoodway wrote: »

didn't we say a good king?

Why a 'king' - no women need apply?
:pac:

A king who is good for whom? Himself? His family? His aristocrats?

As for who become monarch - Usually that kind of thing runs in families - each of the people I named inherited the throne. That's how monarchy tends to work - eldest child (used to be son) becomes the next monarch - what happens if they are a total psycho? Or a dribbling eejit? Both have happened many many times.

To avoid that do you 'elect' the monarch? Can only members of the 'royal family' be elected?What if none of the were suitable - would you look at their distant cousins or elevate a 'commoner'? If elected, what would make them different from a president with executive powers then? Do they reign for life? What if they become incapacitated or develop dementia? Do they have a fixed term - retire at a certain age? What age would that be?

HAAA! HAAA!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why a 'king' - no women need apply?
:pac:

If we had a king like that French guy we'd at least get some cake.

Bannasidhe

HAAA! HAAA! wrote: »

If we had a king like that French guy we'd at least get some cake.

Yeah, French kings... that worked out well.

Ambient Occlusion

Hi guys. I'm the OP. I closed my account and started a new one in case then username of my old one insulted anyone else. I wanted to start anew anyway so people would take me more seriously. Sorry about that.

inagoodway

Ambient Occlusion wrote: »

Hi guys. I'm the OP. I closed my account and started a new one in case then username of my old one insulted anyone else. I wanted to start anew anyway so people would take me more seriously. Sorry about that.

welcome back !:)

can you nominate a good king, or maybe it would be better with three kings and two queens?

Ambient Occlusion

Thanks inagoodway.
I don't really think any person should be given so much power, perhaps though if accompanied by a parliament? Would that really take off in Ireland though? Wasn't there some guy that said there needs to be a fine balance with the number of people that govern anything. Too few and they can't be trusted, too many and corruption brews.
If I had to choose a monarch.... Anne Doyle :P (I have no idea)

Richard Hillman

A group of judges or the people elect a leader of the country (non politically aligned) who has one term between 5-10 years. The leader of the country would employ the best people possible (not politicians) as minister of finance, health, education etc. The ministers employed have free reign to do as what they feel is the best for the country. A permanent task force would be appointed by the judges to ensure there are no conflict of interests involved in the appointment of the ministers and how the ministers do their jobs. The employed ministers would hire regional managers to replace politicians.

The national leader, his ministers and regional managers would be paid a decent salary but will receive extremely handsome bonuses as an incentive to do the best job possible and to entice the best of the best. Similar to the banks and normal large companies but they would actually have to earn their bonuses.

Ambient Occlusion

Richard Hillman wrote: »

A group of judges or the people elect a leader of the country (non politically aligned) who has one term between 5-10 years. The leader of the country would employ the best people possible (not politicians) as minister of finance, health, education etc. The ministers employed have free reign to do as what they feel is the best for the country. A permanent task force would be appointed by the judges to ensure there are no conflict of interests involved in the appointment of the ministers and how the ministers do their jobs. The employed ministers would hire regional managers to replace politicians.

The national leader, his ministers and regional managers would be paid a decent salary but will receive extremely handsome bonuses as an incentive to do the best job possible and to entice the best of the best. Similar to the banks and normal large companies but they would actually have to earn their bonuses.

That's essentially what I was thinking too, without the whole salary thing, you've fleshed it out a bit more. I really annoyed me when I saw things like cabinet reshuffles. I'm 17 now, surely if I can see that something like that makes no sense, the politicians could see it too? What sense does it make to put people with little relevant qualifications or experience into a field they've never operated in before? Political ability only counts for so much.

TheMilkyPirate

Luftwaffles wrote: »

That's not the case at all. I saw it on The Simpsons and thought it was funny. I didn't really mean to imply that at all. Sorry.

Ambient Occlusion wrote: »

Hi guys. I'm the OP. I closed my account and started a new one in case then username of my old one insulted anyone else. I wanted to start anew anyway so people would take me more seriously. Sorry about that.

I think dr.bollocko was only pulling your leg, You should have kept you other username i found it amusing

wendell borton

I fear plato was right.

The dialectical forms of government
Main article: Plato's five regimes
While Plato spends much of the Republic having Socrates narrate a conversation about the city he founds with Glaucon and Adeimantus "in speech", the discussion eventually turns to considering four regimes that exist in reality and tend to degrade successively into each other: timocracy, oligarchy (also called plutocracy), democracy and tyranny (also called despotism).
Timocracy
Socrates defines a timocracy as a government ruled by people who love honor and are selected according to the degree of honor they hold in society.
Oligarchy
These temptations create a confusion between economic status and honor which is responsible for the emergence of oligarchy. In Book VIII, Socrates suggests that wealth will not help a pilot to navigate his ship. This injustice divides the rich and the poor, thus creating an environment for criminals and beggars to emerge. The rich are constantly plotting against the poor and vice versa.
Democracy
As this socioeconomic divide grows, so do tensions between social classes. From the conflicts arising out of such tensions, democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the inexperienced oligarchs and soon grant liberties and freedoms to citizens. A visually appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class. However, with too much freedom, the people become drunk, and tyranny takes over.
Tyranny
The excessive freedoms granted to the citizens of a democracy ultimately leads to a tyranny, the furthest regressed type of government. These freedoms divide the people into three socioeconomic classes: the dominating class, the elites and the commoners. Tensions between the dominating class and the elites cause the commoners to seek out protection of their democratic liberties. They invest all their power in their democratic demagogue, who, in turn, becomes corrupted by the power and becomes a tyrant with a small entourage of his supporters for protection and absolute control of his people.

Show Time

im invisible wrote: »

Benovolent dictatorsip is the way to go

I would be for a dictatorship once i am running things.

Del2005

Richard Hillman wrote: »

A group of judges or the people elect a leader of the country (non politically aligned) who has one term between 5-10 years. The leader of the country would employ the best people possible (not politicians) as minister of finance, health, education etc. The ministers employed have free reign to do as what they feel is the best for the country. A permanent task force would be appointed by the judges to ensure there are no conflict of interests involved in the appointment of the ministers and how the ministers do their jobs. The employed ministers would hire regional managers to replace politicians.

The national leader, his ministers and regional managers would be paid a decent salary but will receive extremely handsome bonuses as an incentive to do the best job possible and to entice the best of the best. Similar to the banks and normal large companies but they would actually have to earn their bonuses.

But politicians appoint the judges. Or how do we get judges since IMO most judges appear to have less idea of the real world than our political leaders.

Democracy is fine. But once someone nominates themselves they should immediately be banned for life.

We should have it like the national service. Everyone has to do it for a few years, maybe a bit like jury duty selection. I don't think a lack of knowledge or experience would matter since one of the oldest parties in the State ruined us and the other gang are doing a grand job keeping air lines busy.

Ambient Occlusion

I'd just like to mention that this isn't an all out attack on our government for their failure to cope with present problems (Satisfactorily). I was just curious to see if a better system exists.
Del, you mentioned national service and that a lack of experience wouldn't be a problem. I see what you're getting at but could you elaborate a bit? I kinda just see incompetence and inexperience as the core of the problem but I'm open to hearing your opinion.

Del2005

Well our experienced leaders made a mess of the economy. So someone with no experience couldn't do any worst.

Of course they'd have to have advisers, but they could be hired on merit and not how many doors they knocked on.

biko

Cheerocracy is the way to go, as long as I am the cheertator.

Nothingbetter2d

we should get an iphone app to run our country instead. remove the politicians thus removing the corruption.