Member 1995
1 entry

(M, 32)
Immortal since Nov 25, 2008
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Recently commented on
    From K Torp
    Evolution of Government:...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From K Torp's personal cargo

    Evolution of Government: Where We Are Headed
    For the past few days on an internet forum, I've been discussing how government would be structured if I could erase all the boundaries and current government structures and start from scratch. I started with the idea that more power should be given to local governments and we should be moving towards the opposite direction of a globalized government.

    Since the inception of government we have slowly been giving more and more governmental powers to the common people. It started off with one king or monarch ruling an entire land and group of people. Then later we moved onto assemblies of elected officials ruling over a large nation. And now we are in a society in the modernized world where some power is giving to local forms of government, but the final rule of the land still lies in a centralized position of the entire nation.

    What is the ultimate goal that everyone would like to achieve? Of course it would be self-government, where everyone is their own creator of laws and what is right or wrong. As the intelligence of man has evolved over centuries, and at an increasingly quicker pace, more power has been delegated to the common man because he now has a better judgment of his actions and how his actions effect others around him. The next step in this process is to give full governmental powers to very localized governments.

    I will use America as an example. In America, it is said that any power not delegated to the federal government, is reserved for the states. With this in mind, you would think most matters of personal liberty, or really any aspect of government besides military and currency, would be decided by the states. This is not the case. For example, medical marijuana has been legalized in many states, but the federal government still uses its authority to arrest those using the plant for medicinal purposes. This kind of government strips rights and liberty from the common person and puts moral laws in the hands of a few men in Washington.

    Some may say that by dividing lands into local governments you would be dividing people against each other and all peace would be lost. I do not believe this would be the case because freedom is popular and tends to bring people together. These local governments (from now on to be referred to as states) would allow the cultures of the local people to decide the law of the land and how they are to live their life. When people are given more power in how they choose to live their life, they tend to be more peaceful and caring.

    This form of government would also allow people around the world to see what works and what does not work in government. For example, one area may have high taxation in a socialist society, while another area would have a capitalistic society where very few taxes are levied. Both areas could be compared in terms of production and overall prosperity to end all debate on socialism vs capitalism, and soon more states would adopt the ideas of the more successful state. While these comparisons can be made today, perhaps the increase in variations of government would lead to a clearer image of what the most useful aspects and versions of government are for the people.

    [Any negative comments on this structure would be greatly appreciated to help form the details of this form of government. Of course, positive comments are always welcomed too. I may have left out many parts, but this was my first post on here and I was just rambling through my keyboard.]

      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)

    Jcinema     Fri, Nov 28, 2008  Permanent link
    I think the topic of leadership should be addressed in further detail. My biggest concerns with a gonverning body in general is the overall character and motives of those in Leadership positions. Even in smaller more localized entities someone will "be in charge" so to speak. "who will be in charge" is my question.

    rotating government positions similar to jury duty perhaps? that would be interesting. lol
    K Torp     Sat, Nov 29, 2008  Permanent link
    The local governments would elect assemblies and they would pass laws or "have the power." There would be no executive powers.
    Infinitas     Sun, Nov 30, 2008  Permanent link
    I have been thinking a lot about this subject recently and one giant world government (what I think is probably going to end up happening in the next 10 years), I believe, is the exact opposite of what should be. People are born with a basic moral understanding of right and wrong. People act on the 'wrong' because they feel like they are not able to get what they want. Indeed, if people were able to govern themselves, and only themselves, then I think the world would be a beautiful place. But then again, there is the problem with all the "crazies"...

    The root words of democracy come from Greek basically meaning "the people rule." Though I feel like this is what the majority of the U.S. population thinks what our government is, I'm sad to say it isn't. There are a selected group of individuals that run the country. For example, only about a 1/3 of the population voted in this last presidential election, and about 55% of those voted for the winner. That is not government by the people if you ask me. The biggest problem with the U.S. today is regulation. I firmly believe that I, and only I, know what's best for me, except for my parents who would decide for me until I am "of age". If you are totally incompetent for one reason or another, either your parents rule over you forever, join some kind of helping institute, or just let natural selection weed you out...

    If I were to rearrange the U.S. government, first and foremost I would get rid of the federal government and turn the presidency into more of a foreign ambassador who is basically just the face of the U.S. and would have *some* military control just in case of being attacked and such. Government would be run totally on "the people." Jcinema mentioned rotating positions. I believe that's exactly what the Greek Spartans used to do. Each state county would have it's own kind of Congress where people, maybe 50, living in that county are randomly picked picked out of a hat. There would have to be some kind of moderator just to make sure things got done and went smoothly; this would be that person's full time job and he would be required to meet with all other moderators of all the counties to make sure the new laws are put in place. All of these moderators are nothing more than what their name suggests, they just make sure the law is recognized state-wide. The law of the majority number of counties is the one set in place. For the next year, those 50 people of each county decide the laws. When the year is done they go back to their old lives and new people are picked.

    There is no national government, and barely a state one. Sure there are a lot of things that would have to be ironed out. I do have a lot more ideas but I just threw out the major reform.
    K Torp     Sun, Nov 30, 2008  Permanent link
    I don't like the idea of random people becoming leaders with a rotation. I would rather there be assemblies elected by the people with one year terms, but re-elections allowed. I agree with your statements on a one world government. More power needs to be given to the state and local governments.
    Infinitas     Sun, Nov 30, 2008  Permanent link
    K Torp:

    These random people wouldn't be "leaders" at all, they are just normal people like you and me. Sure there is an inherent problem that comes along with that too, but so does everything else. The problem I see with people running for offices is where they get their motivation from. For example, many people would run for power and money, no? There would have to be a strict re-election law. Maybe 4 years at most? The fact that there are a few people in Congress who have been there for over 50 years, in my opinion, is a serious flaw in the system; they just become more and more influential and create biases towards their views on what is right.
    K Torp     Sun, Nov 30, 2008  Permanent link

    Thanks for your comments. The main problem I have with random people becoming elected officials is their inability to do a good job. I wouldn't have a problem with someone serving a 50 year term in the assembly if the people kept electing them. When they are electing someone like Ron Paul who uses his position to take power away from government rather than enhance it, it could be a very good thing. Of course there will be people running for election just for the money or power, but it is up to the people to decide which person they feel is not power hungry.
    Jcinema     Mon, Dec 1, 2008  Permanent link
    I agree. More Ron Pauls would be excellent. I believe in Plato's Republic he called for a society led by philosophers... lovers of wisdom. That breed seems few and far between in most current world governments.