TED Conversations

Ian Sheane

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What would your ideal government system look like?

What would your ideal government system look like? Is a two party system such a good idea?

Topics: 2012 US election government systems design
+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    scott lee

    • 0
    Nov 13 2012: I believe a good system of government is a multi party democracy with some sort of proportional representation. Essential services such as education, healthcare, public transportation, and public broadcasting should be provided by the government. There should be a robust free market of goods and services. Critical infrastructure such as roads and power grids should be owned by the government with construction and maintenance contracted out to the private sector. Government should be responsive to the public on issues regarding the environment and responsible resource development and the public should benefit from the exploitation of raw resources such as oil, minerals and timber.

    Democracy is the best we have. We have very serious challenges ahead in our future and we need a system that is responsive to the input of the public that will bear the burden of these challenges.
    • thumb

      Krisztián Pintér 200+

      • 0
      TED Translator
      Nov 13 2012: bread making is not essential? or what is the criteria of being essential?
      • thumb

        scott lee

        • 0
        Nov 14 2012: That's a fair question. In Canada "essential services" is a politicized term and I'm clumsy using it outside of a Canadian context.

        Basically, if a service is deemed by the democratic process to be important for the functioning of society, but is not profitable as a business or affordable to the general public, then the government should provide that service. The examples I stated, education, healthcare, public transportation and public broadcasting fall into fall into this category. Baking bread can be done profitably in a manner that is affordable to the vast majority of people in Canada, therefore it should be left to the market.

        The government need not monopolized the service. In the case of education and broadcasting in Canada, the private sector also provides the services and the country is culturally richer as a result.
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • 0
          TED Translator
          Nov 14 2012: the definition of basic service can be of two kinds. either it is subjective, something we simply decide or choose. similar to what is entertaining, what is tasty, etc. there can be no debate about what should be entertaining, it is what it is. one can only describe it, or try to influence it, etc. the other possibility that we can assign an objective definition to basic service. in this case it is up to debate what should we include in it. the correct solution can be found.

          according to your definition here, essential service falls into the former category. it is not researched, debated, verified or proven, rather it is decided by democratic process.

          using this definition, what you said basically is that government should provide services that people demand. which is the very definition of democracy. it sounds like profound, but it adds nothing to the system itself. you just want to system to function as it was intended, and provide what people want.

          whether it is a good idea, is an open question. i claim that it is not, and the effects are terrible.
      • thumb

        scott lee

        • 0
        Nov 17 2012: "according to your definition here, essential service falls into the former category. it is not researched, debated, verified or proven, rather it is decided by democratic process."

        That's not really true. Government policies (at least where I live) are very heavily researched. They are researched by the government itself, as well as various third parties from differing ideological camps. They are studied in universities and think tanks which try to understand the consequences of government policy. They are also debated. They are debated in the open in parliament. They are debated in the media, they are debated behind the scenes by people involved and they are debated by the public in their living rooms.

        As far as objective proof is concerned, that is simply outside the realm of possibility. Objective proof is no easy task. I would go so far as to say that nothing has been objectively proven in all of Ted conversations.

        Humans are doomed to make decisions based on incomplete information, often under tight deadlines. This is true for all levels of government from cities to the UN. It is also true of all businesses. We simply do not have the luxury of objectively proving a policy will be beneficial before creating it.

        Subjectivity is as innate to human nature as ignorance.

        As far as the "terrible effects" are concerned I just don't see them. I don't see the terrible effects of public education, public broadcasting, public transportation and public healthcare. I don't see the terrible effects of our electrical grid, police officers, fire fighters, safety inspectors, sewer system, water infrastructure, roads, railways, and ports. I believe those have in fact been very good for the economy, and have supported the free market.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.