Zman Kietilipooskie

This conversation is closed.

What from of Government is most suitable in a technologically advanced society, in which communication and goods can be provided by anyone?

There are many forms of structure of society ranging from no government ( Such as anarchism) to forms of government (Monarchy to Democracy to Communism). So which is the best structure given the changing variables of our society such ad the sciences, technology, and other changes.

  • thumb
    Dec 18 2012: Technocracy.
    The most intelligent and educated in a particular sector will dictate how that sector is managed.

    I remember seeing this..
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-finally-breaks-down-and-begs-its-smart-peop,26450/
    ..but besides the hilarity, I couldn't understand why this infact wasn't the case, atleast with the underlying point.
    Why aren't the most educated, intelligent and qualified not running a society that screams for educated, intelligent and qualified people to make educated, intelligent and qualified decisions?..
    • thumb
      Dec 18 2012: I would think that the same problem of a economical structure would be the same as a intellectual or scientific structure, which is corruption and biases. That is, if I have the meaning of the technocracy down.

      So do you think that a technocracy is any different then a democracy in its flaws, which I would think is its vulnerability for corruption.

      And is "manager" for a sector even needed if we have the technology we do today?
      • thumb
        Dec 18 2012: 'I would think that the same problem of a economical structure would be the same as a intellectual or scientific structure'

        I don't see how the principals of the scientific method and appeals to objective research would provide the same underlying and similar issues as majority-rule and appeals to emotion, tradition etc etc..
        If you're arguing that something should be discarded because of the vunerability to corruption, then the answer to your question is 'No government or any governing body of any sort, on any subject, ever until the end of time',
        Because you're not going to have any sort of authority on anything without the chance for someone to take advantage of it. The fact that anyone has any level of authority is what displaces them from everyone else in choice and opportunity and thus makes the chance of corruption ever more likely.




        'And is "manager" for a sector even needed if we have the technology we do today?'

        We don't live in the year 3000, so my assumption would be no.
        Our level of technological advancement is marginal at best compared to, lets say, the 1950's.
        Its only in a select few areas where we've excelled, its not the general rule.

        ---------------

        Edit for below:
        "In the scientific world there is just another means by with relativity and various opinions are deduced"
        Yes, because when one persons opinions are made up and another opinions are fact, theres no mechanism to deduce which one is infact accurate, right?



        "Does this lead us to the validity of a system without Authority?"

        No, this leads you to throwing your car away because the clock doesn't work.
        • thumb
          Dec 18 2012: In the scientific world there is just another means by with relativity and various opinions are deduced. There is just as much bias and disagreement a technocracy as there is in a Democracy. And equally the means by which you decide the most regarded person (similar to the most regarded politician) is open to corruption and propaganda.

          “Because you're not going to have any sort of authority on anything without the chance for someone to take advantage of it.”
          Does this lead us to the validity of a system without Authority?

          I would say that any person in the US having access to a computer would be an advancement that brings about new variables to a societal system.
  • Dec 28 2012: If you are talking close to one hundred years from now I think it depends upon the technology. But if the trends continue, the average person will have many dangerous tools at their use. Most would use these to improve their and other people's lives, but a few wouldn't. A government that keeps corporations honest is important. Besides that it should let people do what they want, besides maybe one or two transparent agencies. Those agencies would be involved in protecting the general public from dangerous computer viruses or weaponized viruses.
  • Dec 21 2012: I see that the following topics still haven't come up yet, so I'll just throw ithem n to the mix: progressing automation, extreme economic inequality (we have yet to discover the true meaning of "too big to fail" and "billionaires buying politicians"), genetic engineering giving rich families permanent and insurmountable advantages, intelligent machines wiping out humanity because the 1% just had to have robotic slaves. Business as usual and minarchism can't deal with these things.
  • thumb
    Dec 20 2012: I quite like the idea of a technocracy as mentioned below, but I have to wonder if such a form of government would be inevitably self-defeating.

    Consider the reality of running a society and the negative things it entails for its leaders; a thankless population, lots of social interaction, demeaning oneself in the interest of raising money, exposing oneself to the public and corruption, copious amounts of inefficiency, etc. Most of that fundamentally opposes the type of intellectual person who goes into science or engineering. There are A LOT of introverts among society's most technical minds who wish to focus their efforts on solving problems that are important and interesting to them. At the risk of sounding elitist (as an engineer), the social and fiscal problems that plague many societies typically do not generate much interest from us.

    Now, consider the type of person who is attracted to politics. Such an individual tolerates all of the aforementioned nuisances because the rewards that politics has to offer are worth it to them (fame, power, a huge ego boost, money, admiration and respect that is not always merit-based...things like that). Competent scientists/engineers who seek such rewards can usually attain them without having to subject themselves to the same unpleasantries that politicians do.

    I would argue that the type of person who could be enticed to abandon a technical career in favor of politics by motivators like power and glory is probably not the most intelligent or well-equipped to make objective decisions regarding society.

    There would need to be a reward more suited to the likes of the highly competent scientist/engineer for there to be any hope of getting the brightest minds to participate in politics, but I am at a loss as to what could motivate them to leave their careers.

    Regardless, society run by a politician personality who values science might be better than current governments, even if it was not an ideal technocracy.
    • thumb
      Dec 20 2012: I agree completely politics attracts the kind of "experts" that would not be the best for our country. So you don't like technocracy, what do you think of anarchy in a technologically advanced society?
      • thumb
        Dec 20 2012: I'm not convinced a technologically advanced society would be sustainable with pure anarchy, but I do think that many aspects of society would self regulate quite nicely in the absence of formal government.

        What do you think? You definitely have posed an interesting question. Also, I wanted to clarify your definition of "technologically advanced society"...are you referring to a society that is comparable to ours, or one that is more advanced?
        • thumb
          Dec 20 2012: I would think that the definition would be a society in which communication and information is universally accessible and the means by which the info and communication can be reproduced anywhere to prevent monopolization n or control.

          This is what led me to the viability of anarchy. After all the the only problem I could think of with anarchy is that people would eventually break into groups, which would be a problem unless they could all speak and cooperate through the above assumption.
        • Dec 22 2012: I'm quite sure minarchism or anarchism would be disastrous. For one the destructive/polluting potential of technology increases as it advances and I don't even want to think about what happens if there's no strong government to deal with unemployment caused by automation or rich families giving themselves eternal (hereditary) advantages through genetic engineering that only they can afford (it has to be either outlawed or made equally available to all if you want to keep any notions of civilization and justice).
  • thumb
    Dec 19 2012: Yeah what I really meant was...it doesn't really matter what system you create in your head...you would need to get the rest of them to agree with it...and since some of them don't care...good luck.
    • thumb
      Dec 19 2012: Yeah, and just like what I said, how do you think the government has changed over the existence of humanity.

      Originally I thought you were saying that the governmental structure wasn't the problem, something else is. But now you’re saying that this debate is a waste of time.

      Obviously people will not care about politics, there has probably always been a group of people like them. But without doubt and questioning and conversation things like the list of things your were speaking of will continue to happen.
  • thumb
    Dec 19 2012: It doesn't really matter what kind of government structure you have established. Some of you forget to realize how many people don't care as much as you about politics. Some people want nothing to do with politics or establishing a government.

    Therefore, the best government regardless of the environment would be a government that focuses on environmental protection and the progression of each individual citizen. Each human being should be worth more than any building, car, or government agency.

    Everyone needs a chance. If you're letting people die and you didn't give them a fair shot don't go around waving your flag of independence, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

    We wont promote peace in these other countries unless were getting something out of it. We have politicians they go over to these other countries with no respect whatsoever for their culture. We can keep spitting on people, that's fine if we want continue to be that way, but I just don't like pretending that we are this nation of people that care. You hear all these politicians give great speeches. The speeches are things you hear in movies I mean they sound amazing.

    However, the reality of it all is a little less than amazing. While politicians go back to their big bank accounts and nice cars certain Americans and people in other countries all over the globe are suffering and dying every day.

    Pretend only goes so far.
    • thumb
      Dec 19 2012: You said that "It doesn't really matter what kind of government structure you have established. Some of you forget to realize how many people don't care as much as you about politics. Some people want nothing to do with politics or establishing a government." Yet you list out problems that are the result of our governmental system.

      The purpose of government is to serve it's people, and if the people disagree with the government and the government doesn't listen then their is something wrong.
  • thumb
    Dec 19 2012: Hmm what is the most successful country in the history of the world? And what form of government were they?
    • thumb
      Dec 19 2012: Comparing result of types of government shows their relative success but it does not show the best option because of the changing variables, also there are many forms of government that have not been tried.
      • thumb
        Dec 19 2012: Absolutely you should resort to some sort of mental masturbation, or go with what has worked?
        • thumb
          Dec 19 2012: How do you suppose the governments we have today were created, they were reconstructed from old and obviously flawed systems.

          However now that we have a new "platform" from which we can construct a new society, perhaps the old platform and structure is no longer need or perhaps it needs to be reconstructed.
      • thumb
        Dec 19 2012: Generally speaking the neo whatevers want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. My advise is don't...
        • thumb
          Dec 19 2012: Your analogy looses it power when the baby could very well be outdated just like the many other babies that were thrown out during the existence of Human civilization.
      • thumb
        Dec 19 2012: Non Sequitur
        • thumb
          Dec 19 2012: This is cannot be a non Sequitor when it is not my argument or previous argument, it is my response to your argument (pointing out the flaw in your reasoning), which is that we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater many times throughout history.

          Ironically your argument was based on the use of history yet history has shown use that many "throw out the baby with the bathwater." So if anything your disagreement with the actions of "neo whatevers" is what led us the "successful country in the history of the world".

          To be put simply history has shown that we need reform sometime complete reform was necessary and it could very well be possible again.
      • thumb
        Dec 20 2012: Have a nice day
        • thumb
          Dec 20 2012: non se·qui·tur
          /ˌnän ˈsekwitər/
          Noun
          A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement
    • Dec 19 2012: "Hmm what is the most successful country in the history of the world? And what form of government were they?"

      The British Empire, they were a monarchy with a gradual change towards more democracy. But that's in the past, the OP is asking about future states with advanced technology and no colonies to conquer. Also, do keep in mind that the Empire was very successful but the British people still lived in the same squalor as everyone else in the world, so the success of the state may not be the metric we want to use.
      • thumb
        Dec 20 2012: That may be true in Smithland but it certainly is not in the real world.
        • Dec 20 2012: Let me guess, in Gilbertland Monaco was the most successful country in history...
      • thumb
        Dec 20 2012: You don't guess very well either.
        • thumb
          Dec 20 2012: I see that you are always right in pat gilbert land yet in reality you fail to recognize the meaning of others words..... Obviously the point in a debate is to present an argument and support it with opinions and facts. You are simply posseting analogies and comments that don’t do anything and are mostly incorrect.

          I don't know why you even talk on these things because it seems to me that you’re just here to blurt half thought out ideas or half correct analogies and then stop talking.
      • thumb
        Dec 20 2012: Yes I bow to your superior....
  • Dec 18 2012: Some variant of technocracy with democratic components. To elaborate on that: such an incredibly advanced civilization would have to be tightly regulated economically because even small mistakes or imbalances could cause catastrophic suffering or environmental damage and a too skewed distribution of the enormous wealth available to such a society would make untold numbers of people (who would be fully aware of how little they reap from society) slaves of a tiny elite in all but name, causing riots and uprisings. Finally the rate at which the civilization could harvest natural resources can be expected to grow faster than the rate at which manufacturing efficiency grows, so there is a danger of rapid depletion of natural resources that cannot be replaced quickly enough. On social issues and political freedoms the civilization would have to be very progressive to stay innovative and politically stable.
    • thumb
      Dec 18 2012: Would the collection of wealth be a natural result of humanities existence regardless of economic regulation?

      And similarly isn’t the population causing the depletion of the resources and not the rate of harvest or manufacturing efficiency?

      That is to say these things are inevitable regardless of government al regulation, unless it crosses into peoples rights, such as china’s population growth laws.
      • Dec 18 2012: "Would the collection of wealth be a natural result of humanities existence regardless of economic regulation?"

        Yes, but the amount collected can be limited by regulation. By regulation I mean that the government can limit how much wealth a person can collect and that the government can encourage or even force recycling over mining above a certain quota. This sounds draconian but it really doesn't touch any real freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of/from religion, romantic freedom, right to a fair trial, etc...) and these measures will simply be necessary, otherwise a single trillionaire could order the destruction of the entire Amazone rainforest on a whim, hell, an improperly serviced (to cut costs) privately owned space cruise ship could crash on a city and kill so many people that it makes 9/11 look like an innocent prank. Plus, working people would violently rise up (and rightfully so) if they got paid a lot less than GDP/capita.

        "And similarly isn’t the population causing the depletion of the resources and not the rate of harvest or manufacturing efficiency?"

        Not really, as long as you're above subsistence level the population can grow without consuming more resources. Inversely, consumption can go up much faster than population growth if left unchecked. Having limited population growth is one of the results of having a socially progressive society, which I already stressed the importance of.