Yes, there's a lot of corrupt stuff going on in politics. I'd be interested to hear what your solution is, or what you would at least prefer
I personally want to improve the political system to give politicians a better reason to actually do what the people want. My most audacious idea so far, would be to have one chamber of parliament be elected by the people, and the other being just randomly picked citizens. The random choosing would be done by the most independent entity we can find, today probably the Supreme Court. This would be similar to jury duty in the US, where citizens are randomly picked to serve as an independent check on judges.
So I would imagine maybe 1000 randomly picked people every month, who get a good annual salary to come to the capital for 1 month. Any law can only be passed if it gets a majority in this "People's Chamber". It basically acts as a quick form of a referendum, without having to ask literally everyone.
Unlike polls though, this sample will be pretty accurate, since polls have to actively seek out people and guess who will actually be voting, and the way they do that always has some error. With 1000 randomly picked representatives, then if a bill has majority support of 51.6% in the general population with the opposite against, then the chance that this bill doesn't get a majority is less than 2.2%. That's a much more accurate representation than what elected officials usually have.
This would probably also foster a culture of political participation, especially over a longer time, when eventually everyone will at least know someone who has served once in his life. That will bring politics directly into people's lives, rather than it being some far-off thing that "politicians" do.
my solution is no government at all, and everyone takes responsibility for themselves and those around them.
fortunately, without government siphoning off up to 65% of your income (depending on where you live,) we would all be easily able to afford to look after our sick relative, club together with neighbours to repair common utilities, etc. etc.
now i'm not foolish, i realise that even if this was a massively shared goal (which through mass programming it currently is not,) we would have to go through several phases of decades of reducing government bit by bit (starting with military spending and debt/ deficits) before we got to this ideal, but you did ask me what i'd prefer..
think about it, massive centralisation of power and control of resources, plus mass everything/ globalisation, have not led to a fairer, happier, healthier, more prosperous and peaceful world have they?
isn't it time to try the other end of the scale then?
One thing being bad doesn't mean the opposite it better. If a mixed economy, with some part of the economy controlled by the state and others by individuals, is bad, then shouldn't we go communist? If pizza with pineapple is bad, then isn't a pizza with no topping the answer?
Yes, some countries like Algeria tax 64% of the economy. But the average in the European Union is 35%, the United States has 25%. If having 1/4 less money personally (while still getting public infrastructure and benefits in return BTW) makes people ignore global poverty, will getting that money back (while no longer getting the benefits) really make them spend so much more?
We already afford to take care of our sick, and the poor across the world. It's just a question of electing leaders who actually help them. That's very hard in undemocratic states like the US, but still, it's possible. Just make sure they aren't bought with large donations from corporations and people with weatlh and economic power, because they don't care about the interests of poor people.
'If a mixed economy, with some part of the economy controlled by the state and others by individuals, is bad, then shouldn't we go communist?'
why not go full individual? why does the government need to get involved in the economy, what does it produce that business doesn't? you're still missing the box. there is nothing government does that we cannot do for ourselves.
kudos to you for the research - but you're only talking about income tax there - what about all of the other taxes i mentioned in the op?
again, an alternative view is that we keep all of our own money, and take care of all of our own problems, as families and neighbourhoods. no need for the expensive apparatus of a huge central and local government to plan and decide and get a wage whilst doing so, if a road needs to be built or someone needs an operation we pay for it ourselves, like how we used to do until about 200 years ago.
i urge you to check out some other thinkers and speakers on the topic of libertarianism/ stateless society - tom woods and larken rose come to mind, as well as etienne de la boetie. peace.
As a society, we need to have certain rules, and those rules need to be enforced. And no, it's not enough if when something happens, everybody in the town just runs to the guy to shoot him (as some libertarians actually propose), but we need an orderly process, with independent judges and all. And that process must inevitably include some police force, to enforce the rules.
If you can't see why we need a police, then I think you may be too far gone. If you can, we can talk about where the line should be.
yes, we need a court and penal system, pretty obvious. police? maybe, but only for preventing crime, to actually be on the streets stopping crime in the first place.
would be pretty unnecessary if everyone is taking responsibility for themselves so everyone will defend themselves or their property, again, like how life has been for most of our existence.
so yes, proper due process, court proceedings, judge and officers of the court. still no need for a central government though is there?
Simply true.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yes, there's a lot of corrupt stuff going on in politics. I'd be interested to hear what your solution is, or what you would at least prefer
I personally want to improve the political system to give politicians a better reason to actually do what the people want. My most audacious idea so far, would be to have one chamber of parliament be elected by the people, and the other being just randomly picked citizens. The random choosing would be done by the most independent entity we can find, today probably the Supreme Court. This would be similar to jury duty in the US, where citizens are randomly picked to serve as an independent check on judges.
So I would imagine maybe 1000 randomly picked people every month, who get a good annual salary to come to the capital for 1 month. Any law can only be passed if it gets a majority in this "People's Chamber". It basically acts as a quick form of a referendum, without having to ask literally everyone.
Unlike polls though, this sample will be pretty accurate, since polls have to actively seek out people and guess who will actually be voting, and the way they do that always has some error. With 1000 randomly picked representatives, then if a bill has majority support of 51.6% in the general population with the opposite against, then the chance that this bill doesn't get a majority is less than 2.2%. That's a much more accurate representation than what elected officials usually have.
This would probably also foster a culture of political participation, especially over a longer time, when eventually everyone will at least know someone who has served once in his life. That will bring politics directly into people's lives, rather than it being some far-off thing that "politicians" do.
my solution is no government at all, and everyone takes responsibility for themselves and those around them.
fortunately, without government siphoning off up to 65% of your income (depending on where you live,) we would all be easily able to afford to look after our sick relative, club together with neighbours to repair common utilities, etc. etc.
now i'm not foolish, i realise that even if this was a massively shared goal (which through mass programming it currently is not,) we would have to go through several phases of decades of reducing government bit by bit (starting with military spending and debt/ deficits) before we got to this ideal, but you did ask me what i'd prefer..
think about it, massive centralisation of power and control of resources, plus mass everything/ globalisation, have not led to a fairer, happier, healthier, more prosperous and peaceful world have they?
isn't it time to try the other end of the scale then?
Nicely said! Following!
One thing being bad doesn't mean the opposite it better. If a mixed economy, with some part of the economy controlled by the state and others by individuals, is bad, then shouldn't we go communist? If pizza with pineapple is bad, then isn't a pizza with no topping the answer?
Yes, some countries like Algeria tax 64% of the economy. But the average in the European Union is 35%, the United States has 25%. If having 1/4 less money personally (while still getting public infrastructure and benefits in return BTW) makes people ignore global poverty, will getting that money back (while no longer getting the benefits) really make them spend so much more?
We already afford to take care of our sick, and the poor across the world. It's just a question of electing leaders who actually help them. That's very hard in undemocratic states like the US, but still, it's possible. Just make sure they aren't bought with large donations from corporations and people with weatlh and economic power, because they don't care about the interests of poor people.
'If a mixed economy, with some part of the economy controlled by the state and others by individuals, is bad, then shouldn't we go communist?'
why not go full individual? why does the government need to get involved in the economy, what does it produce that business doesn't? you're still missing the box. there is nothing government does that we cannot do for ourselves.
kudos to you for the research - but you're only talking about income tax there - what about all of the other taxes i mentioned in the op?
again, an alternative view is that we keep all of our own money, and take care of all of our own problems, as families and neighbourhoods. no need for the expensive apparatus of a huge central and local government to plan and decide and get a wage whilst doing so, if a road needs to be built or someone needs an operation we pay for it ourselves, like how we used to do until about 200 years ago.
i urge you to check out some other thinkers and speakers on the topic of libertarianism/ stateless society - tom woods and larken rose come to mind, as well as etienne de la boetie. peace.
The tax rate was total revenue relative to GDP, so not just income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio
As a society, we need to have certain rules, and those rules need to be enforced. And no, it's not enough if when something happens, everybody in the town just runs to the guy to shoot him (as some libertarians actually propose), but we need an orderly process, with independent judges and all. And that process must inevitably include some police force, to enforce the rules.
If you can't see why we need a police, then I think you may be too far gone. If you can, we can talk about where the line should be.
yes, we need a court and penal system, pretty obvious. police? maybe, but only for preventing crime, to actually be on the streets stopping crime in the first place.
would be pretty unnecessary if everyone is taking responsibility for themselves so everyone will defend themselves or their property, again, like how life has been for most of our existence.
so yes, proper due process, court proceedings, judge and officers of the court. still no need for a central government though is there?
Ok, good that you're for due process. Now how will you actually get convicted criminals into prison, if you don't want a police?
'so yes, proper due process, court proceedings, judge and officers of the court. '