Evolution of Governments

Hadn't heard of that, thanks I'll look it up. Hey, these days who knows whether a reporter is an intel agent or not? But I get your point and I agree. I was thinking more along the lines of media helping with analysis and dissemination of information rather than doing strict intel gathering for the gov't.That said, it might help some people to come forward knowing that what they have to say will go somewhere of some use, rather than to orgs that will play it based purely on politics.In the case of Iraq, the media had enough info to counter the analysis put out by the insular CIA and Bush administration. Further, post Iraq, you would not have had the political play with regard to people like Wilson, or limits on what could be examined which exactly what reps did in order to save Bush.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Golly gee, NJ, I'm having a problem here. Maybe you can help.I checked out your link, and sure enough that gun-lovin' site, Maryland Citizens Defense League, posted some "hard statistics" that purport to show Denmark with a suicide rate of 20.4 per 100,000 persons, and the U.S. much cheerier at 11.8. They say the stats came from "World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Statistics Annual," so I thought they'd be easy to check.The first problem is which year's WHO Statistical Annual--who knows? Strangely enough, the hard statistic lovin' fellas at MCDL didn't include that info or any of the customary statistical context usually included with comparative suicide rates which are notoriously difficult to work with--since legal standards and social norms for declaring any given death a suicide vary greatly.So I just went in search of the most recent WHO statistics I could find, and the results are curious:nation / year / M / F
DENMARK / 98 / 20.9 / 8.1
USA 99 / 17.6 / 4.1
BRAZIL 95 / 6.6 / 1.8Funny thing about statistics--they aren't hard at all: they're kinda mushy from being pushed around so much. Do you suppose our friends at MCDL compared the Danish male rate to the U.S. mean of both genders? I dunno--and you don't either. You found a page of statistics undated, unsupported, noncontextualized--and apparently invalid--and you leaped to cite them.These are the "hard statistics" that polls pale before? Tsk, tsk.You'll note I included the most recent rates for Brazil, whose income inequality you pounce on later in your post. Oddly, they, and just about all of left-leaning South America, have suicide rates well below those of the U.S. and the other Western industrialized nations.Bottom line: I don't think the suicide rate tells us much about the general happiness level of a nation. The Danes have historically been depicted as dour and depressed; this was once ascribed to their northern clime, though latitude doesn't hold up when considered globally. Even if suicide rates are relevant, your sources are screwy loose with them.Carefully conducted and analyzed surveys/polls are quite reliable. Ask Karl Rove. My mental state is irrelevant to the debate.Homeless? Who said anything about the homeless? Most uninsured Americans are working poor. I'd read all of Rand's novels by the time I was 13, which is about the right age for her neo-romantic elitism. I prefer this Rand quote: The notion that the only proper role of government is to protect its citizens from physical force would certainly suit capital, since unrestrained capital, via compounded class advantage and inheritance, takes a larger slice of the pie at every generation's meal, all the while singing hosannahs to the level playing fields on which they have never had to play.Listen closely; this is simple. Working class income has stagnated (at best) since the 1970s, while the rich, especially the richest of the rich, have gained enormously. Those gains were generated by the constantly increasing productivity of the American worker.For most of that time, the slutty handmaidens of capital, the GOP, have persuaded a majority of working people that their declining fortunes were due to commies, blacks, Mexicans, gays, hippies, liberals, etc. That didn't wash in this most recent election, and that gives me hope and should give the Right pause: if there is not eventually a peaceful political solution to these inequities, there will eventually be a chaotic and violent one.My comments about the insatiable greed of capitalism had nothing specific to do with oil, but rather with the accelerating wealth imbalance in the U.S--the ultra-wealthy are building their palaces on the misery of the uninsured, undereducated, and underpaid; this administration stacks the deck against labor and collective bargaining at every opportunity; where labor can resist, capital flees to other nations.To seek a more equitable balance of wealth in American society is not even socialism, it is merely enlightened self-interest. It is a measure of the perversity of the Right that any attempt to redress economic injustice and the attendant human misery is derided as boogeyman socialism. But I think that tactic is just about played out.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Who said "politics is the art of the possible"? Is evolution not also the art of the possible, and does evolution of life forms include evolution of states? Proposing and inventing state structures is fun, but in reality its the animals with big teeth that rule, and its the rule of law that ballances one person's freedom against another's. Evolution is not about improvement. Its about not being destroyed, somehow - anyhow, and people in power will use any means to survive. Personally, I'd like a world with more resources than mouths to feed, but I also want family life, so I'm just thankful for what I have. I wish the world was nicer.
All the best.

---

Human Evolution in 42 Steps

I had thought of something like a grand jury convened whenever there were laws to be {revised\passed} that dealt with the {operation\pay} of any government position (ie congress pay rates, benefits, pensions, etc) so that you don't have people passing or approving laws that benefit themselves directly.And yes, a similar grand jury to judge ethics of congress and administration ... Yes, but as we have seen, when the elections are essentially between parties and the party that has the majority rules the branch in lock-step with other branches ruled by the same party there is NO check on the balance of power.What you need are different means of selecting representatives in different branches so that parties are less important than ideas and policies.I would like to see a judiciary that is much more independent than our system (currently) allows. It should be more like a job application that is judged purely on the merits of ability, experience and qualifications. It seems to me that the judicial branch should be making the recommendations for who should be considered. And rather than have an election or an appointment by an elected politician have a board of citizens convened to run the interviews.Now this "grand jury" or "board of citizens" could be the same basic concept - a jury of citizens convened to review one item, whether it is the annual budget, a pay raise, the appointment of a new supreme court justice or the impeachment of a president. It would need to be large enough to represent the people, but no larger than necessary. The size would be set by the number needed for a poll to get accurate results and the decision would have to be something like 2/3rds to eliminate the +/- error of the poll sample and guarantee majority decisions (this allows reduction of the group size until say 60%+error = 67%). The sampling would need to be done in a way to ensure that everyone is adequately represented, in much the way that polls are conducted to ensure a random sample is obtained.Of course this depends on an educated, rational population to work ... Perhaps an ombudsman of information office. Operating under the judicial branch?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I agree with your idea, now how will we get this in place using the current system? That's why I've suggested changing the way the House of Representatives is handled. If it were treated as a national level parlaiment, it would break the back of the two-party system, and allow for many small voices to be heard and potentially explode into a larger force. There would be no such thing as a throw away vote. While that's possible, my theoretical demand is for a separate branch. I don't believe the judicial branch is free from the potential to meddle in information gathering for their advantage either. I can see a conservative court trying to shift "information" on constitutional law to fit their own interpretation.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Ah but there's the rub eh? The judicial branch is supposed to be impartial and a-political. Thus it isn't supposed to be "conservative" or "liberal" -- the fact that it isn't is a product of political manipulation of the approval process.If you can have a system that maintains an impartial and a-political judiciary branch, then it would also serve for your program.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yes, yesss. I see. Under that scheme I could see it working. My only remaining issue would be one of taste in that I'd prefer to keep an organ for legal judgement separated from an organ for information management/analysis.I like to keep things nice and compartmentalized.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

But they are both making judgements based on analysis of information to see what is most likely the truth.Ideally.A model for distributing the information is Snopes.com | The definitive fact-checking site and reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation. and the way they handle "urban legends"Can you imagine real-time snopes analysis of any political ad?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

From Wepwawet, Message 159Here it is on topic, and it does look like the spanking issue has dried up, possibly due to the withdrawal of holmes for personal reasons for a while, a loss to the debate. Net gain in personal value, just to quibble a little.We could also view that as a poor personal investment -- the result is no different than frittering away a $500,000 a year income on the stock market.Another problem is how you depreciate purchases over time, whether it is a car, a house, or a radio, computer, clothes.The difference is that there is a base level of expenditures for living - the cost of living baseline - and anything above that is discretionary: what you buy with it has personal value to you (or you wouldn't buy it eh?), whether it is a splash new car or your designer drugs.In any case the person has already taxed themselves most of that $500,000.00 annual income and ensured that the bulk of it has reentered the economy: they've done enough in that regard, and don't need a further tax. I think the only ones that will argue contrary to that would be CEOs trying to do the same thing. It would have to be fairly automatic and not subject to political pressure (ie china getting a deal as a "preferred" trading partner), and it seems to me that a tax system would be the quickest response method. It's bothered me for some time that countries that don't support basic socialist programs similar to ours have less tax burden in the manufacturing of products, so that the cost of the product is less even if the pay rates are equal -- it makes a double whammy on domestic production that really is not their fault. And now we step closer to the main thrust of this topic: what new developments can we consider to make for better governments than the ones we currently know?We see an interesting development in the European Union: an added layer of government that is primarily an economic control system, with the politics and basic laws mostly left to the member states.I've also wondered about a union of democratic governments -- the only thing needed for membership is a freely elected government. They could also be concerned about developing ways and means to ensure that fair elections are carried out, so there would be a performance test to validate that the elections are free and clear of fraud or tampering.We have the ink stained finger at one end and the diebold no trace electronic "system" at the other -- and nobody has really addressed the issue of preventing fraud and tampering.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

NevermindEdited by Wepwawet, : Ignore this

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

Is the idea of taxation then just a way to relieve people of what is seen as extra money then or is it a means of funding government? If we are trying to fund the government then routing any money through a black economy deprives the government of legitimate avenues of taxation as well as fattens the wallets of the criminals who prey upon the very segments of society you want to benefit with social programs that now have no source of funding.Al Capone ran a lot of soup kitchens. That doesn't make him a philanthropist. I'd vote for a mixed method of taxation, tarrifs and trade incentives and allow for adjustment based on whichever method has the best results with any particular country. But I agree that an automatic method (bypassing government hoopla) that can instantly react to trade realities is necessary. I don't agree that more government layers are necessarily better, however a world economy needs a governing authority with teeth. This will probably lead some people into some Revelationary hissy-fits, but I think it's a natural result of an open economy.Perhaps we need to divorce normal government from economic government entirely. Unfortunately it would involve surrendering some control and we all know how likely that is. The first step is to accept that no system is or can be perfect and then establish exactly what is an acceptable level of imperfection. Accept the possibility that important elections can hinge within the planned margin of error.Unfortunately events like Florida 2000 show that anyone within shouting distance of victory will fight tooth and nail for a count in their favor. (I'm not naming names here...Democrats and Republicans performed reprehensibly). How do we get back a state of group dignity that let's everyone know that quibbling over fractions beyond the margin of error is unacceptable?

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

Exactly. What we had was a breakdown in the system because the system was broken. What is scary is that it has not been fixed since.In my opinion it should be possible for every person to guarantee that their vote was counted the way it was voted. To maintain anonymity this will require control similar to a double blind test. Likewise voting districts should be able to verify that the numbers of voters was correct. This would require something like double entry accounting methods.Beyond that is the question of what is "winning" and when do we have a situation with no "winners" -- Florida as a case in point.In my opinion, any time the difference between the two top contenders is less than the total of all the other votes (whether spoiled, unreadable OR for another candidate) that there should be an automatic re-vote with just the top (n-1) contenders in question, and just the people that voted previously voting this time, repeat as needed until you have two candidates OR one majority vote. Think of the california governor race with Arnold and how many others?In my opinion the time between the votes being cast, and a validated final count being determined cannot be forced into one night or one week or even a month -- nor does it need to be. And I think most people would willingly trade election night media madness for guarantees of valid votes, proper counts and definitive results free of fraud or party manipulations.The way the constitution is written, the vote is not final until the electoral college has cast the actual votes by the representatives selected in the state elections, and this is, in my opinion, when the national tally should properly be conducted -- after each person has validated their vote, the districts have validated their counts, AND the districts that have had too narrow a margin have had a second vote. This also allows Hawaiians to vote before the national count has decided a winner ...This would accomplish substantial change without really affecting the process as we know it today. If nothing else it would allow people to vote for third party candidates and not throw their vote away.We could also change to an instant run-off vote as well to reduce the need to have second (or third?) elections. One of the thoughts I've had is having mini-government departments that are essentially independent of government, and where participation is voluntary. Medical care is one instance where people who think it should be universal can get together and have a system that is universal for the members.It could also be possible for such systems to be independent of country -- a joint-venture department between the US and Canada say.The question then becomes what is citizenship.Think of a joint venture department on migrant labor between the US and Mexico that takes care of the migrant workers inside both countries.Citizenship becomes more plastic, more a matter of what your ideals are than where you happened to be born or are able to migrate to.I look at the Declaration of Independence statement: "We believe that these truths are self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." -- thus anyone subscribing to the ideals in that document would be a citizen of {declaration of independence ideals}, whether they live in america or afghanistan. (Sales) taxes and (import) tariffs are essentially the same device, and wouldn't trade incentives be a reverse tax\tariff? Only if the black market is involved -- see thread on legalization of drugs. Those criminals would also still have an increased value that they would owe taxes on whether they could show a legitimate source for the money or not eh? After all, what was Al Capone convicted of?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I've been toying with an idea I had a few months ago. It's isn't really a "new" form of government. Rather, it's a variation on our present form.What I'd propose is a system wherein all elections begin at the local or precinct level. Candidates for all positions from municipal to the federal level would first be elected by their fellow precinct members.In a series of ballots, winners would move up the ladder to wider constituencies at the district, regional, state and federal level. In other words, someone running for, say, the U.S. Senate would first have to be chosen at the precinct level and go on to face other precinct winners within the district. District winners would face other district winners to emerge onto the regional level and so on.I think this system, tied to public funding for all campaigns, would level the playing field. It would force candidates to consider their constituents at all levels and would not give any advantage to people who are more widely known beyond their own precinct. In essence it derives its legitimacy from the fact that a candidate must first convince the people with whom he or she is most intimately associated, those within their own precinct, that the candidate has their interests foremost in his or her mind.With some tweaking this system would be, I believe, a step forward from our current system of money takes all.

Local
State Rep or Senate
Federal  Rep or Senate or State Gov
President

Must serve at least one term of office to qualify for higher office (and to develop experience and to show qualities to base further election decisions on). In a good system you would have many people to choose from based on their actions and record rather than political cartoon positions.Needs an election system that can fairly deal with more than two choices -- some kind of multiple rating sytem.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Good ideas.I think the system I outlined would allow for multiple choices. Just tweak the districting process to include multiple precincts within another layer below the district level.I especially like the prerequisite for prior service at a lower level (of course with the exception of precint level positions) before a candidate can move up. It would require elected officials to become familiar with processes and policies at the previous level before moving on.Edited by scoff, : Edited to add that the same kind of setup could group districts together for the purpose of providing multiple choices. Same thing with state level. Group states together for primaries within the group.