a_majoor said:
Now this is almost as airy-fairy as Socialist and Utopian plans, which is why I am a small "l" libertarian. Voluntary associations can only go so far, and certainly there are fairly large projects such as infrastructure which can be more efficiently handled by centralized means. In this case we take our voluntary associations one step higher by electing representatives (the government) to mediate between the wants of various voluntary associations and individuals to plan these projects more "efficiently". Of course, this is also problematic, since this is the wedge where State power intrudes more and more in your lives. There is also the problem of "voluntary associations" such as the Hells Angels or the Mafia to consider, and the infiltration of the State by criminal elements.
I am an advocate of strict term limits and would also like to see shorter terms of office for most levels of government to prevent the growth of an entrenched political "class". People like Jean Chretien or Joe Clark, who were professional politicians for most of their adult lives really have no connection at all to you and I, and are hardly advocates for the individuals and voluntary associations libertarians (or Libertarians) see as being the fundamental units of society. (BTW, the late Jane Jacobs, hardly a right winger, made a very similar argument about the utility of cities in creating the climate of togetherness and trust that encouraged voluntary interaction).
Well i couldn't have said it better myself.
However, as I mentioned before, i find our current governmental system "democratic" in name only. The representatives we elect end up, like greedy shareholders, largely, at least it seems from their actions, not caring THAT much about the good of the people, but rather - politics.
Their concern is simple, what do I need to do to get reelected?
This is not something that is heinous or should not be expected, we've already agreed people will serve their own interests; it's, really in the end, what is to be expected. We've put these people into a gravy boat.
The solution? Well I suspect by now you've started thinking about what I might propose, and it's the same across the board. Return governance to the people.
Now this is just a brief synopsis of our views on a system of government, but here it goes.
Federally there is an assembly of 501 citizens. These citizens serve 2 year terms and are selected randomly from the eligible population and required, unless their are extenuating circumstances, to serve (think jury duty). This is NOT voluntary, unlike the corporate boards. The reason for this is to ensure everyone is represented.
The assembly as a whole has "elections" every year, one year 251 are elected, the next, 250 (similar to how the US senate works). This ensures that there is always a "veteran" group in the assembly, and some type of a continuity in the government. At the conclusion of every year, a "speaker" is selected by the assembly from the departing group - he would function as a "leader" per se, of the assembly (more involved than our current speaker is), to give it some more direction. Primarily, this assembly would operate divided into a number of committees looking at specific areas of governance, but assembling as a whole to pass legislation or debate and decide matters of national importance.
Now as much as I loath it, there is a need for an elected (our sense) "representative", on a longer, say 4 year term, to give some definite direction to the government and to control the mechanisms of government. Because I think power corrupts, I will make it hard on whoever decides to try and do this by having not only one, but two "presidents" elected, who then must govern by consensus (anything that they cannot decide would be sent to the assembly to prevent deadlock). Their job is to propose legislation and direction to the assembly, to oversee the civil service and ensure that it serves the wishes of the assembly. In the end, they are responsible to the assembly, which can bring them down or veto anything they may decide to do.
After this the next political divsion would be rural or urban regions (think metropolitan areas). However, there would be no "second" layer of government to squabble over dumb things and eat up billions of dollars in tax dollars in overhead - it would be an extension of the national government.
Much like large companies have regional offices, who, while following the same guidelines, principles, operating directives etc. from the head office - so that the company is uniform across the country - they adapt to the region in question. Regional assemblies and their committees would do much the same thing.
Exactly how this works is a much longer post - but I would stress thinking in terms of large companies. Though spread out across the land, they are relatively the same throughout it, while having sufficient regional division to account for the differences.
A quick example: A regional assembly says "hey, we need to build more public transit", the national assembly decides gives out funds for transportation infrastructure in their budget, the national transportation committee decides to give funds for public transit development in said region, dispenses funds for this purpose to the regional board of the public transit authority, said board decides where to put it, public transit authority builds infrastructure while regional board oversees.
Due to the uniform nature of the government and it's agents, development is kept very efficient due to the fact that this public transit authority is actually a corporation responsible to the national transportation committee on country wide matters (it's board of directors really), and at the same time the regional boards . The reason it is efficient is both profit motive for the management and a national mandate to provide urban transportation services - thus the entire country uses the sames buses, trains, stations, training, etc. - large savings due to volume, but still maintaining regional quality due to the regional boards.
So, to recap - national assembly of average citizens on short terms, headed by one person selected from this group, changed every year. Two presidents who operate on the basis of conesus amongst themselves, representing the nation as a whole and proposing directions and legislation to the assemblies. The government is further represented at the regional level by smaller assemblies which make decisions affecting the region itself following the direction of the national assembly.
Government services are provided by national corporations directly responsible to both their respective national committee, and regional boards to ensure that the quality of service is good outside of the capital.
Do you want to give them opportunities, or do you intend that the rest of us must join you in giving them opportunities? There is a difference. How do you reconcile making one person happier with making another person unhappier?
No I am not going to drag people down, in fact, as I stated before, I would strongly encourage and support excellence. I would, however, support those who are struggling as well.
I will point out, and this is very important, there is NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, difference in the help that would be provided due to ethnicity, sex, etc.
If a person needs help or assistance, they will get it, and it will be tuned to their level of need regardless of who they are or where they came from.
You mention happiness though, and I have question for you, largely unrelated to this discussion, but still - what is more condusive to happiness, collecting vast amounts of material wealth or leading a compassionate life, and while taking care of your own needs, helping others meet theirs?