It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is better: Efficient or Free government?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
This was really the question, if I can call it that, behind my A.I. Teacnocracy thread in the 'Other Ideologies' forum.

What I mean by that is "Is a fixed, some-what dictatorial (but stable, as a result), government better then a so-called free-for all, democratic government?"

I mean The democratic system is fine and all but with the USSR gone there is no "Evil Arch-nemesis" to oppose, so the opposition to the majority Representers, insted of disagreeing with the majority government about how to fight the communists, now disagree with the government about everything else-and so, becoming a sort of internal destabilizing force in the government and the country as a hole.

The hole intro on the USSR and democracy was just to demonstrate how there has always been a counter to the ideals of the democratic societies that, sort-of, held them together and unified, to some-extent, their publics against a commen enemy. You might argue that this is also the situation today with terrorism and Iran. If you're right-then who will be the counter next? and if you're wrong (which is what I think) then democratic sociaties (especialy hyper-capitalistic sociaties like the US) will soon start tairing themselfs apart with decadent regimes.

The Inherent flaw in democracy is basically that it's founded on having a constantly unstable regime with the people in the most critical points of decision making being elected based on how well they can advertise themselfs to the majority of the voters.
The point of the last paragraph is to show how there has always been a unifying factor that posed a threat to democratic sociaties and distracted the majority of the population from their own internal diagreements as a whole. And that now all the corruption of the godless dictatorships of the past begin to plague those sociaties, whether for power or just money leadres and middle men will begin to make decisions out of personal interest that don't serve, or even damage the publics interests.

But even if democratic sociaties are bound to fall apart, history has shown that the alternatives (namly Fascism and Communism) pretty much ruin whatever country ther'e instatuted in.

So the situation is as follows:
-Democratic sociaties are unstable and lack unity. Plus their determination of leadership often comes down to who's the best at advertising.
-Dictatorships tend to go in to a state where they serve only the wishes of the rulers and not those of their people.

But there is another way to look at it...I mean a Technocracy (government were the people who rule are the ones with the most expertise in their particular field-in this case-runnig the country) that is fixed, meaning there are no elections and whoever rules do so until they die, where people will only vote on the ergent decisions of government if anything.

However this raises lots and lots of problems, naming just a few:
-who decisides who will rule?
-what happens when they DO die?
-What insures the people who supply the regime with information don't give them what they have in their interest to give them?
-What would keep the regime from getting...well...evil?

My solution was to give control of the state to AI computers who will only make the optimal decisions for all people or for most people and removign humans from the picture all together. And while thats still not complete solution, it's the best one I've came up with.

So, what do you think? A Very efficient but fixed regime or a Democratic but unstable and corrupt regime?

Comment: I'm not trying to advertise my other thread


[edit on 25-7-2006 by HAL the bot]

[edit on 25-7-2006 by HAL the bot]




posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Free government is best.

One must look at the nature of all governments. their purpose is to control and regulate. Governments left unchecked, no matter how nice they start out, seek more control and power by their very nature. Thus, an efficent government would be efficent at controlling and gaining more power. Not something I would want.

Better to be free and hungry and then a well fattened slave ready for the slaughter.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Play the game Deus EX? in the game they were creating AI's, really smart ones to gover because there were too much corruption. lol



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
People are the government so most importantly we should be free.

If you mean the workers bees that work for the people, then we could say they are not free of accountability and we can expect mostly an honest days work for an honest days wage.

I prefer that we not rely on government for most of lifes answers, only that they enhance my ability to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, we should be free and the public "SERVANTS" should efficiently do what we tell them to do.



[edit on 12-8-2006 by The Water Man]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I guess my real motivation to bringing this topic up is the realizetion I had some time ago...that COMPLETE IDIOTS CAN ASSUME POWER in todays world!

It freaked me out! I mean, it's so damn wrong! This souldn't happen!
And after seeing the documentery "The Corporation" I suddenly realized that sooner or later the interests of the global compenies CAN and WILL replace those of the people in the government's agenda. I belive it is inevitable.

All your fears of a dictatorship rising to power if democracy is abolished are rooted in the preception that government means PEOPLE ruling. What I'm saying is that the best solution is removing the human factor from the equation all-tougther.

But the problem with that is that it also makes people feel opressed...
There's no easy answer........I guess the purpose of this thread is to give you the choice between a possible solution that's hard to sell and, what I belive is, ultimate doom.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by HAL the bot]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
An efficent government is one who serves the people, not one that lies, terrorizes and spendes all the money it can get on weapons.

Government should be 'free' as it should involved all of us, not just those born into rich families or members of skull and bones. These people serve the interests of the rich, people who make money from oil (the president directly in this case) , people who make money from weapons, people who make money from genocide in countries that we don't even care to know the names of half the time even though our government is supporting dictatorship and murder so that corporate interests can be achieved. Some call it spreading democracy, I call it slavery and murder.

If we actually had access to making decisions that effected our lives then not only would the government cost less money, it would aslo be more successfull on a local level. and national level.

Democracy is a dream in a land where the rich rule over the poor. We are living in a world where this is the system. If we want a 'free' or even 'cheaper' government then we have to be ablt to make decisions as a community.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I have some reservations from your'e post earthtone...
Allow me to point some out:


Originally posted by earthtone
An efficent government is one who serves the people, not one that lies, terrorizes and spendes all the money it can get on weapons.


I agree with the second part but about the first part...well, who are you going to serve? I mean, "the people" aren't always in agreenment and someone has to decide what should be done for the greater good. But who gets to decide what is the greater good?


Originally posted by earthtone
Government should be 'free' as it should involved all of us,


You do realize that working in the goverment is extreamly boaring, right? Technically everyone can work themselvs to the point of nomination for high office even if reality doesn't quite reflect it, so it's not that system that's falty here. And voteings on everything will result in what the majority want done not what should be done necessarly, so it's not much better.


Originally posted by earthtone
not just those born into rich families or members of skull and bones. These people serve the interests of the rich, people who make money from oil (the president directly in this case) , people who make money from weapons, people who make money from genocide in countries that we don't even care to know the names of half the time even though our government is supporting dictatorship and murder so that corporate interests can be achieved. Some call it spreading democracy, I call it slavery and murder.


Your'e implying that every single wealthy person in the government is an evil dictator, I think it's an exaggeration and that those people who fit your description aren't controlling the hole adminestration. However, I do accept your'e opinion on the involment of corporate intrests in the goverment.


Originally posted by earthtone
Democracy is a dream in a land where the rich rule over the poor. We are living in a world where this is the system. If we want a 'free' or even 'cheaper' government then we have to be able to make decisions as a community.


Democracy is "rule of the people" and the "system" you mentioned is in fact capitalism. If you manage to come up with a better economic system (that's not Communism), let all of us know, ok?
And, can't we make decisions as a community? sure we can! No one forbids us to do so, people are just lazy.




top topics



 
0

log in

join