A New form of government

The following is purely a creation of what I personally think would be the most efficient form
of government ; I've created definitions to better illustrate the following speculation; I realize there are a lot of unanswered questions, but it's just a general overview ! Criticism is obviously welcome. MODS please move if this is not the right place for this ! Peace !

A BRIEF INTRODUCTORY VIEW :

Two main chambers with legislative and executive powers, each one respectively representing left and right wing views to ensure the democratic principles of pluralism and alternation between ideas :

DEFINITIONS :

Social Entity : A section of the population used for administrative purposes, like elections. Each Social Entity should consist of around 60 000 inhabitants.

Social Charge : All changes that a candidate wishes to bring to the social entity they hope to represent must be enacted if they win the elections. The ideas of the electors must be respected, and therefore enacted upon.

→ Left house :

Ideology : The left house should represent all ideas that are left-wing. All personal views of the members of the left house should adhere to the ideologies of leftist parties.
Composition : 1 Representative for each social entity ( depending on elections).

→ Right house :

Ideology : The Right house should represent all ideas that are right wing. All personal views of the members of the right house should adhere to the ideologies of rightist parties.
Composition : 1 Representative for each social entity ( depending on elections).

A neutral chamber that acts as an intermediate between the left and right houses, and that possesses executive power in that it's decisions of it's rulings ( if there are rulings) are final.

→ Middle house :

Attributes : The Middle house acts as an intermediate between the two other houses, a court if you will. If a dispute arises between these two houses, the Middle house will hear the arguments of both parties before deciding on the outcome of the dispute. The Middle house's rulings are definite and binding making its jurisprudence undeniable.
Composition : 10 judges ; 3 judges having spent more than 6 years in the Left House, 3 judges having spent an equal amount of time in the Right house and 3 judges having spent 6 years in the National Assembly of Administration.
Procedure : Judges will hear together the arguments of both parties during disputes ( with an open audience) and discuss together in private the appropriate solution to the problem. The decision will then be read by a citizen in the audience chosen at random at the end of the trial.

→ National Assembly of Administration :

Attributes : The National Assembly of Administration is a neutral house, exempt from any personal ideology, that deals with the administrative goals of the Nation. It has an administrative obligation to enforce into law the ideas of the Left and Right Houses in their respective social entities. The NAA is composed of 8 major departments, 1 of those being independent of obligation from the Left and Right Houses.

Composition :
Department of Public Finance : Enforces into law administrative acts pertaining to taxation, public funds and their allocation to social entities.

Department of Transport : Enforces into law administrative acts pertaining to the development and maintenance of roads, train tracks, buses and other means of public transport.

Department of Economic Policy : Enforces into law administrative acts pertaining to the development of the economy of each social entity, including workforce, unemployment etc...

Department of Education : Enforces into law administrative acts pertaining to the creation of school programs and subjects of study, the regulation of the number of schools, and response to the educational needs of each social entity ; in the name of general interest, this department can also passe administrative acts concerning the arts.

Department of Social Security : Enforces into law administrative acts pertaining to the security of citizens in each social entity, to the number of police/fire stations, hospitals and medical needs, etc...

Department of Technology : Enforces into law administrative acts pertaining to the development of technology and technological research.

Department of Justice : Enforces into law administrative acts pertaining to the legal organization of each social entity, including the number of courts and judges needed, and to the defense of social values.

Department of Public Administrative Acts (Neutral Department) : Legalizes after verification all public administrative acts contracted between two private persons that concern the State, such as marriage, divorce, adoption, birth/death certificates etc and deals contracted between the private and public sector. This department is also in charge of announcing the results of elections in each social entity.


→ Elections :

Each social entity should be composed of around 60 000 inhabitants. During one week every year all social entities will participate in national elections.

→ Two months before the week of national elections, candidates wishing to join the Left or Right House will present themselves before the Middle House. Candidatures will be analyzed by the judges of the Middle house, and for each social entity, 5 candidates representing views of the Right House and 5 others representing views of the Left House will be chosen.

→ For these two months, the 10 candidates in each social entity will engage in their respective electoral campaigns under common rules and regulations set down by the Middle House.

→ Each candidate chosen by the Middle House will release for reasons of transparency and future reference a manifesto containing all modifications/changes that they would enact in their social entity if elected for all 7 departments of the NAA ( except the Department of Public Administrative Acts).

→ During the week of national elections, each social entity will vote for which of the ten candidates they want in power over their administrative region.

→ After the week of elections, the Department of Public Administrative Acts of the NAA will announce for each social entity the winning candidate, and therefore announcing for each social entity if they will be under the left or right house's rule.

→ Elections take place every three years ; the winning candidate can, once his term in office is over, re-apply to the Middle House with all the other candidates two months before the elections, to be considered for a second term in office. A candidate cannot be not be re-elected after two consecutive terms, and can serve a maximum of 4 terms in their lifetime as a social entity representative.

→ The winning candidate, upon entering office, must act under social charge, as ordered by the Middle House.


→ LEGAL PROCEDURE :

Monday, Wednesday, Friday : 7 hour sessions of the Left House.
Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday : 7 hour sessions of the Right House.
After each session, the Middle House will verify the legality of legal projects voted on by each House.

→ To pass a law :

Both Houses will have three 3 hour sessions during the week to come together, and discuss their political agendas :

→ At the beginning of the first session of the week for both houses (Monday for the Left House, Tuesday for the Right House), social entity leaders will vote on who, from their respective houses, should be the speaker for the rest of the week. The speaker has no executive function : they convey messages and legal projects passed on by social entity leaders and announce them to the rest of the House and are responsible for counting votes cast by social entity leaders during sessions.

→ To ensure continuity and fluidity of sessions as the social entity leaders are in large quantity : each social entity leader can enforce into law one of his ideas in his manifesto every week. Laws or Administrative acts do not need to enforce a certain idea into law directly if the social entity leader is incapable of doing so ; for a certain idea, many acts may be passed to reach the goal expressed by the idea. This being a possibility, the one-law-per-week rule still applies. If a project is rejected, the social entity leader who created the project has the right to put to a vote another project.

→ After the speaker has read to the House the administrative act that the social entity leader wishes to enforce in the entity he represents, the House will vote upon the act : A majority of two thirds is required for the act to be enforced into law.

→ One a session is over, the Middle house will convene to verify the legality of legal acts voted upon in the Houses. If a project is deemed illegal by the Middle house, the law will be suspended, and amendments will be made by the judges of the Middle house in cooperation with the social entity representative concerned.

→ A law that has been accepted and verified by the Middle House is immediately sent to its respective Department of the National Assembly of Administration, where it is enforced into law in the social entity.





That's all folks !



Peace !

very interesting. Quite a differant approach. Some thoughts:

1) Instead of Department of Transportation, it might be better to have a Department of Infrastructure.
2) Who would carry the role of Head of State? If a visiting foreign dignitary were to arrive for dinner, who would they shake hands with?
3) Are you imagining a fractal like approach to this with the pattern repeating on the state, country, and city level?

reply to post by rogerstigers


Thanks for the reply !

'' Department of Infrastructure '' would be a more appropriate title !

Concerning diplomacy with other States, maybe someone from the NAA would do ? I'm thinking of the Department of Public administrative Acts, as it's a neutral department. Or maybe a judge from the Middle House ?!

I'm not sure I understand your fractal question ? I was thinking along the lines that any given population of the country would be cut up into 60 000 ( or any number around about that one) segments, every one under the rule of either the Left or Right house depending on the outcome of each Social Entity's elections. There would be ''x'' amount of Social Entities that would be ruled by the State, that consists of the legislation of the Right House, the Left House, the rulings of the Middle House, and the Nation Assembly of Administration.
Does that answer your question :s ?

Peace !

reply to post by Unium


Well, what I meant by fractal was basically that each level is structurally the same as the level above it.. in a country of 6 million, for example, you would have 10 units of 60,000. How would those 10 units be governed?

reply to post by rogerstigers


Ah right, as in how is each segment governed ?

Ok, so there's 10 Social Entities, each with 60 000 people. Say that after the elections, 6 of the units are governed by Left House representatives, and 4 are governed by Right House representatives. Each representative has an individual manifesto adhering to principles upheld by the left-wing or right-wing ideology of their respective House, and under social charge, they are obliged to act upon what they promised to the 60 000 people they will represent in their units. Administrative acts would be progressively enforced into law through the NAA during the representative's 3 year term.

Hope that helps !

Peace !

Originally posted by Unium
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Ah right, as in how is each segment governed ?

Ok, so there's 10 Social Entities, each with 60 000 people. Say that after the elections, 6 of the units are governed by Left House representatives, and 4 are governed by Right House representatives. Each representative has an individual manifesto adhering to principles upheld by the left-wing or right-wing ideology of their respective House, and under social charge, they are obliged to act upon what they promised to the 60 000 people they will represent in their units. Administrative acts would be progressively enforced into law through the NAA during the representative's 3 year term.

Hope that helps !

Peace !

It does, to a degree. So scaling up to 300 million, how do things work at the local level (i.e. city councils, etc.) Would the pattern be the same with less people in each social unit?

reply to post by rogerstigers


I guess that something I haven't yet thought about..... That'll be something to work on !

I guess all units would have to have around the same amount of inhabitants in them. The problem I see if a unit ''x'' only covers have a city or something :s

Maybe on a local level, councils would be necessary. But to adhere to the political structure I proposed, there would have to be a strict line between where leftist ideology governs and where rightist ideology governs. If there was a mix between the two, it would make having a left house and right house unnecessary.

What do you think should be put in place ?

Peace !

reply to post by Unium


Actually, I like the idea to a degree. I think there would have to be some written prescriptions of what is left and what is right.. mainly because those ideas flux a bit. In a small township of 20,000 people, a "unit popular" could be 1000 people.

I actually sort of like this idea because it self-adjusts the political minorities. If there are, for example, more right than left in an area, than the left house will have less people than the right house and each person carries more "weight" so to speak. Thus the political minority has more influence than the political majority, although as a consensus, both houses are equal.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Thank you ! I just think that the political machine would work better if both parties had their own area of governance, instead of all being cramped in a room and forced to agree on things that concern everyone ! ( well, i'm thinking of the french system, seeing as I live here, but I don't really know how all the parliamentary stuff works in the US).

Yes, there would have to be a written document defining the principles and ideologies of the Left House and Right House. There would also have to be a charter that all parties must adhere to whilst enacting laws, that ensures civil liberties, rights, equality and all that stuff.

Peace !

Any government, regardless of the system set in place, has no validity if that government is not established to protect the individual rights of the people.

No nation will ever be a free nation as long as individual rights are viewed as things which should be granted by government instead of actualities that preexist government.

No government has any true authority unless it is well established that it is the people who hold the inherent political power at all times.

A government may by force, and if by force, most assuredly by arrogance, seek dominion over the people, and hopelessly think they can control the people, but no individual can be controlled by force, and can only be controlled by their own willing submission. A government that rules by force is a government intent on failing.

The only reason for reasonable people to come together and institute government, is to assure that all people have an opportunity to protect their unalienable rights. A government instituted for this purpose need not be burdened with complexity, and should simply govern simply. The best government is that which governs least.

reply to post by Unium


Well, we have two houses... the house of representatives and the senate. House of representatives is comprised of people elected from state "districts" which are supposed to be made up of arbitrary areas of people so that each district has the same number of people. In reality, they have done what we call "Jerrymandering" -- that is, they have drawn the district lines so that their political party is the majority in each district.

The senate is two people per state.

Regardless, it always comes down to left vs right bickering and not getting anything done. Our congress has so many "rules" they have inacted that unless there is a 75% majority, there is no chance of getting anything passed that is of any use.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I completely agree ! The government is purely in existence to serve the people ( in theory) and not the other way around ! I agree that governing should just be a simple task, but i'm guessing that's easier said than done !

In the structure I proposed, the candidates would be under social charge, so if they're elected, whatever they promised must be enforced into law ; like in modern day elections ( in most cases), everything is subject to public opinion. If someone likes the political agenda of a candidate, they'll vote for them. In this case, under social charge, if you like someone's political agenda, vote for them, and they win, that candidate will be forced to enact into law whatever they promised. The person who elected them is therefore getting what they want ! Well, that's the theory anyway

Peace !

reply to post by rogerstigers


Wow... The house of representatives have political majorities in their districts, and the nice idea of 2 senators per State isn't that nice when nothing get's passed into law... Geez :S !

Peace !

reply to post by Unium

I completely agree ! The government is purely in existence to serve the people ( in theory) and not the other way around ! I agree that governing should just be a simple task, but i'm guessing that's easier said than done !

When government seeks to govern by control, and reign in the freedoms of the people, it is most assuredly easier said than done. When government exists solely for the purpose of serving the people and is wholly subservient to the people, as in every law abiding individual, the task of governing becomes much easier. It is simply a matter of establishing justice in order to handle those scofflaws who willfully disregard the unalienable rights of another, or others. Beyond that, to provide for a common defense. I hesitate in echoing the Preamble of the Constitution for the United State of America, because the whole insuring of domestic tranquility, and promoting general welfare has become a clear and desperate excuse for ambitious tyrants to find excuses why government has the authority to abrogate and derogate the rights of individuals. Even providing for the common defense, when implementing a draft, can wind up abrogating and derogating the rights of individuals. Interestingly, the U.S. Constitution sought to limit the possibility of standing armies, but unfortunately left enough leeway for Congress, and the President to continually renew the rule set forth by Article I, Section 8 which states:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Even the establishment of justice has become an excuse to reign in the freedoms of the people with a plethora of prohibition laws, licensing schemes, and other dubious means. Governments, much like scorpions, are dangerous beasts, and the people, much like frogs, can easily be duped into believing that scorpions are reasonable, and that granting them privilege to ride on the backs of the people in order to cross the river is a perfectly safe and sound idea because it would be madness for a scorpion to sting that frog while crossing the river. However, while crossing the river, when that scorpion does sting the frog, and the frog in horrified and mortal surprise asks why the scorpion would do such a thing, since it was indeed madness and now both will drown, all the scorpion can do is answer truthfully and declare; "I'm a scorpion, it is in my nature to sting."

In the structure I proposed, the candidates would be under social charge, so if they're elected, whatever they promised must be enforced into law ; like in modern day elections ( in most cases), everything is subject to public opinion.

In the field of science, laws are not made, they are discovered. It is folly, and truly it is madness to think that the laws that govern humanity are made by humans and are not natural laws of the physical universe, and are as discoverable as any other scientific law. Legislation is not law, but merely evidence of law. If it is law it is an axiom that recognizes the unalienable right, or rights, of an individual or group. There is not one single right that can hold higher authority than any other right. No right can trump another persons right. That's what makes them rights. It is in their universality, and that becomes their self evident nature, and empirical data. If it is my right, it is everybody's right, and if I don't have the right, then no one does. That is an axiom. That is law. Not because I deem it so, but because it is.

If someone likes the political agenda of a candidate, they'll vote for them.

When people realize that they can vote themselves free money, they most assuredly will, and the tragedy of this reality is there is no such thing as free money. In order to satisfy their constituency who has elected a politician for the promise of free money, that politician must get that money from somewhere. It will undoubtedly have to come from individuals not so willing to part with it, and if it is their money, money that they earned, then by right, it is their property. This means the politician must now enact legislation authorizing force in order to confiscate the money those individuals are unwilling to part with, in order to grant this "free" money to those who elected the politician. Voting is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the lynch pin of freedom. The solemn and profound respect of the unalienable rights of all people is the lynch pin of freedom, and that means wealth redistribution enforced by government is unlawful. How do you reconcile this with voters who like the political agenda of a socialist or communist?

In this case, under social charge, if you like someone's political agenda, vote for them, and they win, that candidate will be forced to enact into law whatever they promised.

Yep. That's what I was afraid of. Out of democracy rises tyranny.

The person who elected them is therefore getting what they want ! Well, that's the theory anyway

The majority rules, and the minority suffers at the whims of the majority.

Peace !

If there is no justice, there will be no peace.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I feel alot of tension there buddy ! Come on', every theory has its flaws...

I would have to disagree a tad with the idea that laws are purely discovery. Most are, that i agree with, for example the law maker will search in a society the values that that society defends, and make any activity that goes against those values incriminating/illegal etc.. But what about other laws ? Such as speed limits ? They weren't discovered, but merely put in place to ensure our security whilst out and about in the ol' automobile ! What about laws ( i'm guessing this is universal but i'm more basing this on what i've seen in french family law) that force divorced parents to pay for their child's upbringing ? And laws that change other laws ? Ok i'll stop now, my head is hurting a wee bit.

Now, with all that social charge stuff. Yes, '' tyranny '' could be a possibility, but in any governing structure, there should be texts and legislation that ensure the rights and liberties of all. In my proposed structure, a representative would have to act upon what he promised to the people, and yes, the representative would be voted into office with the help of a majority despite there being a minority. But texts would be in place to ensure EVERYONE would be protected i.e their rights etc...

One of the main flaws of democracy is that it's a dictatorship by the majority. I mean, look at the gay rights movement today, or the problems that black americans ( or black people in general ) faced half a century ago.

Peace ! ( and that's a general peaceful remark, not an ironic stab at the state of today's democracy )

reply to post by Unium

I feel alot of tension there buddy ! Come on', every theory has its flaws...

Therein lies the difference between theories and laws. Law has no flaw. If a government is instituted that legislates in theory, with no regard to law, you can be rest assured that tension will follow.

I would have to disagree a tad with the idea that laws are purely discovery. Most are, that i agree with, for example the law maker will search in a society the values that that society defends, and make any activity that goes against those values incriminating/illegal etc.. But what about other laws ? Such as speed limits ? They weren't discovered, but merely put in place to ensure our security whilst out and about in the ol' automobile !

Speeding laws can be discoverable, and at other times can be wholly arbitrary. Speeding in a residential area with reckless disregard for the residents who live there is a clear abrogation and derogation of those residents rights. Going over 55 miles per hour on a highway is not so clearly an abrogation or derogation of others rights. The former is a discoverable law, the latter is merely legislation, ordinance or regulation, but is not law.

What about laws ( i'm guessing this is universal but i'm more basing this on what i've seen in french family law) that force divorced parents to pay for their child's upbringing ? And laws that change other laws ?

This is a universal law, easily discovered because it is observably an abrogation and derogation of the rights of children for parents to no accept financial responsibility for those children. No legislation needs to be passed to "force" them to pay, because if they do not, and this inaction harms their children, they are criminal and subject to the natural law discovered, that is part of the reason reasonable people establish government to begin with, to handle the criminal, and find some reasonable way to offer a redress of grievance for the aggrieved.

Now, with all that social charge stuff. Yes, '' tyranny '' could be a possibility, but in any governing structure, there should be texts and legislation that ensure the rights and liberties of all.

Perhaps, or maybe not. The enumeration of rights within the Bill of Rights has only become an appearance to many that these rights were given them by government, or by Constitution, and amazingly these people who believe this have no clue or any word to say about the 9th Amendment. It is not necessary to enumerate rights, and in spite of America's founders best intentions, those Amendment that serve as a prohibition on government, such as the First Amendment, which clearly states that "Congress shall make no law"; is all too often blatantly ignored by Congress, and even worse, derisively frowned upon.

Rights, as do all laws, do not work in a positive sense, but rather in the negative. The law of gravity does not prevent humanity from flying, (obviously so), but that law dictates that certain conditions must prevail if humanity is to fly. Ignoring those conditions, or blatantly disobeying the law of gravity is done so at each persons own peril. Abrogation and derogation of rights works in that same way. The law does not prevent people from trampling all over another person's rights, but when they do, they do so inviting their own peril.

In my proposed structure, a representative would have to act upon what he promised to the people, and yes, the representative would be voted into office with the help of a majority despite there being a minority. But texts would be in place to ensure EVERYONE would be protected i.e their rights etc...

In the U.S. we the people have a Bill of Rights, and in each state we have Constitutions with Declarations of Rights. In the State of California, property is declared an inalienable right, and yet, wealth redistribution is very much a part of California government. Nope; texts will not do the job. Texts are not capable of vigilance, and jealous guarding of rights, and zealous protection of rights. That is an individual responsibility, but when the government instituted is a large and unwieldy bureaucracy, the responsibility any individual bears in jealously guarding their own rights, and zealously protecting them becomes all the more difficult. When granting the majority the whimsical circus of legislative action for whatever purpose that majority desires, you can be rest assured your texts will be meaningless and empty words, endlessly debated for their "vague" and "outdated" language.

One of the main flaws of democracy is that it's a dictatorship by the majority. I mean, look at the gay rights movement today, or the problems that black americans ( or black people in general ) faced half a century ago.

"Gay rights" or "minority rights" misses the point of rights. Gay people have the same rights as all people because they are unalienable rights and gay people do not need any "civil rights" granted them to enjoy their unalienable rights. Gay people have the right to bugger each other in any way the consent to do so behind closed doors, and the government has no lawful authority to say otherwise, and it matters not if a majority believes that government should stop them from doing whatever it is they do behind closed doors, in a lawful and just nation, no government has the legal authority to stop gay people from having sex with each other. The tragedy of the slavery history in the U.S. goes well beyond the Civil War, and is evidenced even today, because of the popularity of the "civil rights movement" which has placed all its focus and attention on legal rights instead of unalienable rights. The fact of the matter is that those people who were enslaved here in the U.S., had their unalienable rights abrogated and derogated. There was no lawful authority to enslave them, and it was done so by force and arrogance.

Peace ! ( and that's a general peaceful remark, not an ironic stab at the state of today's democracy )

I understand your general peaceful intentions, but it would be tragic to believe I am being ironic in my intention to ensure justice is served.