QUOTE (FionaK @ 17/8/2011, 22:39)
Thanks for those thoughts, Vninect. Couple of questions:
1. You don't have juries in your criminal justice system? I was completely unware of that and I would very much like to hear more about how it works. Is it an inquisitorial system? That is probably for another thread though: perhaps we can make one to discuss criminal justice because although I think it is an important issue for this thread the composition of the system probably needs quite a lot of explanation first.
I didn't know there were terms for it, but yes, apparently it is inquisitorial here, for criminal courts. Civil cases usually have an adversarial nature. I didn't know that. I am wholly uninformed about courts, and so I will not (be able to) make a case for or against it.
QUOTE
2. If you believe skills are required then what are they? Do you mean that under any new system skills should be required. And again, if you do, what are they?
Well, you can't assume that everyone you toss into a debate will be heard, or is able to make a good argument: debating skills; knowledge of files; interpreting data and statistics. Those are some of the essential skills that even we are struggling with here, often, and we don't have much to defend - or maybe we do, but at least we don't have so much power that it matters... Throw a number of random people together and some will have those skills and other won't. Especially in debates, a lack of skills can be quite an obstacle for many (and an advantage for some). Or did you envision a method of coming to agreements that precluded such differences?
QUOTE
3. I don't understand what you mean about buying members of parliament? Obvioiusly in a random selection system it could not happen before the appointment. So you must mean after? From my point of view such a system is at least less vulnerable to that than what we currently have: because the politicians only serve one term there is little time to "build a relationship" in the subtle ways that such corruption would normally require: there is little certainty that the person approached would not immediately shout it from the rooftops and name names: the certainty that the person would return to their old life after their term is up makes some safeguard too: though I recognise that it is practically difficult to enforce that I don't think it is impossible. So what is the danger you see here?
The danger I see is that a great many people might become convinced that the assembly of randomly appointed people is a bit like a lottery, where rich fellas will offer you great sums of money or entitlements if you vote their way. This is a problem we're seeing in current governments... Why would it be any different? I suppose you could draft some kind of law prohibiting any donations or promotions resulting from their appointment in the temporary assembly, for the rest of their lives, which isn't so easy to prove, I think. Well, perhaps if you made the penalty quite astronomical for both sides... But I think that is quite difficult to enforce.
QUOTE
4. I have not given your final proposal much thought: but my first reaction is unease. The allocation of resources is in some ways necessarily competitive. It might be very beneficial for each "faction" to fight exclusively for their own sphere of interest, but in the end rationing has to occur and so I think it important that there is some way of gettng an overview. Secondly I think there is more scope for corruption in this system for there are fewer to target in each interest. Not saying it does not have advantages and they might outweigh the downside: just haven't though of this before.
I don't think there is a reason it should be limited to the national level: but as I said, I am trying to start from where we are now. But I do think it very strongly has to be across all aspects and groups in society. That is what it means to have equal influence: we can't exclude anybody at all. Though that might not be what you mean?
Not sure how to answer... What I was trying to do is downscale the task of the 'national' government, at least for the most part, because I think there's something dangerous in people deciding about things they don't know anything about. Farmers voting about banking or bankers voting about farming -- That makes little sense to me, unless perhaps we're talking about investment loans given to the farmers, or raw food being delivered to the bankers... I think there's fairly few issues that requires the experiences and input of people from all walks of life -- Although I recognize that sometimes that is the right thing or only course.
As to the fear that there's greater scope for corruption if there's fewer to target in each interest: I'm only saying I'm making the interests smaller, but not the amount of people potentially involved. What that means is having a lot more people involved in taking decisions at all kinds of levels and sectors - a LOT more. But each of them probably have a lot less decisions to take. Although the complexity of all these levels working at the same time and with each other will add some considerable time to the total workload, I think the scope for corruption will be a lot less, because people will be affected more directly by their own willingness to participate in bribes.
This argument takes the form of a decentralization argument -- fair enough, because it is one. A central government is at least a lot cleaner and simpler than what I'm sketching here -- insofar as I made a coherent sketch. But although equal influence is absolutely a good idea, I'm not sure where the bounds on that are. If we can't exclude anybody at all, we must have a global centralized government? Why would any English person have influence over the English decision to stop importing my beets, because their own beet farms are suffering, and not me? When the farmers near Newcastle-Upon-Tyne decide they need to re-prioritize their beet production, do any tenants of mid-London need to have much influence over that? And is it really equal if the farmers make their case, while the tenant just listens making up their mind on the basis of their arguments and style?
I hope I'm making any sense here.. Just trying to think along, you know
