Thank you for your post.
Just one comment:
Personally, I didn't really like Naker's ideas at all - they pretty much sum up what the worst type of society possible where the few are able to control the lives of the many.
If you don't mind me asking, why is that a society that you don't seem to like? For me, this is the perfect type of society. Currently we live in a society where we think the patient should tell the doctor what to do. But I think the doctor knows best. It was Plato originally, to the best of my memory, that posited this idea. Why are we allowing the patient to dictate to a doctor how the doctor should treat him? Is it not in the patient's best interest to allow the doctor, who, presumably, has greater medical training and experience than the patient, to treat the patient as he sees fit? In a similar way, most citizens don't know what is best for them. They simply aren't qualified enough to run a country.
This is how I'd like a country to be:
I would want a board of 21 people. These 21 people would represent a cross-section of society. So there would be lawyers, doctors, teachers, tradesmen, policeman, etc. The board must contain at least 7 men, and at least 7 women.
There is also a second board of 21 people. These 21 people are all the top psychologists from the Australian Psychological Society. They would screen every single candidate for the primary board and have the ultimate power to approve or disprove a candidate. In other words, they choose who goes on the primary board. They would make sure that no one can have a criminal record, and that there is minimal, if any, traits of psychopathy.
Back to the primary board for a moment. The doctors, lawyers, policemen, etc should be from the top of their fields. All people on the board must be a minimum of 30 years old, and a maximum of 50 years old. No one on the board can be related to anyone else on the board. A person can be voted off the board with 15 votes: Obviously the person that they are voting on removing cannot vote, so that leaves 20 people on the board to vote. So 75% of votes required to remove someone from the board.
As to how they run the country: There would be a website where anyone in Australia can email in the issue they want discussed. The email should state the issue, why it is an issue, and how to fix it. The board will hear the information presented to them, and can call experts etc to deliver evidence. The board will then vote on the issue. 11 votes is required for a law to be passed (i.e. the majority vote).
To prevent corruption: No one in the public knows the identity of these 21 people. Even the 21 people do not know the identity of the others in the group. They will all be kept segregated so that it minimises the chance of blackmail, and also minimises the chance that factions could form within the 21.
Payment for these 21 is negotiable. I haven't decided how much I want them to get yet. Perhaps 1 million a year.
This would result in 21 highly educated/talented people of both genders from a variety of fields that would decide what is best for the country. The principle in effect here is that they know what is best for the ordinary person, just like the doctor knows best for the patient.
Anyway, that's my idea, and my opinion of the ideal government :)
Thanks for the discussion everyone!