BuzzerBeater Forums

Bad luck Leeroy, as I said from the start I just liked last season's team a lot more than this season's. Last season I was excited, this season I feel indifferent.

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!

I have tried to keep out of this one once it degnerated into abuse but I have to defend Plato. He postulated that the best government would be done by a wise philosopher king. THat is the doctor not the patient. Instead we have corrupt businessmen, incompetent bureaucrats and evil warlords leading the nations of the world. There is 0% chance of getting anything better.

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.

Is it even possible to find 21 of these that are themselves normal stable people?

I've got a few issues with that kind of thing. But my main problem would be that these people are specialist in certain areas. I'm not sure whether having a policeman having a deciding vote on what, say, Australia's economic policy is, would be really all that beneficial.

Not that what we've got not is ideal, but personally I'd rather economists deciding on economic policy, doctors deciding on medical issues, policemen deciding on crime issues etc. After all, these people are the experts...

Overall, I'm a little confused by how getting a bunch of citizens to run the country is going to solve the issue that citizens don't know what is best for them and can't run a country

damn lama, where was the CT 2nite!!!
dont save it for me O_o

Hah, you'd probably beat me even if I did CT. I'm not that stupid

I have tried to keep out of this one once it degnerated into abuse but I have to defend Plato. He postulated that the best government would be done by a wise philosopher king. That is the doctor not the patient. Instead we have corrupt businessmen, incompetent bureaucrats and evil warlords leading the nations of the world. There is 0% chance of getting anything better.

Some excellent examples of leaders that people thought could would be good and could be controlled include Caligula, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Minh and Osama Bin Laden. Actually Bismark also thought he could control Hitler.

0%? I don't know about that. I have faith that there are some humble people out there that would make fantastic leaders. And could make fantastic leaders if we adopted a system that allowed them to rule. Democracy certainly isn't the answer.

haha. I would hope we could find 21 considering we have a population of over 21 million. :D

Surely a group of specialists in their fields are better than the democratic system we currently have. And seeing as they are from the top of their fields and are screened to avoid psychopaths and generally angry people, I think these people could easily come to the right decision. Even the policeman in regards to economic policy could simply defer to another expert's decision if he or she so wished. I feel these people would be far more qualified at understanding the problems encountered by ordinary members of society, and far more qualified at fixing these problems than the members of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

In relation to getting a bunch of citizens to run the country: These people are not ordinary citizens. They are the "elite" of those citizens so to speak. They are the more intelligent, more humble, and more generous. A doctor was once a patient, but grew to become so much more. In the same way, these board members were simply citizens once, but now they could be benevolent rulers.

I'm not suggesting that this is a perfect system by any means. But I do believe it is a far better system than we have now. And to be honest, I can't really think of a better system that the one I proposed.

I do understand what you mean regarding economists deciding economic policy, doctors deciding on medical policy etc, but the problem you run into there is you end up having too many chefs in the kitchen so to speak. And if we isolate policies like that, then it creates segregation and prevents policies from being compatible with each other. Many policies affect numerous fields, and thus I don't think it would work to separate economists from the doctors when making these policies :)