Could you run your country better?

[Polarity27]

I would do a better job standing up to social conservatism than Obama has, I think. I frequently think that the GOP is running rings around him, complaining about the "liberal government" while putting more and more restrictions on women's bodies and trying ever harder to throw the middle class into the shitter (and we won't even get into how much harder it has become for people who are working class and poor in the US).

The problem is that while I have plenty of unbending spine, I have zero patience and interest in compromise. I don't have an ounce of his tact, and I don't have his oratorical skill.

I also was active in political volunteering long enough to have fair amount of appreciation and understanding of exactly how unspeakably hard his job is, so even if I wish he wasn't governing center-right, I'm not sure how plausible it is to govern more as a populist or progressive, especially if you're black (he has to be Mr. Super-Reasonable and Super-Calm to counter the heinous stereotype of The Angry Black Man, he has way less latitude when it comes to righteous anger than a white president does).

 

[]DustArma[]

Why try and bother with the whole elaborate plan? If that's what you want, why didn't you just say "I could be a better leader because I wanna torture and kill prison inmates". I wouldn't have bothered debating with you in the first place.

My goal isn't specifically the torture of people, I just want to detach repeat offenders from the rest of society and simply house them for as little cost as possible, while making it as miserable an experience as possible to instill fear in the minds of people who'd consider re-offending. They're not in hell for them - killing 'em would be much more efficient - they're there as more of a display.
Repeat offenders aren't the same people as you or me. If they continue to threaten and harm others, they're not people I want in my society, nor do they deserve the same rights as those of us who obey the law and treat each other with respect.
Those who would challenge the rights of others to safety and security do not deserve it for themselves.

A poor man steals because he can't feed his family, outside of what he stole there's no further damage, he gets incarcerated, gets rehabilitated and comes out, he tries finding a job but finds out nobody will hire him because he's an ex-con, he doesn't have an education, and he can't afford one either due to being poor, desperate to feed his family he steals again and gets caught, the victims weren't physically hurt.

According to you this man would get thrown into a shithole to be demonized, tortured and subsequently killed by either some other inmate, abusive prison guards (which will inevitably happen with your system) or a disease that he caught inside the previously mentioned shithole, he will be made an example.

All because he wanted to feed his family.

 

[Saelune]

The US government allows too much stepping on toes to make me think one person can do anything alone. Ever heard of a phillibuster?

 

[King Toasty]

No. Canada is legitimately doing pretty well. I mean, the State's economic implosion will be annoying. But we have good foreign relations, Quebec finally shut up, gay marriage is legal, immigration is good. So.... nope.

 

[Hagi]

I know what science means, you are just being pedantic. We couldn't have vaccines or hurricane forecasts as they are today without science.

In the same way science cannot yet create comprehensive theories of civil or economic governance.

No more semantic back-tracking. My will re-iterate my point again of the dangers of trying to run countries and economies by either scientific method or apply theories determined or discovered by scientific method. It is fraught with danger as it is such an extraordinarily complex, fast changing, chaotic system with the added dimension of self-awareness of the millions of individual elements.

This is unlike any other system in the known universe. It's easier to model the first nano-seconds after the universe was born than it is to manage the economy scientifically.

In that case there's not much more to say is there?

I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong.

You think science is incapable of dealing with extraordinarily complex, fast changing, chaotic systems with the added dimension of self-awareness. I think that was what science was made for.

You seem to think science is only worth using if it leads to immediate direct benefits and solves all the problems. I think science is worth using as a method of improvement, a method that when used will slowly allow us to improve so that in the future we're able to solve the problems we're having and even more.

 

[godofgamers]

Probably. I live in South Africa, where the government is both corrupt and incompetent.

 

[ClaptonKnophlerHendrix]

Have you seen the Australian government? Or indeed any of our politicians? Practically anyone could do a better job.

I'm assuming you don't support Labor then?

When I said "any of our politicians", I meant even the ones not in power. I think supporting a party is a stupid idea. People should vote for whichever party is best for the current time.

Agreed,I was referring to the current Labor government.

Well in that case, no party has done anything worthy of my support.

As in they haven't done anything that would make you support the party?
Or they haven't undertaken any action that you agree with?

 

[Treblaine]

I know what science means, you are just being pedantic. We couldn't have vaccines or hurricane forecasts as they are today without science.

In the same way science cannot yet create comprehensive theories of civil or economic governance.

No more semantic back-tracking. My will re-iterate my point again of the dangers of trying to run countries and economies by either scientific method or apply theories determined or discovered by scientific method. It is fraught with danger as it is such an extraordinarily complex, fast changing, chaotic system with the added dimension of self-awareness of the millions of individual elements.

This is unlike any other system in the known universe. It's easier to model the first nano-seconds after the universe was born than it is to manage the economy scientifically.

In that case there's not much more to say is there?

I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong.

You think science is incapable of dealing with extraordinarily complex, fast changing, chaotic systems with the added dimension of self-awareness. I think that was what science was made for.

You seem to think science is only worth using if it leads to immediate direct benefits and solves all the problems. I think science is worth using as a method of improvement, a method that when used will slowly allow us to improve so that in the future we're able to solve the problems we're having and even more.

I never said it is impossible, or that it would never happen. Just that it can't be done TODAY!

I explicitly stated it is not ready YET and may not be possible for another 50 years of continuous study. Sorry, but for the time being we need another more flexible approach that though lacking elements of falsification proofs is still effective.

By all means, continue study into the science of economics, but don't act like it has anywhere approaching a workable theory that can create a stable and productive economy.

Remember, I started all this in response to this post:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.300443.11964100

Easy - just put the scientists/engineers in charge, or anyway (anyone) who can look at a large amount of data and actually interpret it

Looking at the data and interpreting it IS the current model and it has failed us horribly. Scientific or analytical principals/methods/technology are clearly not enough, politicians can't just sit back and assume the economy will auto-regulate. They need to be smart, insightful and pro-active. They need to think outside the box, something humans are, at the moment, much better at than machines running even the most exquisite algorithms.

 

[Treblaine]

*double post*

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Have you seen the Australian government? Or indeed any of our politicians? Practically anyone could do a better job.

I'm assuming you don't support Labor then?

When I said "any of our politicians", I meant even the ones not in power. I think supporting a party is a stupid idea. People should vote for whichever party is best for the current time.

Agreed,I was referring to the current Labor government.

Well in that case, no party has done anything worthy of my support.

As in they haven't done anything that would make you support the party?
Or they haven't undertaken any action that you agree with?

The first one, but both of them have policies that I disagree with.

 

[kasperbbs]

No, i couldn't be bothered to do all the ass licking that they have to put up with, but then again most of them only do that for personal gain and not the the country.

 

[sms_117b]

A blind deaf mute could do a better job than the Con-Dem'd nation we current deal with. Hopefully I'm 3 above that so yes!

 

[Hagi]

I never said it is impossible, or that it would never happen. Just that it can't be done TODAY!

I explicitly stated it is not ready YET and may not be possible for another 50 years of continuous study. Sorry, but for the time being we need another more flexible approach that though lacking elements of falsification proofs is still effective.

By all means, continue study into the science of economics, but don't act like it has anywhere approaching a workable theory that can create a stable and productive economy.

Remember, I started all this in response to this post:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.300443.11964100

Easy - just put the scientists/engineers in charge, or anyway (anyone) who can look at a large amount of data and actually interpret it

Looking at the data and interpreting it IS the current model and it has failed us horribly. Scientific or analytical principals/methods/technology are clearly not enough, politicians can't just sit back and assume the economy will auto-regulate. They need to be smart, insightful and pro-active. They need to think outside the box, something humans are, at the moment, much better at than machines running even the most exquisite algorithms.

What exactly about scientists makes them incapable of being smart, insightful and pro-active? What makes them incapable of thinking outside the box?

I think your average scientist is much smarter, more insightful, pro-active and capable of thinking outside the box then your average politician.

And why exactly do you keep bringing up machines? What do machines have to do with this?

You keep acting as if science is some sort of unified thing. That putting science in charge means that there'll be some massive computer or group of people calculating EVERYTHING and gaining perfect conclusions from that.

That's not what science is. Just look at the scientific community, there's so much disagreement there. The difference is that unlike a lot of politics who's right isn't determined by a popularity contest but it's determined by factual results and logical thinking.

You say you understand that science is a method but your posts keep showing that you don't. You keep talking about computers. You keep talking about individual theories. You keep talking about technology and medicine. That's not what science is.

Science isn't about having theories. It's about developing theories. And that's exactly why we need science in government. Because we don't have theories yet and we need them. Because our current theories aren't good enough and we need better ones.

But seriously, unless your next post shows you understand the distinction between science, scientists and scientific inventions (all 3 are different things), I'm just going to agree to disagree. This discussion is showing no signs of getting any further along.

 

[Sansha]

DustArma[]

Why try and bother with the whole elaborate plan? If that's what you want, why didn't you just say "I could be a better leader because I wanna torture and kill prison inmates". I wouldn't have bothered debating with you in the first place.

My goal isn't specifically the torture of people, I just want to detach repeat offenders from the rest of society and simply house them for as little cost as possible, while making it as miserable an experience as possible to instill fear in the minds of people who'd consider re-offending. They're not in hell for them - killing 'em would be much more efficient - they're there as more of a display.
Repeat offenders aren't the same people as you or me. If they continue to threaten and harm others, they're not people I want in my society, nor do they deserve the same rights as those of us who obey the law and treat each other with respect.
Those who would challenge the rights of others to safety and security do not deserve it for themselves.

A poor man steals because he can't feed his family, outside of what he stole there's no further damage, he gets incarcerated, gets rehabilitated and comes out, he tries finding a job but finds out nobody will hire him because he's an ex-con, he doesn't have an education, and he can't afford one either due to being poor, desperate to feed his family he steals again and gets caught, the victims weren't physically hurt.

According to you this man would get thrown into a shithole to be demonized, tortured and subsequently killed by either some other inmate, abusive prison guards (which will inevitably happen with your system) or a disease that he caught inside the previously mentioned shithole, he will be made an example.

All because he wanted to feed his family.

I seriously doubt such a man would re-offend. Where I'm from, being an ex-con doesn't do much damage in a job application. I like to think my prison system's rehabilitation would be well funded and maintained that being an ex-con would be a good thing, knowing a person has the education and - let's face it - crippling fear to not need to re-offend.

Meanwhile, their impoverished family would be getting financial help and other kinds of assistance from my welfare system. I'm not going to let people starve to the point where my prison system is ineffective.

Shifting gears for a second, the prison guard abuse isn't just inevitable, it's encouraged.

 

[Treblaine]

I never said it is impossible, or that it would never happen. Just that it can't be done TODAY!

I explicitly stated it is not ready YET and may not be possible for another 50 years of continuous study. Sorry, but for the time being we need another more flexible approach that though lacking elements of falsification proofs is still effective.

By all means, continue study into the science of economics, but don't act like it has anywhere approaching a workable theory that can create a stable and productive economy.

Remember, I started all this in response to this post:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.300443.11964100

Easy - just put the scientists/engineers in charge, or anyway (anyone) who can look at a large amount of data and actually interpret it

Looking at the data and interpreting it IS the current model and it has failed us horribly. Scientific or analytical principals/methods/technology are clearly not enough, politicians can't just sit back and assume the economy will auto-regulate. They need to be smart, insightful and pro-active. They need to think outside the box, something humans are, at the moment, much better at than machines running even the most exquisite algorithms.

What exactly about scientists makes them incapable of being smart, insightful and pro-active? What makes them incapable of thinking outside the box?

I think your average scientist is much smarter, more insightful, pro-active and capable of thinking outside the box then your average politician.

And why exactly do you keep bringing up machines? What do machines have to do with this?

You keep acting as if science is some sort of unified thing. That putting science in charge means that there'll be some massive computer or group of people calculating EVERYTHING and gaining perfect conclusions from that.

That's not what science is. Just look at the scientific community, there's so much disagreement there. The difference is that unlike a lot of politics who's right isn't determined by a popularity contest but it's determined by factual results and logical thinking.

You say you understand that science is a method but your posts keep showing that you don't. You keep talking about computers. You keep talking about individual theories. You keep talking about technology and medicine. That's not what science is.

Science isn't about having theories. It's about developing theories. And that's exactly why we need science in government. Because we don't have theories yet and we need them. Because our current theories aren't good enough and we need better ones.

But seriously, unless your next post shows you understand the distinction between science, scientists and scientific inventions (all 3 are different things), I'm just going to agree to disagree. This discussion is showing no signs of getting any further along.

Your pedantic objections are unbearable, you have refused to properly address my explained concerns, only focusing on anal semantics of what is and is not science, demanding that I make the distinction between "science" and "scientist" when my distinction is OBVIOUS!

You want to have your cake and eat it (that is to eat a cake, yet still have a cake afterwards). You rightly say that science is a slow methodical process rigorously working towards a certifiable conclusion, while the economy is incredibly fast moving, constantly changing. Obviously you cannot use the "scientific method" to actually run an economy from day to day, it would be too slow.

"Science isn't about having theories. It's about developing theories."

So develop theories that I presume will actually be applied? We've already DONE THAT! They developed theories and applied them, yet the huge economic meltdowns - completely against predictions - show the science is not mature enough to to be used to run economics. It would have taken too long to prove scientifically the sub-prime mortgage situation needed to be dealt with, any smart person needed to be pro-active to stop it.

But let me get to why I am so worried about science in politics, is how often it is abused by the powerful. All those idealistic intentions mean nothing when the evidence contradicts the deep felt beliefs. What happens is they use science when it supports them and ignore/marginalise it when it doesn't.

There should be a clear separation between science and politics. Science should be for the sake of science and free from the utterly corrupting influence of political power that sways conclusions. The discoveries and theories should be made in isolation from the money, legislation and authority and be applied only once they are fully matured. THEN and only then can the THEORIES (not the scientific method) can be brought into application in running countries.

My specific problem with the science of economics is theories were applied and DEPENDED upon that clearly did not reflect reality.

"The difference (with scientific method) is that unlike a lot of politics who's right isn't determined by a popularity contest but it's determined by factual results and logical thinking."

This is nothing new. This is exactly what the communists did. They threw out democracy and thought nothing but scientific committee of an enlightened elite could make the perfect society.

The problem is the corruption of power. It is easy to stay logical in science when you are just talking about ideas and all you have to hang on is the accuracy of that. But bringing science into politics is so dangerous as you cannot maintain objectivity as your conclusions directly affect millions of people either negatively or positively. That's why you cannot have a proper scientific approach within politics, it always gets corrupted by our fallible human minds vulnerable to having our rationality prejudiced by extreme emotions.

Do not think you are above this. Everyone's rational mind is a slave to their emotions.

I don't know precisely how extensive you want to apply science in politics, but they make for a BAD combination. Perhaps as a 2nd house to veto bills they deem "unscientific"?

 

[Treblaine]

DustArma[]

Why try and bother with the whole elaborate plan? If that's what you want, why didn't you just say "I could be a better leader because I wanna torture and kill prison inmates". I wouldn't have bothered debating with you in the first place.

My goal isn't specifically the torture of people, I just want to detach repeat offenders from the rest of society and simply house them for as little cost as possible, while making it as miserable an experience as possible to instill fear in the minds of people who'd consider re-offending. They're not in hell for them - killing 'em would be much more efficient - they're there as more of a display.
Repeat offenders aren't the same people as you or me. If they continue to threaten and harm others, they're not people I want in my society, nor do they deserve the same rights as those of us who obey the law and treat each other with respect.
Those who would challenge the rights of others to safety and security do not deserve it for themselves.

A poor man steals because he can't feed his family, outside of what he stole there's no further damage, he gets incarcerated, gets rehabilitated and comes out, he tries finding a job but finds out nobody will hire him because he's an ex-con, he doesn't have an education, and he can't afford one either due to being poor, desperate to feed his family he steals again and gets caught, the victims weren't physically hurt.

According to you this man would get thrown into a shithole to be demonized, tortured and subsequently killed by either some other inmate, abusive prison guards (which will inevitably happen with your system) or a disease that he caught inside the previously mentioned shithole, he will be made an example.

All because he wanted to feed his family.

I seriously doubt such a man would re-offend. Where I'm from, being an ex-con doesn't do much damage in a job application. I like to think my prison system's rehabilitation would be well funded and maintained that being an ex-con would be a good thing, knowing a person has the education and - let's face it - crippling fear to not need to re-offend.

Meanwhile, their impoverished family would be getting financial help and other kinds of assistance from my welfare system. I'm not going to let people starve to the point where my prison system is ineffective.

Shifting gears for a second, the prison guard abuse isn't just inevitable, it's encouraged.

What you describe is almost EXACTLY like the Soviet system under Stalin.

You seem no different from those thugs who had such simplistic solution to complex problems, thinking extreme measures can compensate for being smart and effective.

Oh yeah, we'll just give them welfare. What about welfare traps? How do you give them enough that they don't have compulsion for more, yet not more than they could possibly earn with the jobs they could get? How is this even economically viable?

You also blithely guarantee full employment, even to criminals who survived your hell prisons, only the tough and violent survive places like that. What about the Clyde Barrows, who got jailed for petty theft, but in a hellish prison he was repeatedly raped while the sadistic guards won't help him. Barrow murdered his abuser and was released violated, angry who learned from prison that violence and murder is the solution.

Your gulags are going to fuck them up so badly you are guaranteeing recidivism more than if you went soft on them.

"the prison guard abuse isn't just inevitable, it's encouraged."

These are long discredited Soviet ideals that are disastrous in application.

As Churchill famously never said:
"the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter"

Doubly so it applies:
"The best argument against dictatorship is a 5 minute conversation with the average wannabe dictator"

 

[Phisi]

Ah yes... the Australian government is atrocious. They're a bunch of bickering, bluffing, boasting brigands who banter on about banal baggage to big decisions while we are on the brink of a bout in the bight of our existence.
That was fun to write. Yes I do think I could do better then my government for the simple fact that I am not as stubborn as our government. When one party goes against the other party on something because the other party raised the point... well... you're doing it wrong. But then again, I'm a leftist so that may just be me.

 

[Roserari]

Belgium seems to be doing pretty fine without a government for over a year!

You stole my post!

Although, recently, I've been feeling the urge to go to the Wetstraat and slap them up the head for not doing what De Wever asks.

For those of you unaware, Belgium has been without a government for way too long. So, a "formateur" was assigned who needed to draft a proposal. A final proposal that would set in to motion a real life government. Unfortunately, that proposal was horrible. Absolutely horrendous. Everyone said yes to it in the hopes to improve it through negotiation. But De Wever realized that it would just be sprinkling sparkles on a massive turd, so he said no (Well, his party said no.) He said that the proposal needed to be drastically altered in order for it to be a good solid foundation for negotiations. And now he and his party are being shunned. All because the other parties would put Hitler in charge if it meant getting a government. Jackasses.

 

[penguindude42]

My country?

I could run THE WORLD better!

Muahaha...MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

~Tom (A)