infavilla

It seems totally counterproductive to explicitly institutionalize public stereotypes of classes; if your objective is to maintain individual rights and autonomy, I'd struggle to invent a worse way. The alliances you give seem to be exclusively modern anyway; we can not immediately know how society will change in the future to render these groups obsolete.

If this idea had been contemplated several hundred years ago, the classes may have been peasants, land owners, bourgeoisie and the clergy, none of which even in the most ridiculous general thinking exist as a class anymore. Yet what this proposal would do is ossify social changes by forcing people to abide and appeal to caste rather than their individual benefits.

tjadams

True. What if a person changed careers? Would they slide over to another
party? Would one party or two, be larger than the others?

dagul

I don't believe in changing the current system of democracy. Rather, it is the people who should learn how to get along with it.

philosopher

You are right about that one...

My system is unrepresentative, I know that. I don't want representation of the people, I want representation of the interests of the people.

True, but often money is what guides our sympathy.

It is, amongst other things, my basic philosophical teaching that ones emotional issues depends on technicalities (ie. workers feel empathy towards disabled people because workers can't pay for their insurance alone, they need the government to help them out. Employers are (often) wealthy enough to pay for their own insurance, thus workers feel empathy for disabled people whilst workers don't).

I might be wrong about that last one, but that's the base of my philosophy: Every consideration made by a human being is cold and cynical in the end. I hate my own philosophy, but I am afraid it is true.

See above.

You got to the cornerstone of the reason I wrote this. You are right, nothing controversial gets passed. My system should be the final controversial thing to get passed, and stop everything else in the future. I don't want anything controversial to get passed. I've seen enough controversial laws passed in my life, I don't want to see further controversial laws getting passed.

I belive that paradise is eternal and static. That it does not degenerate and does not change. I believe paradise on earth should be the goal for every politician. It may be impossible to accomplish the goal, but I can't see how it can do more damage than the current goal of striving for hell on earth.

One of two things:

a) upon election, you elect the candidate for each of the four parties (or alliances). In the parliamentary group of each alliance, members of an alliance can vote on the issues of their own alliance on what should be done.

b) Nothing gets passed. The most likely scenario.

Women will have the right to vote just like anybody else. I see no reason why women should have any special issues. As for minorities (ethnicities etc.), they are individual human beings, and they can vote as they wish, too. I see no reason why they should have special protection, unless actual crime and hate speech is threatening them. Then they should be able to get protection from the law that normally protects people under threat and other victims of crimes.

No, it ensures a static, conservatory political system. Each culture has its own system and government, and I see no reason why this should be changed. I am finished with cosmopolitarian politics. Local society is what matters, because local society change very little and historically served the purpose of protecting ones own members.

Political gridlock is good. Think what would happen if the balance of power tipped to one side over the other during Cold War. We would all be dead.

bil73

democracy will never last forever because overtime the masses start voting for what is best for them and not the country as a whole. (look at greece)

lemage

.

But you are deciding what the interests of the people are.

This assumes that all politicians are corrupt to begin with.

What about gay marriage? The decriminalization or re-criminalization of drugs? Religious freedoms? Abortion and contraception? Euthanasia?

All controversial issue. Nothing would get done about them.


But each alliance will have a different view on what a utopia is.


This assumes there is equality in those issues before hand.

Political gridlock is never good. I don't understand what you mean by that statement, we wouldn't be dead if one party won in the US or the other.

lemage

The main principal of our democracies is to do with locality. You vote for a representative of your constituency. These go to a parliament or congress etc. These represents the views of that area. If the area is working class they usually vote for a socialist party, if the area has conservative views they elect a conservative representative. That representative is linked to an area, they hold surgeries and meeting with the locals who can also write and petition them making their views clear, the representative usually follows these so he is re-elected. If he receives a lot of letters asking him to vote one way on an issue he may do that so he gets re-elected, if it is strictly against his parties views he may not.

That's how most systems these days work. You elect some one locally to represent your areas views at the national level. This is representative democracy.

Your system, from what I know, doesn't attach members to a geographical location meaning people are not represented.

dagul

... and it's still democratic state, ain't?

philosopher

Yes.

--------

As for the ethical issues, I want each of them hardcoded into this type of government.
I answer them on behalf of my own personal opinion on these issues.


They are.

Won't exist. If people of same gender would like to live together, they can freely do so. There is no need for any special rituals. However adopting children will require a father and a mother. I feel sick just by the thought of a child growing up with two "fathers".

Depends. Marijuana for medical purposes and experiments for medical purposes will be legalized. All other will carry heavy punishments.

There will only be one religion, a state religion that is distinct from all other religions and carefully adapted to the state and society as a whole.

EDIT: I changed my opinion on this one. It is now:
Illegal in all cases.

Original: ("Compulsory for defects. Illegal in all other cases.")

Death (and assisted death) will be written into the constitution as a right of individual choice from birth.

The State Religion shall ensure there is only one utopia.

If the power of balance tipped to, lets say, the U.S. there would be war with the Soviet Union = nuclear war.

philosopher

Which is why I have a sound scepticism towards democracy and suggested another version.