Embedded Files
Previous thinking ⬇
In order to prevent meritocracy from getting overly hijacked (e.g. by people just promising things and not delivering), the "jury duty" style thing instructs people to vote based on who they think is smart and good, and, for example:
at least 1/3 of those given power must have been voted in after being randomly selected to be on a panel (random selection + panel gives them the most votes)
this means that many people could vote, for example, for their favourite celebrity, but the government would not be entirely composed of just famous people just because they will get the most votes
the state should also make an effort on its own part to find who is good and smart, especially to fill specialised roles, and these people can be up to 1/3 of the government
So, three types of meritocracy selection making up the government which discusses, plans and votes on issues:
Selection from randomly called-up panels (not mandatory, but incentivised) of citizens who each have to vote for someone else on that panel of, say, 23 people. Each panel member should meet and/or learn about every other panel member before deciding who to vote for. Whoever gets the most votes is then given political power. It is known that the selected may be busy and "not have time" for politics - but this is actually a good thing, because the people who have time for politics are not cool people. Whoever gets the most votes is financially (or otherwise) incentivised and enabled to participate in governance.
Each randomly selected panel member also has the possibility to vote for literally anyone in the universe, and the state keeps a long-running spreadsheet of who is being voted for in this way, so that whoever is recently getting a lot of votes in this way is contacted for participation in governance.
The state, on its own accord, searches for people suitable for governance. For example, by going to Microsoft and finding who their top developers are - seeking intelligence, and other positive attributes.
So how would the government be composed? Plan I guess is:
1/3 panel selected
1/3 voting for anyone
1/3 state selected (using a budget to find people based on a list of different attributes e.g. strength, skill, service, number of children, heroic acts)
I guess
The Labour Party should actually be about labour and labourers. The Lib Dems should be actually liberal. The Conservatives should actually be conservative.
They're not, because they're risk-averse followers. They're not leaders. That's because they're not smart.
That's why we just have this useless political class.
That's why the conservatives are woke. That's why the liberals believe in an authoritarian education system.
That's why the labour party is the lawyers party.
It's like they're not passionate about anything other than their own political power.
A quick, basic plan on how to be an effective government:
Find talented programmers and hire them to devise your policy
Ask yourself "would Jesus approve of this?" before implementing said policy
We're gonna go from rootless idiocracy to the complete opposite.
Hitler was a painter. Mussolini was a journalist. The world doesn't run on paintings and nice words. It runs on programs and procedures.
If this country's policy was led by select groups of cool people, we would actually have a really cool country. The Labour party isn't even meaningfully led by labourers, for example. Imagine the epic if your country was led by the smartest programmers - and the people at the boundaries of what a human is capable of - particularly when that great power is used to socially empower others.
You can't have a great and good country if it isn't led by great and good people.
So let's find the great and good people.
No more voting for yappers.
Let's find the best and brightest.
In a meritocracy, there is no political class that sits and watches cluelessly as civilisation crumbles.
Instead, people don't seek political power, but are given political power according to what they have contributed to society.
Therefore, there is overlap between those who build society non-politically and those who build society politically.
The market is smart because there is competition. It keeps making great products because they're all chasing a reward function, that being profit.
The government, however, is stupid, because there is no such competition. So, it does not keep having great ideas.
So, instead, the government is in competition against its own people — because there will always be some form of competition.
The highest form of power should merely be to regulate the entities which compete to make policy. An interesting concept: create serious competitive meritocracy regarding governance, mirroring the free market.
Fascists are woke and woke are fascists. It's about fashion over function.
Mussolini addressed both the men and women of Italy. He literally said "Men and women of Italy". To that I say, "What are you, fucking gay?"
Also the fascists did drugs. Sounds pretty woke to me.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse