New form of government

[conceptualizer]

I am seeking constructive comments on a theoretical new form of government I have been developing, called Expert Government.
Its principal feature is that all policy is devised by experts that act only within their specialisations. Expert Government is a single entity with no politicians or parties, just experts and some administrative staff to help them. Otherwise it is dogma free to enable it to adapt to changing needs and circumstances. Structurally its experts are grouped according to their respective specialisations, and all experts have equal influence within their specialism, but none outside of it. Influence is not organised into hierarchies.
The web site has a more information http://expertgovernment.org.uk/ .
There are two significant observations that influenced the principal feature of Expert Government. Firstly, most problems that befall us seem to be within our ability to prevent, because they arise from our own actions. Take for example recent sovereign debt problems. Secondly, humans have constructed very sophisticated and necessarily complex systems that enable advanced civilisation. Those systems are based on the principle of collaboration between many experts acting in their own specialisms. Indeed, it is hard to see how else such sophisticated systems could be organised. It is my opinion that a country is also a sophisticated system. I believe that the problems that befall us are because we do not use a system of collaborating experts as government. Instead administrators are making decisions. These administrators are not sufficiently aware of all the sophistication and complexity in the system, so problems appear to them to come out of nowhere.
Thanks for reading, and for any useful thoughts you can offer.

[John]

Do you mean a technocracy?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.

What if you went the other way?

Actually giving the administrators more power...Only the administrators must administer the democratic opinions of their constituents.

Direct Democracy. Allow the people to decide what is best for themselves on every issue and the administrators are required to carry out the wishes of their constituents.

Use the internet to impose more Democracy, more openness, more transparency.

Most problems that befall us are fantastic, exciting opportunities.






...................................






The Price of Freedom is Constant Vigilance





.

[Arising_uk]

Since its a philosophy forum I vote for Plato's version.

[bus2bondi]

that picture is from one of van halens albums called 'balance'

[bus2bondi]

i heard this on the way to work the other morning, or maybe it was 'this morning', anyways http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toP4UtQZiw8

[Arising_uk]

This may interest you b2b

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvian_Man

[conceptualizer]

Do you mean a technocracy?

Thank you for taking an interest John.

In fact the principal idea is similar to Technocracy, as I highlight on the Links page of my web site. As I describe there it has three main differences:

Firstly, Technocracy limits influence to scientists and engineers. Technocracy is recognising the importance of experts, but its requirements are too narrow. There is a diverse range of useful expertise, but most people would not describe those experts as scientists or engineers. They are ordinary people who know a lot about something useful. It may be something like economics, but could equally be about something less esoteric, such as traffic management, care for the elderly, farming livestock, advertising, IT, building planning, road cleaning, or food logistics. Expert Government is not elitist; it is not looking for super clever people, just people who have a useful contribution because they know a lot about something.

Secondly, Expert Government does not require energy credits as a currency. It is an interesting idea, and one for experts in monetary systems to debate, but it should not be baked into the concept of a form government. It is a policy. The only immutable idea in Expert Government other than the use of experts is that dogma is not allowed. It is dogmatic to require the use of an energy credit currency as a part of a definition of a form of government. As civilisation evolves, so circumstances, understanding, and needs change. Indeed, Expert Government makes provision for its own evolution by only mandating experts with influence restricted to their own field, and no dogma.

Thirdly, Technocracy retains some other problematic concepts which are significant enough to address in the inchoate form of Expert Government. In particular, it has long been recognised that hierarchical influence structures lead to misuse of power. The well-known maxim about power corrupting … is strongly evidenced by despotic regimes everywhere. Earlier attempts to address this problem, such as the non-hierarchical influence structures in communes, have not been a success. Hierarchical and flat structures are both victims of human tendencies to assert influence. Flat structures are inherently less open to abuse than hierarchical structures as influence is limited to one’s direct contacts. Expert Government is specialism structured, which is a non-hierarchical influence structure, but as only experts in a particular field interact it is more difficult for one to dominate.

I hope that shows the most important differences.

[conceptualizer]

Direct Democracy. Allow the people to decide what is best for themselves on every issue and the administrators are required to carry out the wishes of their constituents.

Use the internet to impose more Democracy, more openness, more transparency.

Most problems that befall us are fantastic, exciting opportunities.

Thank you for your ideas Bill

On the Links page of my site I mention some technology based direct democracy forms of government. There I indicate that I feel that adding more uninformed people is unlikely to improve poor decisions. Certainly I can think of no good reason why it should. One could argue reasonably that giving everyone a chance to make a mess of it makes the mess a more collective responsibility. However, my ideas are really about preventing problems than distributing the blame.

Perhaps some problems are “fantastic, exciting opportunities” to some. On the whole I think those experiencing the problems tend to be less enthusiastic. For example, I doubt that most Greek citizens would currently be likely to describe their predicament with superlatives.

After looking at the evidence I still feel that influence is best in the hands of those who are expert in the matter under consideration. I understand the enthusiasm people have for democracy as it was a useful step to take us away from authoritarianism. It has served its purpose. It is time to move on.

[John]

Do you mean a technocracy?

Thank you for taking an interest John.

In fact the principal idea is similar to Technocracy, as I highlight on the Links page of my web site. As I describe there it has three main differences:

Thanks for the explanation.

One observation I have is that a lot of government is effectively run by experts at the moment anyway but you're model obviously goes further than this but that brings me to the question of which experts are chosen and how they are chosen. Very few fields are uncontested so how do you decide which expert's opinion to follow?

[conceptualizer]

One observation I have is that a lot of government is effectively run by experts at the moment anyway but you're model obviously goes further than this but that brings me to the question of which experts are chosen and how they are chosen. Very few fields are uncontested so how do you decide which expert's opinion to follow?

Thanks for your observation and question John

Yes, the experts in place today only advise politicians. They have some influence, but no authority. Also I think the breed of expert that advises politicians may be a different beast from one that comes to a situation with egalitarian motives.

I am suggesting many experts, multiple in each specialism. The roles are not offered at high salaries, they favour people who want to help their fellow citizens. It is likely that this will tend to encourage experienced people who have already had a successful career and have an egalitarian agenda.

Positions are advertised and filled like any other job. Suitability is assessed by ones potential peers and HR experts in appointments committees. A range of experts on each matter should balance out varied views. A single expert on each matter would invite problems.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Democracy, Liberal Democracy is where the miracle of Organized Labor thrives!

Democracy will ALWAYS serve it's purpose.



I have never, in my entire life seen a law that would be more complicated than I should be able to understand.

I know what is in my best interest.



Your love of authoritarianism would quickly dry-up if you lost your current level of Democracy and were ruled by authorities and were unable to question or participate in their decision making.



Organized Labor offers the most direct form of Democracy that involves some of the most important decisions that ever entered my life.

I LOVE it and both the democratic process and my relationship with Organized Labor have served me well making my life an overall beautiful, exciting, miracle, filled with rewarding opportunities.



What I believe you are pointing to seems dangerous and repressive.








.............................



However, to each their own...



You can always move to China if you would like to live under your New Form of Government.




.

[John]

One observation I have is that a lot of government is effectively run by experts at the moment anyway but you're model obviously goes further than this but that brings me to the question of which experts are chosen and how they are chosen. Very few fields are uncontested so how do you decide which expert's opinion to follow?

Thanks for your observation and question John

Yes, the experts in place today only advise politicians. They have some influence, but no authority. Also I think the breed of expert that advises politicians may be a different beast from one that comes to a situation with egalitarian motives.

I am suggesting many experts, multiple in each specialism. The roles are not offered at high salaries, they favour people who want to help their fellow citizens. It is likely that this will tend to encourage experienced people who have already had a successful career and have an egalitarian agenda.

Positions are advertised and filled like any other job. Suitability is assessed by ones potential peers and HR experts in appointments committees. A range of experts on each matter should balance out varied views. A single expert on each matter would invite problems.

Given the political nature of human beings I think that rather than being the next big step this would put us back on the path to authoritarianism. At the moment ultimate executive power in liberal democracies lies with an elected government or president who can be removed by the populace. The bureaucratic element, the civil service, of the executive is, in theory at least, the servant of the elected element so I'm concerned that your rule by experts would actually be rule by the bureaucrats and images of Terry Gilliam's film Brazil keep entering my head.

[spike]

conceptualizer,

Before one can share your idea about a new form of government let us understand what form of government you are living under or think you are living under. Your perception of how you and your people are governed would help to understand where you are coming from and whether your views are more than just reactionary.

[conceptualizer]

Given the political nature of human beings I think that rather than being the next big step this would put us back on the path to authoritarianism...I'm concerned that your rule by experts would actually be rule by the bureaucrats and images of Terry Gilliam's film Brazil keep entering my head.

Thanks for your thoughts John
Authoritarianism is certainly not what I intend. I would appreciate a more detailed explanation how you feel this might happen. I envisage an overall effect of thoughtful benign fairness and moderation. I feel that my current design is more likely to achieve this than for example a representative democracy does. Following is a condensed explanation of my reasoning.

In Expert Government no individual can have any seriously deleterious effect, as none can have any significant influence. All experts have a relatively short limited term in the job. Experts are also not paid much and are favoured for having an egalitarian agenda. All behaviour is constantly policed by multiple independent groups. All citizens have the opportunity to work in government. All government activity is open to inspection by all citizens. All citizens have the opportunity to influence government policy, even if they are not employed in government. Structurally, government is made up of many small independent specialisms, so no specialism can have too much influence. Extreme actions are only permissible in extreme circumstances that have to be clearly demonstrated. Egalitarianism is one of the guiding principles with which the experts should assess their deliberations.

By contrast, individuals in governments with hierarchical influence structures can have significant power. As you indicate, people tend toward acquisition of power and building these structures. Consequently they tend toward authoritarianism and despotism, of which there are many examples relative to functioning democracies. There are even examples of democracies degenerating into authoritarian regimes, such is the danger posed by such a means of structuring government. Hierarchical government structures tend to construct a few huge departments with concomitant wide ranging powers. Even in functioning representative democracies revenue departments are famously draconian and certainly not benign or moderate. Likewise their foreign affairs departments are usually hawkish. Even the internal affairs departments are empowered to imprison people for significant periods without trial, and to deport them for torture out of sight and reach of legal representation. The intellectual quality of government reasoning based on representatives is frequently demonstrated to produce substandard decisions and institutions.