What Political System Best Suits a Rebuilding Society on a Distant Planet?

[snorkack]

i also though that poligamy is accepted, on the other hand, it wouldn't be good, if poor guys couldn't get women, the leadership wants most people to live in stabile families (i can barely imagine 3 men and one woman to be stabile...) and make kids.

Polyandry is not unknown. But it rather has the effect of limiting births.

So, a goal of increasing births. How?
Note that a major bottleneck for births is women able and willing to bear and raise children.
Yes, there are other groups who want to raise children but cannot bear them (infertile couples) or don´t want to (homosexuals). But I suspect that largest group of women who could bear children but don´t is fertile heterosexual women in their twenties who are old maids because they are pursuing career or education or waiting for Mr. Right.

A logical way to encourage such young women is to prove that they can have babies AND career/education. And they can have some children now and if/when they find Mr. Right, he can be a good stepfather to her existing children and make some more.

Now, formal polygynous marriages are bad for poor men and also bad for women. The multiple wives of a rich man are locked up in a harem and neglected by their husband, and unavailable to poor men.

Compare with promiscuity. Promiscuity also tends to be polygynous, in fact. When women are asked to pick most appealing men regardless of whether he is willing to marry her or be exclusive to her, most women would prefer some of a minority of hottest men. Who would therefore enjoy de facto polygyny.

Yet compared to being locked up in a harem for life, being unwed and free to pick her preferred men would be preferrable for the woman, provided she and her children are paid for. And while the poorer men would have less access to women who are free to pick the more attractive ones, they would have a better chance than if the women were married into a harem.

 

[GTOM]

But I suspect that largest group of women who could bear children but don´t is fertile heterosexual women in their twenties who are old maids because they are pursuing career or education or waiting for Mr. Right.

A logical way to encourage such young women is to prove that they can have babies AND career/education. And they can have some children now and if/when they find Mr. Right, he can be a good stepfather to her existing children and make some more.

My girlfriend wished there should be more part time jobs, in my setting, that is definitally supported. Also no pension (except if one really proves him/herself) but kids are expected to care for their parents. (They reached a level where they can cure infertility, cancer in most cases, and in general they know pretty much about gene alteration...
That rises another question, what is supported/tolerated/outlawed. Well i think about two different kinds of society, i talked about the absolute state, the other one is a libertarian democracy where the federal government maintains a minimal control, basic human rights, supreme court. )

Yet compared to being locked up in a harem for life, being unwed and free to pick her preferred men would be preferrable for the woman, provided she and her children are paid for. And while the poorer men would have less access to women who are free to pick the more attractive ones, they would have a better chance than if the women were married into a harem.

Well they can divorce, so its not like being locked up in a haarem. In my absolute setting tycoons are basically new nobility, they want to be more or less to be above the standards of common people, so it is hard to ban polygamy, but it should be restricted, maybe it is not bad for child birth if girls date many rich/alpha guys and become unmarried moms, but bad for poor men. So i think the leadership should be rather pro-family.

 

[256bits]

Would you be so kind to fight with your own straw man on your own?

Not a strawman argument at all. It is something you might want to consider, or not. If it assumed that people will behave the same as they do now with a mixture of vices and virtues, what is stopping the system to become skewed enough to warrant such.

I would not like to be rude, but according to wiki in Europe (presumably some unrepresentative sample) 92% of pregnancies with Down syndrome are terminated. Under no compulsion.

The flip side is that 8% who feel that continuing the the pregnancy to birth is warranted.
In fact, on the other side of the coin, abortion on demand, for a fetus that could be born fully functional, has happened down through the ages whether or not it the procedure is legal across the land. Some woman do not want to have children, contrary to myth. Or to not have children at that particular moment in time, but later when they comfortable with the concept.
Some woman may feel it is their duty to be the vassel of the state for continuation of the species; others may feel resentment towards being used in a manner that upsets their dignity as an individual. Should sexism be part of your colonial governernment, it is for you to decide how it plays out over the years and generations and if it is sustainable.

All I am saying is that once the road to selected conception and birth is policy, there can be side effects. Some effects may be way off from and appear to bear little or no correlation with the policy.

I hope you do appreciate the critique, as it is not meant as argumentative but just outlining some aspects for thought.

 

[Czcibor]

Not a strawman argument at all. It is something you might want to consider, or not. If it assumed that people will behave the same as they do now with a mixture of vices and virtues, what is stopping the system to become skewed enough to warrant such.

But here you created a problem on its own.

The flip side is that 8% who feel that continuing the the pregnancy to birth is warranted.

The pay, they choose. I think that I haven't explained the logic of system clearly enough. Less direct compulsion, more - don't agree, pay surcharge and do whatever you want.

In fact, on the other side of the coin, abortion on demand, for a fetus that could be born fully functional, has happened down through the ages whether or not it the procedure is legal across the land.

In this setting elective abortion would be mentioned in history books, somewhere around ancient Rome idea that the head of family is allowed to sell his kids into slavery.

Some woman do not want to have children, contrary to myth. Or to not have children at that particular moment in time, but later when they comfortable with the concept.
Some woman may feel it is their duty to be the vassel of the state for continuation of the species; others may feel resentment towards being used in a manner that upsets their dignity as an individual.

People may just pay punitively calculated retirement contribution, as there would be no one to take care of them in old age.
Vessel? And rich would be just treated by gov as cash cows (careful enough to milk and not butcher). Somehow it fits setting. ;)
In practice I consider such system as a result of slow evolution and mass indoctrination. If minor natalist policies turned out to not specially work, then instead of just paying lip service and pretending that everything is OK, a more drastic were voted.

Should sexism be part of your colonial governernment, it is for you to decide how it plays out over the years and generations and if it is sustainable.

Sexism? Don't fit here. Quite serious about equal rights, plus obsession with (more or less) objective tests which makes any discrimination hard.

All I am saying is that once the road to selected conception and birth is policy, there can be side effects. Some effects may be way off from and appear to bear little or no correlation with the policy.

Yes, I also look for such side effect.

 

[snorkack]

In my absolute setting tycoons are basically new nobility, they want to be more or less to be above the standards of common people, so it is hard to ban polygamy, but it should be restricted, maybe it is not bad for child birth if girls date many rich/alpha guys and become unmarried moms, but bad for poor men. So i think the leadership should be rather pro-family.

About 10 million people? Mostly concentrated in a small area of one city? Not particularly democratic, even less so in recent past?

Description which happens to apply to Hong Kong (population 7 millions) and Singapore (population 5 millions).

Hong Kong has a lot of wealth concentrated to tycoons.

Would tycoons practice formal polygamy, though?
There is a fairly easy way to allow very rich men to have a lot of children. Cap alimony at a decent middle class level.
If alpha male playboy knows that a child is never going to cost more than a sports car or such a toy, they have less to fear and thus less reason to insist on protection. And many women would like to get knocked up by a rich alpha male, then settle down with a decent beta male and use the first child´s alimony to fund its stepfather and halfsiblings.

 

[256bits]

This is a great thread. How to make a society. Seems easy at first but delving deeper into it, not at all so easy.
Interesting for the final outcome.

I am still wondering about the political machinery. It does seem to be a mix of an attempt at democracy with a authoritarianism throw in ( without the dictator - must be a word to describe rule by committee ), along with socialism.

 

[Czcibor]

About 10 million people? Mostly concentrated in a small area of one city? Not particularly democratic, even less so in recent past?

Description which happens to apply to Hong Kong (population 7 millions) and Singapore (population 5 millions).

Hong Kong has a lot of wealth concentrated to tycoons.

Would tycoons practice formal polygamy, though?
There is a fairly easy way to allow very rich men to have a lot of children. Cap alimony at a decent middle class level.
If alpha male playboy knows that a child is never going to cost more than a sports car or such a toy, they have less to fear and thus less reason to insist on protection. And many women would like to get knocked up by a rich alpha male, then settle down with a decent beta male and use the first child´s alimony to fund its stepfather and halfsiblings.

GTOM just writes from time to time about ideas that he uses in his setting. As far as I remember it the people in his case are spread around bases all over Mars. Talking both of such ideas in one topic leads to some mixing up

Suggestion: for any ideas concerning his setting please use blue color.[/color]

This is a great thread. How to make a society. Seems easy at first but delving deeper into it, not at all so easy.
Interesting for the final outcome.

I am still wondering about the political machinery. It does seem to be a mix of an attempt at democracy with a authoritarianism throw in ( without the dictator - must be a word to describe rule by committee ), along with socialism.

Do you got used to idea of retirement system? Which is nowadays the main position in gov expenditure? (in Poland something like 15% of GDP vs less than 2% GDP on military) In which people live affluently for ex. 20 years? You know that such system started (by Otto von Bismarck) as a way of providing some meagre income support for last few years of life, to prevent extreme poverty. I just play here with the same logic, just natalistic also ended up becoming big.But you know this socialism would not be what it used to be ;) I mean for example ideas like education voucher would be used or heavy reliance on PPP.

I think that you think about authoritarianism (high intervention gov... damn, there is not even a good word for that) in a bit too narrow way. For example Sparta, which was highly militaristic and totalitarian state. Except that in order to prevent dictatorship there were all the time 2 kings. And male citizens were actually voting in a public assembly on gov policies.

Here I also play with different logic. For example for me as Polish, American ideas concerning ID cards seem weird. When I say that I consider natural that people have issued national ID card, I sound high left wing or authoritarian. When I say that I consider as natural that people have to show their ID to vote, I sound far right-wing. Right? ;) Just in my country such system works rather well and even many private / semi-private institutions would refuse to make a business without being shown ID card (my post office would not give me a parcel if I don't show them my ID card, no, they would not trust my word). So here I play with similar mechanism, where such prior rules were rationalized.

Would total surveillance lead to microscopic crime rate? Or in case of any crime committed would it lead to easily solvable crime and uncontroversial sentence? So maybe people would get used to idea. And complain that the surveillance net is still not good enough because of some dead zones left? Maybe in long run it would consider it as necessary precondition of fair trial?

Same with putting healthy lifestyle/following doctors recommendation as a legal obligation, which violation leads to sin taxes. Would it lead to boosting life expectancy by a few years? So maybe people would consider supporting such idea? (from success stories - think in line of crusades against tobacco)

Concerning maintaining such form of governance. At first (after apocalypse) emergency powers based dictatorship with serious amount of team based decision. Then when situation calmed down, partial step down and leaving such semi democratic constitution. Consequently the system slowly refines itself.

Multi party system, prime minister elected by small, one chamber parliament. Strong position of central bank ending officially as macroeconomical branch of gov, independent system of automatic tax increase to match expenditure increase. Politicians are required to pass a course in state governance, while voters are required to pass a test concerning their basic knowledge and basic info concerning how the country operates.

If US schools teach children that a moderately annoying king who raised taxes, was an evil tyrant and it was noble thing to oppose him, is it surprising that those people as adults are anti-gov and anti-taxes? As way of maintaining system - civic education. But instead teaching about civic duties, common interest, non zero sum games with punishing free riders. Officially to provide informed citizens, explain in details gov polices with hint of indoctrination. Later, those same people would vote. Would roughly counting support those policies, just may be dissatisfied with particular parties / politicians. So would end up voting for a new party, who would try to deliver roughly the same, just in a better way.

 

[Czcibor]

This is a great thread. How to make a society. Seems easy at first but delving deeper into it, not at all so easy.
Interesting for the final outcome.

Well, you reacted at start as if it was so easy, and sorry if at that time my answer was a bit rude.

I am still wondering about the political machinery. It does seem to be a mix of an attempt at democracy with a authoritarianism throw in ( without the dictator - must be a word to describe rule by committee ), along with socialism.

Concerning unintended consequences. Teenagers are being provided by gov with some housing vouchers, which can be used for renting tiny flats for them, there would be some preferential treatment of registered couples. (no compulsion, the voucher can be just wasted and can live with parents) They are required to study or work, for doing neither there is some idleness tax which failure to pay may put them into troubles. Those who study well receive good scholarship. As way to discipline those who really violate rules, there are fines, those who fail to pay them are punished with electroshocks (cruel comparing to having seriously destroyed future life by prison system?).

Freedoms:
-partial choice of courses ;)
-very limited amount of recreational substances sold through state monopoly
-adult life and learning from own decisions with more or less safe environment

Result that I see:
-quite interesting sexual life (which would mean that crèches would have to be put next to secondary schools for convenience of everyone...)
-wild youth culture - it means low parents supervision, and as long as everything is done within law bounds, not much gov intervention.
With high fertility rate the society would be anyway young generation dominated. However, test system would give higher political power to those a bit older, as they would be educated enough to pass them. It may bring some frictions, but also it may calm done actual politics.
(I still wonder about this wild youth culture...)

I started to think in line of each baby boom (and echo of baby boom) brings new political parties into power.

 

[GTOM]

Ok, i write my things with blue, i don't want to cause trouble, i hope it will be fine, and no need for another similar topic.

There is a fairly easy way to allow very rich men to have a lot of children. Cap alimony at a decent middle class level.
If alpha male playboy knows that a child is never going to cost more than a sports car or such a toy, they have less to fear and thus less reason to insist on protection. And many women would like to get knocked up by a rich alpha male, then settle down with a decent beta male and use the first child´s alimony to fund its stepfather and halfsiblings.

I think the goal of leadership is to reduce social tension and put some limits to tycoon power. So uncapped alimony (whether formal polygamy or just lovers), to increase the chance that the poor worker don't have to raise the kids of rich playboys.
Otherwise the absolute state is only one underground city with about 10 million people. The other one, the libertarian one has multiple cities with one huge capital city, divided into multiple autonomous cells. (Maybe no own fusion reactors, but they can store lots of energy for emergency cases.)

I hope the next one can be useful a bit (well i add further details to previous idea ), you mentioned filtering information, what about an ABC system of rating information? A : Accepted, B: deBated, C : Crackpottery, only for fools, and banish it to the dark corners of net. In case of anti-vaccination ideas for example
vaccination can prevent epidemics that ravaged humanity : A.
vaccination has unwanted side-effects, some people suffered terribly because of that, you should have to revise which ones are obligatory : B, it can be the subject of debate, what kinds of vaccinations are obligatory, suggested, and not suggested, still under testing, too much side-effects.
vaccinations are useless, government just fool people : C

People should be able to report C information, suggest that a site should be revised by qualified moderators (whether they paid or do it voluntary), make a "good" subnet to make it easy and fast to find qualified info, unrevised info uploaded to a "neutral" network, in case of C, delete every links to it, remove it from DNS services, and if someone suffers from being fooled, sue the responsible ones really bad.

Of course, sometimes it can be troublesome to decide (Pope to Galilei, okay your theory is rather debatable... he mocked the pope, his work is bad) so multiple people with multiple viewpoints should rate the articles, and new things should be revised more than once, so bring some democracy into the rating process.

Advertisements of course could also have that rating system, based on experiences of people.

 

[Czcibor]

Official ranking of info seems good, but I'm afraid of all info ending up with "entertainment purpose only" equivalent.More challenges:

How to make the test system tamper proof? (I mean from tricks equivalent to gerrymandering)
Ideas:
-put in constitution some fully arbitrary threshold how many % of adult population is to be allowed to vote (make changing it hard and with some lag)?

How to neutralise in possibly mildest way all rebellious youth to avoid '68 equivalent? Because there are going to be big some areas of contention and huge concentration of young people. (indoctrination and surveillance were mentioned)
I toy with possibility of allowing some too idealistic people some minor utopia testing. There is plenty of land. But I wonder how to make it work to allow discontent people to run some minor social experiment without hurting productivity too much and let them give it up on their own... ideas?

 

[snorkack]

Concerning unintended consequences. Teenagers are being provided by gov with some housing vouchers, which can be used for renting tiny flats for them, there would be some preferential treatment of registered couples. (no compulsion, the voucher can be just wasted and can live with parents)

Unintended consequences, but what´s the intended aim? Teenagers who live with parents waste the benefit, teenagers who marry get benefits over and above two teenagers moving out as formally single... is there any benefit specifically for teenagers who breed? Also, which benefits are available to teenagers who marry non-teen spouses?

They are required to study or work, for doing neither there is some idleness tax which failure to pay may put them into troubles. Those who study well receive good scholarship.

So, how about teenagers who study well and stay in parental household?
Your original post did specify weak local government because the population is concentrated.
If so, one major reason for teens to move out does not apply - most students already live within commuting distance of their choice university, so no reason to move to an university dormitory rather than stay home.
With 4 child policy, the adult couples with 4 or more children, the elders being teenagers, need sizable flats or houses.
What should be done if a family of 4 children adds a baby to the household, but it´s a teenage daughter who gives birth and remains in her parental home with her baby?
What should be done if a teenager wants to move in with the parents and siblings of his or her spouse, and the parents agree?

As way to discipline those who really violate rules, there are fines, those who fail to pay them are punished with electroshocks (cruel comparing to having seriously destroyed future life by prison system?).

Yes.
Also you need to improve prison system anyway. Precisely to make sure it does not seriously destroy future life.

Result that I see:
-quite interesting sexual life (which would mean that crèches would have to be put next to secondary schools for convenience of everyone...)
-wild youth culture - it means low parents supervision, and as long as everything is done within law bounds, not much gov intervention.

How about teen mothers who stay with their parents, or move in with their husband´s parents, so that they can share babysitting chores with the parents and perhaps with siblings? Are they denied benefits which are available to the mothers who live on their own or with just the husband?

 

[Czcibor]

Unintended consequences, but what´s the intended aim? Teenagers who live with parents waste the benefit, teenagers who marry get benefits over and above two teenagers moving out as formally single... is there any benefit specifically for teenagers who breed? Also, which benefits are available to teenagers who marry non-teen spouses?

So, how about teenagers who study well and stay in parental household?
Your original post did specify weak local government because the population is concentrated.
If so, one major reason for teens to move out does not apply - most students already live within commuting distance of their choice university, so no reason to move to an university dormitory rather than stay home.

How about teen mothers who stay with their parents, or move in with their husband´s parents, so that they can share babysitting chores with the parents and perhaps with siblings? Are they denied benefits which are available to the mothers who live on their own or with just the husband?

Rethinking:
Only teenagers (16 and more) in registered heterosexual couples, living together are entitled to special housing voucher.

With 4 child policy, the adult couples with 4 or more children, the elders being teenagers, need sizable flats or houses.
What should be done if a family of 4 children adds a baby to the household, but it´s a teenage daughter who gives birth and remains in her parental home with her baby?
What should be done if a teenager wants to move in with the parents and siblings of his or her spouse, and the parents agree?

Wouldn't the simplest and most fair solution be just allowing to sum up all such vouchers?

Sizeable flats... As way of providing reasonable price housing and efficient mass transport - huge, prefabricated tower blocks, connected by metro. What about giving some preferential system to rent a small flat in the same building?

Yes.
Also you need to improve prison system anyway. Precisely to make sure it does not seriously destroy future life.

I though of very nice mixture of stick, carrot and resocialization. Early intervention, putting into prison mostly only those who are too dangerous to be allowed to roam around. General idea: gov tries to help (social workers, anger management courses, whatever), those who scorned such enlighten approach can be just fine heavily, failure to pay it would mean electroshocks. Rinse and repeat, until person learns.

To make everything nicer - police without guns (no guns on street) and padded handcuffs (if someone tries to fight with them, there is high chance that he is not fully mentally OK).

 

[snorkack]

Rethinking:
Only teenagers (16 and more) in registered heterosexual couples, living together are entitled to special housing voucher.

So teenage single mothers don´t get special housing vouchers...

Wouldn't the simplest and most fair solution be just allowing to sum up all such vouchers?

Yes - for which activities?

Sizeable flats... As way of providing reasonable price housing and efficient mass transport - huge, prefabricated tower blocks, connected by metro. What about giving some preferential system to rent a small flat in the same building?

So tower blocks containing both big and small flats?
What could be a best way to increase home incrementally for a, say, 30 year old couple with 2 children who either goes on to give birth to 2 more children in her 30s to complete the 4 child policy, or has a daughter become a single mother living with her parents and siblings, or has a 16 year old son contract legal marriage to a bride who moves in with her in-laws?

I though of very nice mixture of stick, carrot and resocialization. Early intervention, putting into prison mostly only those who are too dangerous to be allowed to roam around. General idea: gov tries to help (social workers, anger management courses, whatever), those who scorned such enlighten approach can be just fine heavily, failure to pay it would mean electroshocks. Rinse and repeat, until person learns.

Electroshocks would have much the same drawbacks as corporal punishment by whipping.
Would parents of a 16 year old commonly wield electroshocks? Would the teachers at secondary schools?

 

[Czcibor]

So teenage single mothers don´t get special housing vouchers...

Yes - for which activities?

For each kid to let's say 20 years old. Plus extra one for young couples. So a single mother would have her own, her baby, she would just not receive the extra one for young couples.

So tower blocks containing both big and small flats?

yes

What could be a best way to increase home incrementally for a, say, 30 year old couple with 2 children who either goes on to give birth to 2 more children in her 30s to complete the 4 child policy, or has a daughter become a single mother living with her parents and siblings, or has a 16 year old son contract legal marriage to a bride who moves in with her in-laws?

Prefabricated. Standardized. Cheap but inflexible. ;)
Simplest way would be just renting flats next to each other.

My way of thought was the following:
1) treat houses as investment assets and tax instead implicit rent as income/consumption (such implicit rent is normally being calculated for GDP, just taxmen don't see it in most countries) (done of Switzerland, home ownership went down, and people started to prefer more flexible renting)
2) Make gov to build huge sovereign wealth funds... as one of simple and uncreative enough area for gov to invest would be tower buildings
3) Build houses on masse, which would lower rents that the income would be unimpressive, put most of private land lords out of market
4) Result - most people just rent (but can own, if they really want or prefer something more creative), gov has some freedom in reshuffling them.

"Legal marriage"? I thought more something halfway between civil union and facebook status :D

Electroshocks would have much the same drawbacks as corporal punishment by whipping.
Would parents of a 16 year old commonly wield electroshocks? Would the teachers at secondary schools?

I think about following system. A teenager is being stopped by security officer delegated to school for starting a minor brawl. He can either accept it for a bit lower punishment. If he disagrees - send it to a low rank independent judge. Quick watching of security recording - and a standardised ruling pending on guilty or not. If guilty - has to discuss with social worker proper corrective action that he promises to take or just pay fine (from the money that he earned, parents are not allowed to help...). If promised something and not delivered that - extra fine. Failure to pay fine - electroshocks.

 

[GTOM]

In my absolute setting, electroshock is surely the least cruel thing one can get in prison, but if you want to make a rather democratic system, why detention, solitary isn't good enough for discipline instead of minor torture?

Another method to treat criminals could be send them to a terraforming mission, teamwork in order to survive, electric collars, cameras everywhere to prevent prison rape.

 

[Czcibor]

In my absolute setting, electroshock is surely the least cruel thing one can get in prison, but if you want to make a rather democratic system, why detention, solitary isn't good enough for discipline instead of minor torture?

Another method to treat criminals could be send them to a terraforming mission, teamwork in order to survive, electric collars, cameras everywhere to prevent prison rape.

A few reasons:
- historical - at start there was a harsh conditions, so conditions of XXIst century prison (enough food, roofed building, reasonable temperature) would be actually a reward and something cheap had to be used
- "democratic setting" Does your politicians win elections promising being nice to criminals or something exactly opposite? ;) Add here one more factor - in this political system there is a huge pressure to deliver good value for money. What if there was some publicly accessible report of some budget committee was showing how much extra money would cost it for extra prison? And a few times when such idea was being discussed, and eliminated at budget cuts...
-there is a category of petty criminals from whom you can't collect any money. Also punishing with prison would seem excessive and expensive for the society. So what you do? (not only homeless, I personally know also one person who outsmarted a few of his business partners...) In Poland I see how gov tries its luck with giving a suspended prison sentence, but it is not working well.
-there is a not specially responsible person who has a job / school. Would one week behind bars endanger his school / job? So maybe for not harming his future...

 

[GTOM]

On the other hand : one needs less amount of space, water and food in solitary than otherwise. It is not impossible to learn there - no distractions.
Well the one can't work there, but rehabilitation can involve extensive community work.

 

[Czcibor]

On the other hand : one needs less amount of space, water and food in solitary than otherwise.

Yup. Just otherwise he would pay it on his own ;)

It is not impossible to learn there - no distractions. Well the one can't work there, but rehabilitation can involve extensive community work.

Such nice way of treatment - for those who are too dangerous to let roam around.

terraforming mission, teamwork in order to survive, electric collars, cameras everywhere to prevent prison rape.

I've faced here one problem. Where to use them. Good old fashion galleys, turned out to be impractical in the age of sail. Mines? One drilling machine be worth more that 100 convicts with hand tools. I ended up with conclusion, that prisoners would end up on McJobs, but flopping burgers and answering phones of angry customers do not sound sinister enough ;)

 

[GTOM]

What about cleaning toilets, pig farms, check the seals of habitats?

 

[Czcibor]

Ideas that I mention and still ask for some feedback

Environmental determinism:

I thought about the environmental determinism - centralized society (90% of population in the capitol and its suburbs); land - good enough, except no good fossil source of carbohydrates; mature, well educated society.

Features of the system:

There are a few more issues of contention like tax system.
From the good side:
-effectively forbidden advertisement (so would not feel so unhappy without newest toys);
-legal marijuana, LSD, mescaline, MDMA sold through state monopoly (tobacco or strong alcohol illegal as too harmful);
-no shark loans, limited ability to go into debt trap;
-no gambling on big amounts;
-reasonable safety net, education;
-effective mass transit for all;
-cheap housing in big buildings for all;
-low corruption;
-mass sport events open to all citizen;
-a bit crazy culture, which value irony and sense of humour;
-gov trying to provide educational entertainment for citizens like educating on the metro about ex. ancient Roman legions or aircraft design; (distraction)
-a competitive political system (just one have to earn enough points to vote).

From not so nice side:
-state media (which would express different views of medium and higher class... just to promote good tastes and avoid populism...);
-ultra high surveillance;
-tomato day in which is allowed to throw tomatoes at all top gov (yep, circuses);
-effectively streaming people through education system to good, hard working citizens in stable relationship (and moving through education/mental health those who seem not fit to society)
-political system that evolved locally, people got used to it and consider as 100% natural and legitimate.

Ideas how to send a parcel to citizen with a baby:

"tax breaks per child, free childcare, free education, free healthcare, tax subsidies on children's items etc."
Done. Concerning creative ideas:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415
(except that I'd go a few steps further)

Rating for citizens:

After seeing credit rating and eBay stars, I started to think about gov provided citizen rating. With theoretically limited sanctions (except those with really points) but all people would get nervous about dealing with one who has not shining rating. (such misbehaviour to spouse might influence such points...)

Untraditional family models:

"Due to changing family models, the linkage between the birth of a child and marriage is weakening. The possibility of flexible and less traditional family-forming seems to have a positive impact on individual child-bearing decisions [7]. An increasing number of children were born to unmarried women. Live births outside marriage increased from 27.4 % of total live births in 2000 to 39.5 % in 2011. Countries with a high rate of extramarital births even tend to have a higher fertility rate than others. For example, in Sweden, France, Denmark, the United Kingdom and Belgium fertility rates above the EU-27 average of 1.57 children per woman were combined with a rate of extramarital births above 45 % in 2011."
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Sustainable_development_-_demographic_changes

In one study (I can't find it now) there was even a conclusion comparing European countries, that roughly counting all extra babies that can be explained by generous welfare state were born outside marriage.

So maybe the right way would be make legal institutions that deal well with cohabitation? Any ideas?

Overqualified population:

Actually I foresee some problems with overqualified, unsatisfied work force, but it would be more effect of good mass education. Any selective breeding would not work so fast on its own.

Semi-coercion through taxation system:

The pay, they choose. I think that I haven't explained the logic of system clearly enough. Less direct compulsion, more - don't agree, pay surcharge and do whatever you want.

PPP:

But you know this socialism would not be what it used to be ;) I mean for example ideas like education voucher would be used or heavy reliance on PPP.

Form of governance, leading society through mixture of gov media and gov education, without too overt censorship:

Concerning maintaining such form of governance. At first (after apocalypse) emergency powers based dictatorship with serious amount of team based decision. Then when situation calmed down, partial step down and leaving such semi democratic constitution. Consequently the system slowly refines itself.

Multi party system, prime minister elected by small, one chamber parliament. Strong position of central bank ending officially as macroeconomical branch of gov, independent system of automatic tax increase to match expenditure increase. Politicians are required to pass a course in state governance, while voters are required to pass a test concerning their basic knowledge and basic info concerning how the country operates.

If US schools teach children that a moderately annoying king who raised taxes, was an evil tyrant and it was noble thing to oppose him, is it surprising that those people as adults are anti-gov and anti-taxes? As way of maintaining system - civic education. But instead teaching about civic duties, common interest, non zero sum games with punishing free riders. Officially to provide informed citizens, explain in details gov polices with hint of indoctrination. Later, those same people would vote. Would roughly counting support those policies, just may be dissatisfied with particular parties / politicians. So would end up voting for a new party, who would try to deliver roughly the same, just in a better way.

Result that I see:
-quite interesting sexual life (which would mean that crèches would have to be put next to secondary schools for convenience of everyone...)
-wild youth culture - it means low parents supervision, and as long as everything is done within law bounds, not much gov intervention.
With high fertility rate the society would be anyway young generation dominated. However, test system would give higher political power to those a bit older, as they would be educated enough to pass them. It may bring some frictions, but also it may calm done actual politics.
(I still wonder about this wild youth culture...)

I started to think in line of each baby boom (and echo of baby boom) brings new political parties into power.

How to make the test system tamper proof? (I mean from tricks equivalent to gerrymandering)
Ideas:
-put in constitution some fully arbitrary threshold how many % of adult population is to be allowed to vote (make changing it hard and with some lag)?

How to neutralise in possibly mildest way all rebellious youth to avoid '68 equivalent? Because there are going to be big some areas of contention and huge concentration of young people. (indoctrination and surveillance were mentioned)
I toy with possibility of allowing some too idealistic people some minor utopia testing. There is plenty of land. But I wonder how to make it work to allow discontent people to run some minor social experiment without hurting productivity too much and let them give it up on their own... ideas?

I also wondered about some gov manipulation of memes in society, but not sure how to do it with freeish speech and or highly transparent gov. (on example of US society - how to eliminate gangsta rap, creationism and anti-vaccine movement in a way that society would not think that is being ordered what to think)

 

[rootone]

After seeing credit rating and eBay stars, I started to think about gov provided citizen rating.

Ebay stars are well known to be manipulated by people using multiple accounts, and there are services out there who offer to do this for a fee, the same is true of facebook 'likes' and similar.
I think a govt approved merit rating would reduce most of politics to arguments about the rating system and allegations of corruption.

 

[Czcibor]

One more idea - how to run a parliament in the most effective / high tech way? I think about making the decisions informed and avoid turning debates into a cheap theatre. How to really enforce discussion and not just posturing?

Design parliament so MP can use powerpoint slides as part of their speech?
Rules against filibustering / obstruction? (time limit, in case of flood of amendments just selecting - "none of above" on computer screen)?
Hire a few boring experts / people who can just use google-equivalent whose job is to run a fact check on anything that was said?

 

[GTOM]

Recently i read that many greek thinkers didnt really liked democracy... Aristotle said that good government should have mixed elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy.
Maybe in your setting, the monarchistic part should be the guards of constitution, with the sacred duty, of preventing that anyone could have absolute political, economical or media power? (And also prevent tampering the system, so it will be always like less qualified, poor people arent stripped from their rights, but more qualified people votes count more?)

 

[rootone]

'Democracy' in Aristotle's time meant a majority vote of the land owning (and sometimes slave owning), males only.
('Slaves' in ancient Greece were not too badly done by though, A slave could pay off some kind of 'debt' through working and in time become a free man.)

 

[Czcibor]

Recently i read that many greek thinkers didnt really liked democracy... Aristotle said that good government should have mixed elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy.
Maybe in your setting, the monarchistic part should be the guards of constitution, with the sacred duty, of preventing that anyone could have absolute political, economical or media power? (And also prevent tampering the system, so it will be always like less qualified, poor people arent stripped from their rights, but more qualified people votes count more?)

Aristotle mentioned VIIth part of VIth book of Politics, cavalry goes together with narrow oligarchy, heavy infantry - to more inclusive oligarchy, light infantry and navy is related to democracy. So how to extend that? What about total warfare with total mobilization of all economy - don't it require totalitarianism or democracy? Then the sinister part starts - if you fight a war using a small group of professionals and most of your firepower comes from drones - do you need democracy any more to be able to draft your citizens? Wouldn't there be an incentive to lean towards technocracy?

'Democracy' in Aristotle's time meant a majority vote of the land owning (and sometimes slave owning), males only.
('Slaves' in ancient Greece were not too badly done by though, A slave could pay off some kind of 'debt' through working and in time become a free man.)

More complicated, in Athens one needed a citizenship (were peoples who were foreigners living there for many generations, or even in some era it required both parents to have citizenship), has to be free, male and over 20/30. Actually could be poor, there was even payment for poor citizens for performing their civic duties.

 

[GTOM]

Aristotle mentioned VIIth part of VIth book of Politics, cavalry goes together with narrow oligarchy, heavy infantry - to more inclusive oligarchy, light infantry and navy is related to democracy. So how to extend that? What about total warfare with total mobilization of all economy - don't it require totalitarianism or democracy? Then the sinister part starts - if you fight a war using a small group of professionals and most of your firepower comes from drones - do you need democracy any more to be able to draft your citizens? Wouldn't there be an incentive to lean towards technocracy?

Well maybe that should rather go to the other topic, but since automatization of assembly lines is easier than developing and producing robots that can fight in fuzzy environments, when enemy has weapons that can disrupt long range communication (jamming, target balloons, sats whatever) I would send out lower qualified people as snipers (quite effective in mountain areas) and drone controllers.
So there should be enough reasons for them to fight for their country.

 

[Czcibor]

Well maybe that should rather go to the other topic, but since automatization of assembly lines is easier than developing and producing robots that can fight in fuzzy environments, when enemy has weapons that can disrupt long range communication (jamming, target balloons, sats whatever) I would send out lower qualified people as snipers (quite effective in mountain areas) and drone controllers.
So there should be enough reasons for them to fight for their country.

Two independent issues:
-having enough weapons to give to each citizen
-really expecting from such... Volkssturm ;) effective combat

There is one serious problem with starting guerilla warfare in mountains and forest... the capitol is on alluvial valley surrounded by shrubs, roughly counting 1000 km from places where guerillas could thrive. So in order to launch such strategy, they would have an enemy who is both so powerful that they can only flee in mountains, but not so powerful enough to cut them such transport route. So far I have not figured out a strategy under which it could work.

I assume that the communication system would be rather resistant to damage, as it would require to destroy hundreds of baloons, radio relay stations, cut dozens of redundant optic fibre cables and jam ad hoc radio nets between drones. I'm not saying impossible, I'm rather saying whoever would be able to do that easily would beat them anyway.

As drone controllers? Yes, I thought about it. Just military had to allow using its simulators as computer games...