Andrew wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2001, at 1:50, Adam C. Lipscomb wrote:
>
> > > > How do you think government workers are chosen? And how do you
> > > > think that this should be changed.
> > >
> > > You want to give power and authority to someone who WANTS it?
> > > geez :P You want someone who will do a good job.
> >
> > Sometimes it IS the person that wants it. Are you suggesting forcing
> > those who don't want to do a job to do it? You obviously haven't seen
> > the half-a**ed quality of forced work.
>
> Oh? For the last 4 years, I've spend 2 days a week working of stuff
> I really don't like, but I do because it's my DUTY to do so, for the
> environmental organisation. Regardless of what I want, they needed
> me and my skills in data organisation, so I do that for them.
Why are you working for the environmental organization? Did they walk up to
you and say, "Listen, bucko, you're gonna do this job or else!"? Or,
perhaps, do you work for them because you *wanted* to?
> > I would like to think that the people working in the government are
> > doing a job because they *like* it. Just like I hope the doctor
> > making life-or-death decisions about my health care is a doctor
> > because he felt a strong inner need to be a doctor, and is rewarded
> > beyond his paycheck.
>
> Ahh..I see your misconception. I am refering to senior civil service
> positions, and to them only.
So? Are you saying that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, or
the FBI, or any other government agency, doesn't make decisions that impact
the lives of millions of citizens? I still want people in the positions
they want to be in.
It's all well and good to say, "If only it could be like in Arthur Clarke's
_Imperial Earth_!" and think that would solve the problems you see. It's
not realistic to do so. I could say, "Boy, if we had a wise king like King
Arthur, everything would be hunky-dory" and that wouldn't make it so.
You've got to do some analysis - what's the impact of that? Is it realistic
to suggest this?
> > You seem to in this thread and in the one devoted to family size be
> > advocating dictatorship. If I've got the wrong impression, please
> > correct me, but statements such as
> <snip>
> > give me the heebie-jeebies. Give me liberty tempered by social
> > consciousness (as in the US, Canada, and other Western democracies),
> > give me leaders we can throw out if they don't listen to us, and give
> > me a worldview that credits my fellow human beings with something more
> > than "sheep" status, thankyouverymuch. You can keep your despotic
> > fantasies.
>
> Umm...the term "elective dictatorship" in the UK elections mean
> anything? That current democratic systems usually ignore the
> votes of most of the population?
>
> To suggest some things...
Ah! Nuts and bolts to tinker with. This is better...
> Firstly elections for..say 1/4 of the lower chamber every year.
> Keeps the politicians on their toes, and means they can't do
> unpopular things just after a big election and get away with it. It
> gives continuity and strenght to a government....
We do that with the US House of Representatives and the Senate - the House
is up for reelection every 2 years, with a good percentage of incumbents
returning. The Senate serve 6 year terms, with 1/3 of them up for
reelection every 2 years. Executive leadership is up for change every 4
years, with a limit of 10 years total in office.
> Secondly, a partial-list system like Germany's allows majority
> partys to dominate (Unlike, say, Israel), but also allows minority
> partys a say in Government (Unlike, say, America or the UK).
Can you give some specifics regarding this?
> And yes, I do believe reprisentative democracy, as practiced today,
> is over-rated. It gives no long-term stability to policy, although the
> UK HAD this to some extent with the House of Lords (the current
> system is a mess, let's see what comes out). The idea of people
> serving long terms (decade plus) in an upper house definately
> interests me, and I do NOT believe all those in an upper house
> should be selected by popular vote.
Just out of curiosity, what's the average term of service of an MP in the
UK? How many are reelected each term? How would members of your upper
house be selected?
> And we certainly have to look long and hard at our selection
> methods for senior civil servants.
What do you suggest in place of current methods?
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
