Exotic Governmental/Legal Systems

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by malloyd

I can see the mess of regulations about what counts as "non-political" and "self-supporting" being twisted already....

Perhaps the simplest approach that gets close without allowing for as much of that is an age test, not for office but for any government job. If you have to be at least 25 or 30 to be hired by the government or anyone serving in a political office, you most likely did *something* before then. Though I suppose it doesn't rule out a lobbying or other political influence or organizing career first though. Military careers are a bit of a problem though, governments like to hire youngsters for those.

Uh-huh. I can see the problem too. Another problem is a lot of the mentality suited for government really can't be developed outside government. For instance a state's first line of defense is it's honor; a proper reputation for being vengeful to foes, grateful to allies, and keeping it's word saves quite a bit in blood and treasure. A business man cannot necessarily imbibe that idea properly. Nor can a lawyer for that matter("the first thing we need..."). Millitary men can but they come with their own problems including an authoritarian guild that leaves them without sufficient practice in wheedling.

[David Johnston2]

[QUOTE=jason taylor;2170272]Uh-huh. I can see the problem too. Another problem is a lot of the mentality suited for government really can't be developed outside government. For instance a state's first line of defense is it's honor; a proper reputation for being vengeful to foes, grateful to allies, and keeping it's word saves quite a bit in blood and treasure. A business man cannot necessarily imbibe that idea properly. Nor can a lawyer for that matter

Why not? A good lawyer sticks to the deals he make.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Imagine a society that requires as a prerequisite for office that you have to have had some non-political employment, and have been self-supporting at it, for a time period (say 5 years), before trying for office. Employment be literally working for someone else, or self-employment, but it can't be anything to do with government.

A thing I'd like to try in the real world is more politicians with experience in technical jobs, i.e. where problems don't go away just because you out-argue the opposition (the Feynman-type "nature cannot be fooled").

For game purposes this might be implemented as an approved list of scientific, engineering and mechanical jobs. (I'm very aware that humans are humans and would find a way to game this, as they do any system.)

[Luke Bunyip]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The Italian Patricians were founded first and foremost on family controlled trade cartels. So you must have a differing idea of Patrician.

Was going to put the link up for the Roman patricians. I should have put up a link to the Wiktionary entry:

Of, pertaining to, or appropriate to, a person of high birth; noble; not plebeian.

I was attempting to use the adjective as a descriptor of families who's members attain public office over generations. Defacto dynasties, that basically work to prevent anyone from outside their social class getting into government.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Why not? A good lawyer sticks to the deals he make.

Sure he does and a few lawyers in the legislature and the executive are not all that bad. It's just that a good lawyer is also to, well, legalistic, whereas people in the executive need to deal with the type of folks who think in the manner of mob families. ROE that expect decency of the state are one thing, if they cripple the state that is another.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Luke Bunyip

Public service akin to jury duty, or doing one's time when conscripted for military service. I like it (the idea), but the checks and balances to make it work would be interesting.

It could prevent the establishment or maintenance of a 'patrician' class of professional politician.

The most likely tendency would be to transfer practical power from the jury-officials to the permanent bureaucracy that supposedly serves them. (Term limits have something of the same issue.) You could try to make the bureaucracy likewise random-chosen, but then you'd get really amateurish government.

It's a variation on the 'agency problem'. I could imagine various ways a society might try to compensate. Imagine a large society which chooses its policy-making body by jury-lot, and has them served by separate regional bureaucracies, with separate chains of command and training and so on. It would be inefficient, but you might set it up to get branches of the bureaucrats fighting each other for power instead of working as a body against their supposed employers.

Another approach might be to have private (in a sense) contractors who do the bureaucratic administration, competing to get this 5-year 'contract' from the policy-making body. Members of the policy-making body can never be employed by these companies.

No approach is going to be perfectly effective, though, any human-made and human-run system can at least potentially be gamed.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Why not? A good lawyer sticks to the deals he make.

It's not quite the same, though, because part of good statecraft is knowing when to keep a deal and when to abandon it, and there's no higher authority (at the inter-polity level) to adjudicate that.

[Luke Bunyip]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

The most likely tendency would be to transfer practical power from the jury-officials to the permanent bureaucracy that supposedly serves them.

<snip>

It's a variation on the 'agency problem'. I could imagine various ways a society might try to compensate.

Yup. One of my personal bugbears. Could say more.... but nah.

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Imagine a large society which chooses its policy-making body by jury-lot, and has them served by separate regional bureaucracies, with separate chains of command and training and so on. It would be inefficient, but you might set it up to get branches of the bureaucrats fighting each other for power instead of working as a body against their supposed employers.

I'd suggest that the citizen jury would be a more appropriate point to review legislation for a governing body.

Given I live in a country which is the figment of seven competing states, I don't like the regional bureaucracies model. That gave Australia three different rail gauges.

But from a game related setting meta point of view, bring on Kafka...

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Another approach might be to have private (in a sense) contractors who do the bureaucratic administration, competing to get this 5-year 'contract' from the policy-making body. Members of the policy-making body can never be employed by these companies.

Nice. Could make a real world comment... but darn it, decorum.

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

No approach is going to be perfectly effective, though, any human-made and human-run system can at least potentially be gamed.

*Cough* Republican Rome, and the various shenanigans of different senators and consuls.*cough*

[L.J.Steele]

[QUOTE=David Johnston2;2170276Why not? A good lawyer sticks to the deals he make.[/QUOTE]

I ought point out that most of America's Founding Fathers were lawyers. To write laws, it helps a lot to have been on the interpreting/working with them end of the business.

Much of an advocate's job is persuasion, building alliances with other potential parties, knowing one's opposition, and having a reputation with the courts, their staff, and their opponents for fair dealing, honesty, competence, and persistence.

Are there the Saul Goodmans out there -- sure. Find them in every field. But hardly the norm.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by L.J.Steele

I ought point out that most of America's Founding Fathers were lawyers. To write laws, it helps a lot to have been on the interpreting/working with them end of the business.

Much of an advocate's job is persuasion, building alliances with other potential parties, knowing one's opposition, and having a reputation with the courts, their staff, and their opponents for fair dealing, honesty, competence, and persistence.

Are there the Saul Goodmans out there -- sure. Find them in every field. But hardly the norm.

And I might reasonably point out that in foreign policy there is no court and not all opponents care squat about fair dealing or honesty. Foreign policy is unlike any other activity except organized crime. Though some of the best practitioners were from the import/export business which does have advantages in fitting someone for it by sharpening intelligence analysis.