Exotic Governmental/Legal Systems

[jason taylor]

One thing I just thought of. It is not purely governmental as private citizens will also be using this idea in some societies but it certainly has bearing on government. I remembered that brides with smallpox scars had a higher value in the matchmaking network-because they proved they would be less likely to die without producing an heir.

Suppose in an aristocratic society there is a process of buying insurance on marriages. Not just life insurance similar to what we have now, but a whole network of insurance's to satisfy the interests of the differing dynasties. For instance nobles might be able to buy a type of life insurance that will guarantee against assassination but not against fratricide(a possible and gameworthy corralary is that the company maintains it's own bounty hunters). Insurance against sterility, liability insurance against illegitimacy judgements in court, etc. The point is to add a whole bunch of obscure insurance contracts appropriate to a society where blood, property, and government are innately integrated. Something that might exist on Barrayar for instance.

[Astromancer]

I've not read the whole thread but try this, a theocracy where the gods compete to be the god of the state.

The deities campaign for office manifesting to their high priests and others to explain their platforms and other matters. The deity that wins then runs reality for the next stellar cycle. The parties are aligned in pantheons.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Friedrich Hayek proposed a different sort of bicameral legislature: One house would pass only laws regulating the general rights and obligations of citizens; the other would pass rules for the conduct of governmental activities. An interesting nuance was that revenues were the business of the first house, expenditures of the second.

Another of Hayek's ideas was to have a body of legislators who gained new members, each year, by a vote of the people who had turned some specified age (I think it might have been 40) in that year. Everyone would get to vote for that house ONCE and never again, and the people they voted for would have, at least, very long terms of office.

The bureaucracy would run the show. But Hayek was hostile to democracy. In fact he was shocked when, long after he wrote The Road to Serfdom he found out that the British and American governments were answerable to their people. He thought that was a disgusting idea.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

I've not read the whole thread but try this, a theocracy where the gods compete to be the god of the state.

The deities campaign for office manifesting to their high priests and others to explain their platforms and other matters. The deity that wins then runs reality for the next stellar cycle. The parties are aligned in pantheons.

Alternative: political parties have patron gods.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The bureaucracy would run the show. But Hayek was hostile to democracy. In fact he was shocked when, long after he wrote The Road to Serfdom he found out that the British and American governments were answerable to their people. He thought that was a disgusting idea.

When you think of it asking a mechanic what he knows about statecraft is kind of like asking a statesman what he knows about mechanics. The main argument for democracy is that it keeps the rulers from having an ivory tower mentality, and makes sure they have a personal interest in the commonwealth beyond a pig's interest in a trough(if only because a more successful society will make for more food in the trough).

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Political offices are filled by a direct competition with the results of election determining the candidates' relative handicap.

Each tier of government can only be filled by someone who is an incumbent in the next tier down, and strict term limits are in place at each tier (up or out).

This, too, has Roman overtones. The Republic had a semi-official course of offices that an ambitious politico was expected to try and fill. It wasn't cast-iron, but there was an accepted path of advancement from office-to-office, more so than the unofficial chains in modern states.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

When you think of it asking a mechanic what he knows about statecraft is kind of like asking a statesman what he knows about mechanics. The main argument for democracy is that it keeps the rulers from having an ivory tower mentality, and makes sure they have a personal interest in the commonwealth beyond a pig's interest in a trough(if only because a more successful society will make for more food in the trough).

Another pro-democracy argument is the idea that it's easier for a mechanic to learn statecraft than a politician to learn to be a mechanic. Which could be debated, but isn't self-evidently false.

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.

[Luke Bunyip]

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.

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.

[jason taylor]

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

[malloyd]

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.

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.