FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


A crazy idea: multi-government country.






How do you like the idea?
I didn't read it.
11%
 11%  [ 1 ]
Awesome!
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Interesting, but probably wouldn't work.
33%
 33%  [ 3 ]
Un-good
22%
 22%  [ 2 ]
EXTREMELY bad idea!
33%
 33%  [ 3 ]
Ocalhoun should be the president.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 9

ocalhoun
What if one country had multiple governments, each one highly specialized and entirely separate, with NO overruling control?

For example, one country might have these 'governments' co-existing in it:

1- International relation corps. Involves 'head of state', diplomacy, trade regulation, and military.
2- Health and welfare corps. Includes charity programs, including state-run education.
3- Legislative corps. Includes law makers and law enforcers. Does NOT have authority to enact laws to control the other corps.

Each of these 'independent governments' would operate entirely on its own. Each would have separate budgets, collect taxes individually, and strictly not interfere with the others. There would be no official leader of the country, though the 'head of state' in the International Relation Corps would fulfill that role when dealing with other countries. Each would have its own constitution, all of which give rights to the public and all of which limit the powers of that 'sub-government'.

So, how do you like this crazy, new idea?
Bikerman
Don't really like it much at all. It isn't actually coherent.
How do you have a legislative 'corp' which is completely distinct from (say) the 'health and welfare' corp? Surely you would want legislation on health and welfare? If so then I'm presuming you would want some expert input?
Consider the 'international relations' corp and the fun that could be had when the 'health and welfare' corps are told that the international 'crew' have signed up to a foreign treaty which includes (for example) the European Social Charter (or substitute as you wish). The 'health' crew will cry that the 'international' crew are stepping outside their mandate. The 'international' crew will cry that it is their role to secure good international relations by means of binding agreements and treaties...

I could go on...
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Don't really like it much at all. It isn't actually coherent.
How do you have a legislative 'corp' which is completely distinct from (say) the 'health and welfare' corp? Surely you would want legislation on health and welfare? If so then I'm presuming you would want some expert input?

The legislation specifically about that branch of government would be developed and internally enforced within that branch's own little legislative branch... Possibly having each 'government' develop and enforce laws separately might eliminate the need for a 'legislative corps'.
Quote:

Consider the 'international relations' corp and the fun that could be had when the 'health and welfare' corps are told that the international 'crew' have signed up to a foreign treaty which includes (for example) the European Social Charter (or substitute as you wish). The 'health' crew will cry that the 'international' crew are stepping outside their mandate. The 'international' crew will cry that it is their role to secure good international relations by means of binding agreements and treaties...

Perhaps there would have to be something in the IR corps constitution covering that situation, requiring it to get permission from the other 'branch' if preparing to sign a treaty that will affect the internal operation of that branch...
Quote:

I could go on...

Please do... This is a very new and still developing idea... More challenges would help me mold it into a more, say, coherent system.

More thoughts:
Each 'government' would have its own 'crisis mode'.
Examples:
The international relations corps could enter a crisis mode because of a major war (like WWII), and enlist the help of the other corps.
The health and welfare corps could enlist the help of the others in the event of a huge economic crisis, like the USA's great depression.
The legislative corps could enlist the help of the others if crime was running uncontrollably, bringing in military help from the IR corps, for example.

If two 'governments' had a dispute between them, they could settle it in a courtroom-like setting, with the uninvolved branch(es) running the show and making the decision.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Don't really like it much at all. It isn't actually coherent.
How do you have a legislative 'corp' which is completely distinct from (say) the 'health and welfare' corp? Surely you would want legislation on health and welfare? If so then I'm presuming you would want some expert input?

The legislation specifically about that branch of government would be developed and internally enforced within that branch's own little legislative branch... Possibly having each 'government' develop and enforce laws separately might eliminate the need for a 'legislative corps'.
Thus we make Government absolutely massive. We have legal, enforcement (and presumably investigation?) services duplicated in every department of government.
Quote:
Perhaps there would have to be something in the IR corps constitution covering that situation, requiring it to get permission from the other 'branch' if preparing to sign a treaty that will affect the internal operation of that branch...
The bureaucracy this would generate would be implosive. It would immediately lead to 'turf wars' over which department had final say, and it would lead to the most complicated 'interdepartmental agreements' that one could possibly imagine
Quote:

Please do... This is a very new and still developing idea... More challenges would help me mold it into a more, say, coherent system.
I think the objections to date are sufficient. To be honest I think the whole notion is a non-starter and I don't think it is worth spending too much time with further development.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
What if one country had multiple governments, each one highly specialized and entirely separate, with NO overruling control?

For example, one country might have these 'governments' co-existing in it:

1- International relation corps. Involves 'head of state', diplomacy, trade regulation, and military.
2- Health and welfare corps. Includes charity programs, including state-run education.
3- Legislative corps. Includes law makers and law enforcers. Does NOT have authority to enact laws to control the other corps.

Each of these 'independent governments' would operate entirely on its own. Each would have separate budgets, collect taxes individually, and strictly not interfere with the others. There would be no official leader of the country, though the 'head of state' in the International Relation Corps would fulfill that role when dealing with other countries. Each would have its own constitution, all of which give rights to the public and all of which limit the powers of that 'sub-government'.

So, how do you like this crazy, new idea?
Won't it make things very expensive? There would have to be tax returns for each Government, policed separately by each Government, the accountants get to do multiple returns so commerce would have to pay more for preparing tax returns. It would also be impractical in its execution? For example in a country with "Departments", there are a large number of cross-committees. There would be a link between law makers and each of the different Governments.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Don't really like it much at all. It isn't actually coherent.
How do you have a legislative 'corp' which is completely distinct from (say) the 'health and welfare' corp? Surely you would want legislation on health and welfare? If so then I'm presuming you would want some expert input?

The legislation specifically about that branch of government would be developed and internally enforced within that branch's own little legislative branch... Possibly having each 'government' develop and enforce laws separately might eliminate the need for a 'legislative corps'.
Thus we make Government absolutely massive. We have legal, enforcement (and presumably investigation?) services duplicated in every department of government.

Preferably, these duplicated departments within the governments would be very small. For example, the legal and enforcement parts of the other two 'governments' would be almost entirely focused upon employees of that 'government'. Any enforcement outside the 'government' would be mostly in the form of denying license to practice, et cetera.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
Perhaps there would have to be something in the IR corps constitution covering that situation, requiring it to get permission from the other 'branch' if preparing to sign a treaty that will affect the internal operation of that branch...
The bureaucracy this would generate would be implosive. It would immediately lead to 'turf wars' over which department had final say, and it would lead to the most complicated 'interdepartmental agreements' that one could possibly imagine

The varying constitutions would have to make very clear boundaries, and provide a system of checks and balances between the separate 'governments'. As I said earlier, there would be no department with the final say... disputes would be settled by an uninvolved department.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Please do... This is a very new and still developing idea... More challenges would help me mold it into a more, say, coherent system.
I think the objections to date are sufficient. To be honest I think the whole notion is a non-starter and I don't think it is worth spending too much time with further development.

Just because an idea is bad, doesn't mean it shouldn't be examined.
I'm trying to work out a radically different model of government that might be superior to what we have now.
This may never work, but it might lead to an idea that does, or it might give insight that could help an existing system be much better.

deanhills wrote:
Won't it make things very expensive? There would have to be tax returns for each Government, policed separately by each Government, the accountants get to do multiple returns so commerce would have to pay more for preparing tax returns. It would also be impractical in its execution? For example in a country with "Departments", there are a large number of cross-committees. There would be a link between law makers and each of the different Governments.

It would be more expensive, yes. It may have advantages that overshadow that though.

My idea in this was to think of a government that could be periodically refreshed by revolution, yet remain essentially the same and devoted to the same values. In the event that one of the 'governments' became abusive, the other ones would start blaming problems on that one, until it was overthrown, then the other 'governments' could aid in setting up a fresh, new government, responsive to the needs of the people to take its place. Afterward, the multi-government system is still standing and operating much as it always had, while the people are happy that their revolt has given them a good, honest government. The downfall of that system would be collusion between the different governments, which would have to be carefully protected against.
Nick2008
Interesting...... very interesting idea.

Its almost like the different branches of government, but with more powers and authority to each one of them and more independence for their duties. But it could complicate manners, I mean with one government, everyone knows the rules. With a few different governments there could be different rules for each one. Lets take tax returns for example, what if a person successfully turns them into 2 governments but doesn't to the rest? What would the punishment be and which government would handle it? The government with the police/investigations or the government whose taxes weren't returned to?

The leaders and other people working in these governments should be very trustworthy and unselfish and do whats right in the interests of the people, not themselves. But we were thought to be selfish and greedy... so finding the right people will be hard. If it's a democracy, voting them through could be harder because nowadays people will believe anything that is stuck in their mouths (especially in the usa), anyone can lie and then get voted into office and not carry out his/her "promises". If the wrong politicians were voted through, the system would collapse.

I think this one requires more deep thinking, it's a complicated idea that sounds crazy but could work out to be a good system. The system could be too complicated for the average Joe and cause more confusion than benefits in the end.

What is the advantage of a multi-government country over a single-government country?

How will multi-government countries cooperate and collaborate on different issues with single-government countries?

Will each government be eligible to get a seat in the United Nations? Who would this be and under what government? What if the interests of that government differ from the interests of another? What if the two governments are unable to resolve their interests and different views?

Which government would be responsible for overseeing and regulating the media? If it is one, what if they begin lying about the other governments and preventing them from sharing their views? If the public is unaware of this, then it will go completely unnoticed.
deanhills
Nick2008 wrote:
Interesting...... very interesting idea.

Its almost like the different branches of government, but with more powers and authority to each one of them and more independence for their duties. But it could complicate manners, I mean with one government, everyone knows the rules. With a few different governments there could be different rules for each one. Lets take tax returns for example, what if a person successfully turns them into 2 governments but doesn't to the rest? What would the punishment be and which government would handle it? The government with the police/investigations or the government whose taxes weren't returned to?

The leaders and other people working in these governments should be very trustworthy and unselfish and do whats right in the interests of the people, not themselves. But we were thought to be selfish and greedy... so finding the right people will be hard. If it's a democracy, voting them through could be harder because nowadays people will believe anything that is stuck in their mouths (especially in the usa), anyone can lie and then get voted into office and not carry out his/her "promises". If the wrong politicians were voted through, the system would collapse.

I think this one requires more deep thinking, it's a complicated idea that sounds crazy but could work out to be a good system. The system could be too complicated for the average Joe and cause more confusion than benefits in the end.

What is the advantage of a multi-government country over a single-government country?

How will multi-government countries cooperate and collaborate on different issues with single-government countries?

Will each government be eligible to get a seat in the United Nations? Who would this be and under what government? What if the interests of that government differ from the interests of another? What if the two governments are unable to resolve their interests and different views?

Which government would be responsible for overseeing and regulating the media? If it is one, what if they begin lying about the other governments and preventing them from sharing their views? If the public is unaware of this, then it will go completely unnoticed.
It could have had interesting possibilities if Governments were noted for efficiency and prudence in everything. If Governments were like that, then possibly something like this could already have existed, but Governments are notoriously bad at management of financial affairs.
Nick2008
deanhills wrote:
It could have had interesting possibilities if Governments were noted for efficiency and prudence in everything. If Governments were like that, then possibly something like this could already have existed, but Governments are notoriously bad at management of financial affairs.


Right, and unless we snap out of the habit of voting through unexperienced politicians to office, this system will never work correctly and efficiently.
ocalhoun
Nick2008 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
It could have had interesting possibilities if Governments were noted for efficiency and prudence in everything. If Governments were like that, then possibly something like this could already have existed, but Governments are notoriously bad at management of financial affairs.


Right, and unless we snap out of the habit of voting through unexperienced politicians to office, this system will never work correctly and efficiently.

Oh, the experienced ones can be just as bad... Worse, because they know the system and how to get around the rules.
Nick2008
ocalhoun wrote:

Oh, the experienced ones can be just as bad... Worse, because they know the system and how to get around the rules.


If we find the ones who care about the interests of their people and not themselves, then they wouldn't have any reason to get around the rules. But these people are rarely found. Crying or Very sad
Related topics
Chavez: U.S. will 'bite the dust' if it invades
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Contradictions to Stories in the Christian Bible.
crazy ideas eh?
Repubs want freedom of speech controlled
crazy idea - read moderator
What do you think about Scientology?
Islamic tolerance?
Loose Change 9/11 Blog
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Principal, Athletic Director Could Face Jail Time For Prayer
Series: How to create your own country?
Best Country For Holiday in Asia?
Celebrating death
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.