Why Don't We Fix Faulty Political Systems?

Political system Redesign

60 replies to this topic

#18 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1536 posts

Posted 15 August 2019 - 10:22 PM

Shouldn't the first line of the Constitution be: "Politicians do not determine the Constituion"?

I wrote the following in 2000.

Code Red for the Australian Constitution

Most people know as much about the Australian Constitution and our system of laws as they do about the operation of computer viruses. It's not surprising really as both are complex sections of written (or unwritten) code that bind and control procedural systems operating on an If/Then basis.

The Code Red Worm targets the Internet Servers that distribute the users files etc. This type of viral attack has a two pronged impact as the legal owners of the system are denied the right to use their system in the way they see fit while the recipients of the dummy messages sent by the worm suffer from a Denial Of Service attack.  The latest version of Code Red inserts a 'back door' into the Server which allows the perpetrators to regain control. Fortunately the 'back door' can be easily detected although the infected hard disk must be formatted before system integrity can be restored.

You might ask, what has a computer virus got to do with the Australian Constitution? Viruses like to inhabit the grey areas of any type of system whether they be biological, computer, political or even outside the scope of their own creators. Just for a start they both operate under If/Then type rule based procedures and if anything the Australian Constitution is at the pinnacle of a large procedural system in which all citizens have a stake. Just like the hard disk format required to remove the Code Red 'back door', the will of the Australian people is enshrined in the Australian Constitution through its preamble where all 'have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth' under the constitution.

In a fundamental way this agreement of the people provides a basic safety catch that prevents other programs from being run that could subvert the control of the system. Unfortunately some politicians and their advisors think that preambles are non legally binding and therefore unlock this safety catch. As preambles just express the intent of the legislation in a summary format their legal status has nothing to do with the legal  bindingness of the legislation contained in any proclaimed act itself. The main difficulty with preambles not being legally binding is that there would be nothing to legally hold the people to the constitution and the Australian legal system. A closer look at our history can shed some light on this matter.

In the first instance, we can compare the process taken over a century ago with the unheralded one back in 1986 to gain a perspective on the situation. In the late 1800's the people of the states voted in referendums for a Federation, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was created and established as an act of the Parliament of the UK in 1900, while the act itself was finally proclaimed in 1901. After 1901 the consent of the Australian people was required to modify this act. In 1926 Australia and Britain were acknowledged to be of equal status. In 1985 the Australia Act was established, introduced into the Federal Parliament and in 1986 it was proclaimed without any possibility that it could be be witheld or disallowed, let alone be constitutionally approved or celebrated by the people.

The Australia Act, through its preamble, brings constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and Federal nation. This wording is unique in Australian legislation. The act itself requires that it can only be repealed by politicians while modifications to our constitution require a referendum yes vote in a majority of the states.  Why should any constitutional powers originally held by the Parliament of the UK (equal since 1926) and the Federal Council of Australasia (then less equal) at the establishment of the Australian Constitution in 1900 and claimed through the preamble to the Australia Act, be expected to actually exist in 1986?

In the second instance we can see that the referendum of 1999, through questions intending to give clear constitutional title to the Federal parliament, was rejected by the people on both accounts even though one was just a proposed preamble change. As Paul Keating stated, while the people may have the right to change the constitution by voting at referendums, the politicians have the right to determine what questions are to be asked. In this respect, responsibility for the present state of the Australian Constitution lies squarely at the feet of the recalcitrant minority who phrase referendum questions, not to the liking of the people.

The perceived right to determine our own 'head of state' on a national and state basis pales into a hollow gesture through the major structural changes contained in the Australia Act. While all State Governors lost the power to withold or disallow legislation (like removing the US State Governors and Presidents powers of veto), the state Premiers gained the power to 'direct' the State representatives of the monarch (the Governors) in the 'exercise of their powers' to complement the Prime Ministers 'unwritten' power over the Governor General.  Are our politicians so perfect that they require no supervision? Why would you bother to vote for anybody, in any position, who, if elected, could not be expected to exercise their own free will? Could this cynical/democratic exercise be considered democratic/cynical?

In the third instance we can wonder about the entire Australian military forces being stood down for a day before being restored under the Minister for Defense instead of the Governor General, as the Prime Minister commands our nations military forces like it was just another arm of cabinet. It seems one question that will never be asked of the Australian people will be 'Would you like to change Australia from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Constitutional Republic with a popularly elected President and popularly elected State Governors who have all the original powers of the monarch between them, through the Australian Constitution, as approved by the people'.

Would you treat your computer like our politicians treat the Australian Constitution, could you afford to? Just like Code Red, the Australia Act 1986 should be considered hostile code that snatches the right of the people to determine the sovereignty and independence status of the type of system currently running in this country. Surely, just like control of a computer system by its lawful owners, national sovereignty status should be in the constitutional domain of the people and should not be locked up in a legislative tower under the executive custodianship of our politicians?

It just goes to show that if you feel like you have lost control, things don't seem to function as they did previously and there appears to be no obvious way to restore the original settings, your system probably is suffering from a virus.

#19 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Explaining

• Members
• 869 posts

Posted 17 August 2019 - 02:18 AM

I was particularly interested as to whether how to design an effective and fair political system is part of the curriculum of Political Science studies (as designing effective organisations is in Business Studies). And of course, if not, why not?

In order to achieve a fair and effective political system, via the ballot box. The voters need to take a none selfish balanced view of what is good for the society they live in, which includes all the people.

People with a selfish or greedy short sighted outlook will never elect a political system that they perceive as taking something from them. People are in general short sighted and selfish.

To maintain a money based (token) reward system is not the only way forward.

If a new political system could be designed without money fueling greed.

Some People like to achieve things in society others are happy to be led, people will help each other if they are rewarded for there efforts.

A reward does not have to be monetary, it can be prestige. Acknowledgment of what they have done in society.

#20 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Explaining

• Members
• 869 posts

Posted 17 August 2019 - 02:33 AM

We cant begin to "fix" any system, unless we can remove the stranglehold that the Zionist jews have over all banking, news, entertainment, politicians, educational institutions, culture, and military of almost every country on earth. Anyone who cant agree with this is a reality denier. We cant even discuss this problem because the Jews have forbiden it, and we are stupid enough to accept that, under the fraud that is antisemitism. Perhaps they are right, that the jew is gods special race, and they really are superior in every way to the cattle that they call every non jew.  wake up goyim I say.

At the moment we seem to have a political royalty that must go to the correct universities and belong to the correct clubs, they are not all Jewish, and I am pretty sure that outside Israel Palestine there have been no Jewish Presidents or Prime ministers.

Religion is a problem in the world, and works like a hand reaching out from the past, holding society back. The world bank increases the worlds money supply, via loans to countries. There is a limited amount of money in the world, it is no longer guaranteed by gold reserves. The money they print and loan charging interest on to countries that perhaps cant afford the loans, doesn't exist. It is just accountancy.

I think the Jews people are aware that money is the root of all evil, so perhaps the way ahead  is to scrap the monetary system, and to stop believing the lies put about by the media. A little revolution perhaps is a good thing.

How to create/manage/guide a society consisting of lots of differing viewpoints and beliefs based on fantasy that perhaps they would quite happily die to protect is a problem. Scrapping money and religion would be the way ahead. But to get rid of greed and fanatical belief, will require a violent revolution, to change peoples ways of thinking.

#21 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Explaining

• Members
• 869 posts

Posted 17 August 2019 - 12:26 PM

I wonder if we have an example, re breaking the strangle hold on humanity, in the form of Bit coin.

Could a peaceful revolution take place by rejecting currencies controlled by governments ????

If and buts and maybes "anarchy" Only imbeciles need guidance, who needs a government, tolerant people operate within guide lines. Rejection of currency by the masses(them as aren't loaded like what tolerant people who have time to write **** on forums) could lead to a peaceful revolution. A token reward system ??? What do you all think tokens, for good deeds, effort, not giving berth to lots of children, allowing euthanasia for the elderly who vote for Brexit or Donald Trump and other Moronic groupings. How could a token system be implemented globally, is Bit coin a model. ????????????? Politicians cant do the math F and off, does not equal continue as if there is nothing wrong with society humanity globally.

Is the monetary system a major problem in any new form of society/politics?????

In a mature society we are grown ups, we do not need or want cretins telling us what to believe or do.

Being a gentile person I think a revolution is called for, perhaps genocide of politicians

#22 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1536 posts

Posted 17 August 2019 - 10:53 PM

Big problem, bitcoin/block chain technology doesn't scale that well.

#23 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Explaining

• Members
• 869 posts

Posted 18 August 2019 - 02:08 AM

Big problem, bitcoin/block chain technology doesn't scale that well.

The currencies of the world are no longer backed up by commodities such as gold. Where do you think the increasing money supply comes from, and what if anything is it backed up by?

What exchange currency would you suggest, not backed up by commodities, or governments. The US dollar perhaps?

Trading for goods/services without a currency/token exchange system, probably wouldn't work on a large scale today, especially when all you have to trade with is skills.

#24 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Explaining

• Members
• 869 posts

Posted 18 August 2019 - 03:00 AM

- As attempts at democratic representation, both the UK consituency system and the American system spectacularly fail at giving each vote cast in an election equal value in determining who is in parliament/congress. Why are these not changed to a system that can be objectively demonstrated to be fairer?

The voting system in the UK and I think America also, allows for political polarisation. In that if there are for example 10 candidates standing for election and one or two of them maybe have a better chance than the other 8. Voting for one of the other 8 might allow one of the preferred candidates to get in who might have worse ideas than the 2nd favoured candidate. Being able to transfer your vote, if your candidate isn't selected to another candidate might be fairer and give a less polarized outcome.

#25 hazelm

hazelm

Creating

• Members
• 1132 posts

Posted 18 August 2019 - 06:17 AM

Why don't we fix politics and politicians?  The topic is touched on very well by Maxwell Cameron in Aug/Sep 2019 Philosophy Now.  "Aristotle and the Good Ruler".   "Can virtue be taught?"  "Can ethical politics be taught?"  "A visit to a school for politicians."  By the time you get that far, you know the answer as stated by Professor Cameron:  Aristotle complained that politicians were doing too little to teach their fellow fellow citizens how to legislate.  (NE, 1181a)  His lament still resonates over two millennia later.

Too many "leaders"; not enough followers?  And every leader is, of course, always right.

Is the answer in what it takes to get into the position in the first place?  Watch closely.

#26 DanielBoyd

DanielBoyd

• Members
• 45 posts

Posted 19 August 2019 - 09:20 AM

It all boils down to the percentage of our politicians who are lawyers and 30-50% corrupts the system.

If I were a lawyer, I think I would object to this generalisation! I'm sure they're not all evil.

Actually, I think I might even prefer them to some populist with a sound-bite and no understanding of the workings of the political system.

#27 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Explaining

• Members
• 869 posts

Posted 19 August 2019 - 10:54 AM

If I were a lawyer, I think I would object to this generalisation! I'm sure they're not all evil.

Actually, I think I might even prefer them to some populist with a sound-bite and no understanding of the workings of the political system.

Daniel this question is a bit late, but what is it that you think is wrong with the existing political system? What is it you want to fix? Your question can be interpreted in many ways depending on political persuasion or lack off.

What makes you think lawyers in particular have any specific knowledge re any political system. Unless it is an ability not to be sent to prison for breaking the law maybe example Lawyer Tony Blair.

#28 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1536 posts

Posted 19 August 2019 - 08:16 PM

If I were a lawyer, I think I would object to this generalisation! I'm sure they're not all evil.

Actually, I think I might even prefer them to some populist with a sound-bite and no understanding of the workings of the political system.

We don't have a background of pro bono lawyers in Australia so the majority here are in it for the money alone. Also, many of the lawyers in our parliaments are ex union lawyers and both major political parties clearly state that they are for 'working families' so our unemployment 'benefit' has not risen in over 25 years.

Daniel, do you have any comments about 'code red for the Australian constitution'?

#29 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Explaining

• Members
• 869 posts

Posted 20 August 2019 - 04:17 AM

@ Laurie is this what your referring to http://www.fnq.cc/Do...ds/Code Red.pdf

#30 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1536 posts

Posted 20 August 2019 - 11:37 PM

@ Laurie is this what your referring to http://www.fnq.cc/Do...ds/Code Red.pdf

Yes, as I said I wrote it in 2000. It was published in the Main Beach Trader magazine in that year.

#31 GAHD

GAHD

Eldritch Horror

• 2748 posts

Posted 21 August 2019 - 01:43 AM

In the business world it's quite normal to reorganise if you come to the conclusion that the way things are set up is not working well. Why doesn't this happen with political systems? Why do we stay chained to constitutions and voting systems that were thought up often hundreds of years ago in very different circumstances and simply don't work well?

Two simple examples:

- As attempts at democratic representation, both the UK consituency system and the American system spectacularly fail at giving each vote cast in an election equal value in determining who is in parliament/congress. Why are these not changed to a system that can be objectively demonstrated to be fairer?

For one; the USA is a Republic, not a democracy. The idea of the system is to try to control the "stupid voters" in a manner that allows for those who are more informed to hold larger sway. Pure democracy sounds nice, but often leads to suppression of individual rights not unlike dictatorial governance.

To be breif: a murdering/theiving/cannibal/hobo's vote should probably not, objectively, hold as much sway as someone who employs thousands and builds infrastructure.

As for WHY government often isn't as efficient as a capitalist business...Milton Friedman makes a good list of points. A business (with some notable exceptions) has to maintain a profit to grow, where a government only has to find another way to add taxes and control the way resources flow. This is why older governments tend to move towards socialism and very high income tax brackets.

- In today's complex world, some problems (e.g. global warming) can (only) be solved using high-level expertise. Why do we place these problems in the hands of politicians who understand them no better than the man in the street? If the heating in my house doesn't work I call in someone who understands heating systems, not someone who has a very strong opinion about heating systems but no knowledge of how they work. It would seem sensiblle to do the same when our planet's heating system is on the blink. So why don't we redefine what is and what is not a political issue, and give only political problems to politicians to solve (there are enough of those to keep them busy!)

This old gem kinda applies here;

Your example of global warming (rebranded "climate change" and then re-re-branded "man made climate alterations") has no real expertise, and is both financially and politically motivated. EG: no model fed data from 1905-1999 can predict accurately the state of 2019, AFAIK organizations were found to have been altering raw data from meteorological stations to fit the models rather than altering models to fit data, geologists of renown point out large scale variances supported by data sets that dispute the man-made theories, etc... It is an immature "science" like Marie Curie playing with Radiation.

I generally agree that government should be radically restructured in a manner similar to the hatchet men of lore. The problem tends to lie more in those with vested interest in the status quo having been entrenched and protected by those same mechanisms.

• Flummoxed likes this

#32 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Explaining

• Members
• 869 posts

Posted 21 August 2019 - 03:55 AM

Politics is Smoke and Mirrors unlike Physics and the standard model which is clearly run by a dictatorship.

The purpose of leaders elected or otherwise is to guide their masses through reasonably wide goal posts. This works in democracies and dictatorships as long as the goal posts are wide enough. If the goal posts are too narrow minorities existing in those societies get a little upset.

Religion and politics serve the same purpose trying to guide their flocks in a particular direction, people go to religious gatherings in their communities, which bring them together socially, and provide some social direction and festas, even though many probably don't believe in the religion.

Its all smoke and mirrors. In a democracy the leaders are selected by members of the various parties, and then presented to the electorate to select. If the information presented to the electorate is accurate they stand some chance of selecting a good party/candidate. If the information fed to the electorate is lies, then a bad choice is likely. Some people only ever vote for one party, and haven't got a clue what they are voting for because their parents voted that way.

Imprinting an idea re politics and or religion on a childs mind can stay with them for life, and makes them easy to be manipulated or guided by elected/selected leaders

The real smoke and mirrors is not really the politics of the world, it is the money flow. Where does the increasing money supply in the world come from, which organisations have the right globally to lend money with interest to other countries?

Edited by Flummoxed, 21 August 2019 - 03:56 AM.

#33 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1536 posts

Posted 21 August 2019 - 08:50 PM

The real smoke and mirrors is not really the politics of the world, it is the money flow. Where does the increasing money supply in the world come from, which organisations have the right globally to lend money with interest to other countries?

In the past the US Comptroller of Currency's website published all of the quarterly derivatives figures but they are not available at present. The link below shows search results that reveal.

https://apps.occ.gov...m=relevancy&sb=

1/ in 1996 the top 8 US banks held $18.6 trillion in derivatives. 2/ in 2002 they held just over$50 trillion in derivatives.

3/ by 2008 they held $600 trillion in derivatives. https://www.occ.gov/...cc-2002-70.html https://apps.occ.gov...m=relevancy&sb= Flummoxed, if you can find the current quarterly derivatives figures please post summaries. All of the quarterly derivatives reports were available back in 2008/9 but not anymore. Edited by LaurieAG, 21 August 2019 - 08:51 PM. #34 Flummoxed Flummoxed Explaining • Members • 869 posts Posted 22 August 2019 - 04:23 AM In the past the US Comptroller of Currency's website published all of the quarterly derivatives figures but they are not available at present. The link below shows search results that reveal. https://apps.occ.gov...m=relevancy&sb= 1/ in 1996 the top 8 US banks held$18.6 trillion in derivatives.

2/ in 2002 they held just over $50 trillion in derivatives. 3/ by 2008 they held$600 trillion in derivatives.

https://www.occ.gov/...cc-2002-70.html

https://apps.occ.gov...m=relevancy&sb=

Flummoxed, if you can find the current quarterly derivatives figures please post summaries. All of the quarterly derivatives reports were available back in 2008/9 but not anymore.

Is this what you are looking for https://www.occ.gov/...y-qtr1-2019.pdf

The commodities held by banks as assets are assigned values by banks. These are values on a balance sheet, the value of which can increase on paper, but when looked at are not necessarily worth what the bank says they are, banks can artificially cause inflation and make believe balance sheet. For example in 2008 the US stock market had a crash, due to bankers, lending money to people to buy homes, that they could not afford, causing inflation in the housing market. One person went to prison, lots of people lost their jobs, but the government bailed out the banks so they didnt go bankrupt. The banks lobbied the government not to introduce legislation stopping their practices, so it can still happen.

The US dropped the gold standard a long time ago http://mentalfloss.c...n-gold-standard . Money is printed without being backed by assetts, how does new money get into the economy. ? World bank perhaps, what assetts do they have. Smoke and mirrors