'An online survey requested by VRT (the national broadcaster here in Belgium) and the newspaper De Standaard shows that 60% of Flemish people are in favor of replacing democracy with a technocracy – a form of government in which experts make decisions instead of democratically elected politicians. In fact, 35% also want a strong leader "who doesn't have to worry about parliament and elections".'
And this was also good:
'So, if not technocracy, what can be that guiding principle? Scientists have already started to answer that question. In the words of Renée Thom, mathematician and founder of systems theory: if you study an object rationally long enough, you develop the ability to ‘get into the skin of it’. You get a certain feel for it, in the same way as an art student suddenly gets a feel for his craft.'
My major concern about government structure has been how most systems tend to ignore the power and influence of large corporations. In the U.S. they get to be treated as "fictional persons." Yet they have no right to vote or be represented in government. Of course, their boards cannot stand for this, so corporate influence manifests in various deceitful practices, rather than in a more direct and open way. If there were a way to directly provide corporate representatives with participation in the government, the deceitful methods used today could, perhaps, be banned.
This will not by itself solve the problem of psychopathy in business and government. I assume the "competency principle" has something to do with this? I personally am more inclined towards an effort to broadly educate the population regarding psychopathy so that there is a widespread knowledge of the problem and how to protect against it.
My own solution is to BAN the "personhood" of corporations altogether. Corporations are not "people" and money is not "speech"!
Before the Gilded Age, corporations (or "joint stock companies") were entities chartered for specific reasons (e.g., building the Erie Canal). Once the project was done, and the contractual rate of return was realized, the company dissolved. End of story.
Corporations were not initially intended to be immortal persons, with more rights and fewer responsibilities than natural persons. That was (and is) a legal perversion which needs to be fixed. As far as I am concerned, every board member and shareholder of a corporation should be held jointly and severally liable for all misdeeds of the corporation. After all, shareholders are the owners of the corporation, in law and in fact. If my shares risk becoming worthless, or (even worse) if I, as a shareholder, am liable down to my very BVD's for criminal activities of the corporation, that would get my attention, and I would take a LIVELY interest in governance of the corporation.
I think that for Lobaczewski, when a corporation approaches a certain size, it ceases to be a strictly private affair, and would be classified as a Class II or III good. Along with modifying the "personhood" status, this might also take care of Larry's concerns. Class II corporations would come under the oversight of the Social Goods Directorate, for example, and would have representation in the senate.
This would be a possible alternative handling, if it could be done.
But my model for a big company from the historic past is the British East India Company. That company had a royal charter and lasted for 274 years. At its peak it attained the political power roughly equivalent to a sovereign state.
Parking this here, from Mattias Desmet (https://mattiasdesmet.substack.com/p/the-desire-for-technocracy-or-technecracy), which supports Lobaczewski's criticism of parliamentary democracies, in a sense, i.e., they lead people to desire a poor solution:
'An online survey requested by VRT (the national broadcaster here in Belgium) and the newspaper De Standaard shows that 60% of Flemish people are in favor of replacing democracy with a technocracy – a form of government in which experts make decisions instead of democratically elected politicians. In fact, 35% also want a strong leader "who doesn't have to worry about parliament and elections".'
And this was also good:
'So, if not technocracy, what can be that guiding principle? Scientists have already started to answer that question. In the words of Renée Thom, mathematician and founder of systems theory: if you study an object rationally long enough, you develop the ability to ‘get into the skin of it’. You get a certain feel for it, in the same way as an art student suddenly gets a feel for his craft.'
This is a lot for me to take in at one time.
My major concern about government structure has been how most systems tend to ignore the power and influence of large corporations. In the U.S. they get to be treated as "fictional persons." Yet they have no right to vote or be represented in government. Of course, their boards cannot stand for this, so corporate influence manifests in various deceitful practices, rather than in a more direct and open way. If there were a way to directly provide corporate representatives with participation in the government, the deceitful methods used today could, perhaps, be banned.
This will not by itself solve the problem of psychopathy in business and government. I assume the "competency principle" has something to do with this? I personally am more inclined towards an effort to broadly educate the population regarding psychopathy so that there is a widespread knowledge of the problem and how to protect against it.
My own solution is to BAN the "personhood" of corporations altogether. Corporations are not "people" and money is not "speech"!
Before the Gilded Age, corporations (or "joint stock companies") were entities chartered for specific reasons (e.g., building the Erie Canal). Once the project was done, and the contractual rate of return was realized, the company dissolved. End of story.
Corporations were not initially intended to be immortal persons, with more rights and fewer responsibilities than natural persons. That was (and is) a legal perversion which needs to be fixed. As far as I am concerned, every board member and shareholder of a corporation should be held jointly and severally liable for all misdeeds of the corporation. After all, shareholders are the owners of the corporation, in law and in fact. If my shares risk becoming worthless, or (even worse) if I, as a shareholder, am liable down to my very BVD's for criminal activities of the corporation, that would get my attention, and I would take a LIVELY interest in governance of the corporation.
I think that for Lobaczewski, when a corporation approaches a certain size, it ceases to be a strictly private affair, and would be classified as a Class II or III good. Along with modifying the "personhood" status, this might also take care of Larry's concerns. Class II corporations would come under the oversight of the Social Goods Directorate, for example, and would have representation in the senate.
This would be a possible alternative handling, if it could be done.
But my model for a big company from the historic past is the British East India Company. That company had a royal charter and lasted for 274 years. At its peak it attained the political power roughly equivalent to a sovereign state.
Thanks HK. Only true democracy would be for zero political parties.
Every representative to be independent. Zero lobbyists.
Reform is possible. Here's my Brit version. But can be adapted to any countries political system.
https://andybunting.substack.com/p/stop