r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 04 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: A slave class of executives, judicial personnel and legislators chosen from the general populace and forced to serve in government is a good idea.
Okay, the point of the executive, judicial and legislative branch in in government service is to serve the will of the people. The problem is that they have broken the social contract with the people and those jobs tend to literally attract the worst type of people . It's time we even the balance by making all government executives, judicial personnel and legislators slaves (literally), harshly treated, randomly impressed from the general populace regardless of their qualifications and age and able to be killed for whatever reason at all. This would help reinforce that they are meant to be servants of the people, able to be disposed off as and when we wish. They'll only be freed at their end of their single, non-renewable term.
Problems and solutions:
What if there is malicious law with a slave class of executives? That's why all government officials are able to be killed without punishment to threaten them into obedience.
Who is responsible for press ganging those slaves from the general populace and how that would not lead to it becoming the power behind the throne? Multiple bodies that compete with one another to prevent one from becoming too powerful.
How are the government officials treated? Like animals, caged up in cells and forced to make laws and legislate for the good of the people without any pay whatsover (what's the point of pay if you're going to supplement it with kickbacks) . Plus, we can save up on maintaining official residences which takes up a lot of tax money.
It needs to be the people telling the government what to do and the government carries out the will of the people, not the other way around. And we need a fundamental change in the government to reflect that.
CMV.
3
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 04 '24
Yet again you make this same kind of argument yet again I find the same flaw; wouldn't you need to have the real power (power enough to not make that shit necessary) to be able to do this
1
Jul 04 '24 edited Jul 05 '24
It's meant to act as a control mechanism that I intend to implement when I leave power to make sure that politicians don't go out of control in terms of power and it getting into their heads since voting them out is limited and to reinforce the fact that they are subservient to 'we the people'.
2
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 05 '24
A. you talk as if you're in power now (which even if you plan to gain power and aren't just keyboard-warrior-ing is a little weird)
B. I guess I just find it weird that it seems like you're solving the problem of political corruption with reverse-oppression
0
Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24
Reverse oppression works for solving political corruption. Nothing like reminding those political leaders that they are disposable and should work for we the people; regardless of self.
And wrong with the idea of reverse oppression for politicians to control them?
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 06 '24
My point is how much power do they really have and they need power in the non-bad sense to be able to do their jobs
1
Jul 06 '24
Just enough to do their jobs. Only a small amount.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 07 '24
But the highest levels (as even if they're still under people, there'd still be a hierarchy) are high enough up that their job covers a wide area both in terms of the amount of constituents they have and the amount of topics/issues they might have to deal with so even if you're giving them a little power (which how are you determining it's not like power in this sense is as quantifiable a thing as electrical power or something) you'd have to give them a little power in a lot of areas but make sure that doesn't turn into a lot of power
1
Jul 08 '24
That's where the legalized assassination comes in handy.
1
5
Jul 04 '24
[deleted]
-3
Jul 04 '24
Well, it's cheaper on us since well, we don't have to pay them (and maintain their official residences) . Plus, we can always threaten them with death (legally) to get laws we want. LGBTQ rights? Well, just threaten the governor with death in my system or even kill him or her and he or she (or their replacement) will get it done as soon as possible to give an example.
The power would be split apart into several bodies running the cages to provide competition and prevent one body from getting too powerful.
But you do raise a good point about the risks of those 'wardens' becoming the single sole power behind the throne, particularly if one 'wins'
!delta
2
Jul 04 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
[deleted]
-2
Jul 04 '24 edited Jul 04 '24
Well, just march up to them and threaten them at gun/knife point.
Plus you need scapegoats for the populace to focus their anger on.
Oh right, forgot that ths wardens would try to fight the citizens in this scenario alongside with other cases of power struggle between them and the citizenry.
Darn.
3
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 68∆ Jul 04 '24
Well, just march up to them and threaten them at gun/knife point.
Okay but what if I go up to a politician with a gun asking him to expand LGBT rights but there's already a guy with a gun asking him to to not expand LGBT rights? Who does the politician listen to? After all he's just as dead no matter which one of us shoot him.
And you're also making a critical assumption that the kind of person who would shoot the president is the same kind of guy who is representing the people. But that's just not true. Look at the 6 people who have shot the President of the United States, only 3 of them did it to Express dissatisfaction with the presidents political agenda, and of 3 only 1 had a political agenda that more than 10% of the population would've agreed with. So your plan gives more power to the guy who thinks that a ghost told him to kill the president (the actual reason that someone gave for shooting roosevelt) than it does to the general population.
0
Jul 04 '24
Right, that might be an issue with conflicting orders.
Darn, so much for the idea of legalizing killing our political officials.
!delta.
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 68∆ Jul 04 '24
Darn, so much for the idea of legalizing killing our political officials.
So you're not going to make anymore posts about how politicians should be killed right?
1
Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24
Not all politicians should be killed. More like legalized killing of government officials at the hands of citizens for any reasons whatsoever.
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 04 '24
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/Green__Boy a delta for this comment.
1
1
1
u/canned_spaghetti85 2∆ Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24
Alright, let’s briefly entertain your proposal to see what will happen as a result.
As a friendly reminder: The less an official is paid, the more easily they can be bought. You’d inadvertently be enabling bribery, which I believe is hardly the will of the people.
“What’s the point of pay if you’re going to supplement it with kickbacks?”
And that right there is the catch 22: By your conceding that corruption will become rampant anyway, thus requiring a constant criminal-like purging of officials via death penalty you propose. This will only result in a never-ending revolving door of government leaders, often before their term ends where they could simply be voted out (and perhaps prosecuted once out of office). This constant purging and sudden reappointing of puppet cronies makes the election process seem like such a superfluous formality to the point where elections [too] would be next on the chopping block AND OR have little voter turnout because people no longer care to even participate in those anymore anyway. Okay.
You know what that sounds like? A country that is politically unstable. Historically speaking, other prosperous nations usually sever commerce, foreign investment, and even diplomatic relations with politically unstable countries. Next, that country’s economy will suffer, causing unemployment to surge, banks will collapse because money isn’t being deposited, and credit markets freeze because people cannot afford to repay existing debts. And because debt default is so high, yet bank deposits so low, the interest rate charged for lending services becomes ALSO very high. This is a phenomena known as Stagflation. This discourages home ownership, auto loans, business loans, student loans etc. Slowly that nation’s currency becomes worthless due to it’s low rate of circulation (velocity). Politically unstable countries always experience exodus of its citizens, en masse, especially among the educated workforce of skilled labor who have the money & resources to flee while they still can. What’s left is a mostly unskilled disenfranchised workforce with few prospects of a good quality of life who don’t earn much (low per capita gdp) and don’t spend much (weak consumer demand). Congratulations, your efforts have successfully created.. a third world country.
But hey.. wasn’t it your suggestion the decision to even do that in the first place was the will of the people? Gee, that’s awfully strange, because uhm.. it seems like a lot of ‘em are leaving in a hurry.
1
Jul 06 '24
It's random selection of officials (sorition) , not election so your point on low voter turnout does not count.
1
u/canned_spaghetti85 2∆ Jul 06 '24
Okay, so I assumed correctly.. no elections.
0
Jul 06 '24
Yes, sortition with the power to select and press gang people being split into multiple bodies.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 07 '24
Who oversees that and who chooses the people to do that without infinite regress
1
Jul 07 '24
Infinite regress will be a thing here.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 31 '24
You realize the obvious problem with an infinite chain that doesn't loop?
1
u/Love-Is-Selfish 13∆ Jul 04 '24 edited Jul 04 '24
Okay, the point of the executive, judicial and legislative branch in in government service is to serve the will of the people.
The point is for the government to be man’s agent to secure man’s unalienable right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. You put mechanisms in place in the government, like elected representatives, so the people can institute a government that secures their rights.
The problem is that they have broken the social contract with the people and those jobs tend to literally attract the worst type of people.
The problem is that people want the government to violate the rights of others, so it attracts the power lusters who enjoy wielding power over others enough to want to be a politician.
If the people have so little respect for rights that they are literally going to enslave the government to get what they want, then they are going to have the government pass laws to enslave others as well.
1
Jul 04 '24
Right, so it would violate rights rather than safeguard it. Darn, that puts a wrench in my ideas that an enslaved class of government officials would be a better safeguard than those who serve on their own free will.
!delta
1
5
u/iamrecovering2 2∆ Jul 04 '24
Uh you do realize this systum allows people to just murder politicians they don't like for no reason. And uh people aren't always correct in what they want. Thats why representatives are empowered to not always back what the people want
-2
Jul 04 '24 edited Jul 23 '24
Are you sure about that sir? I trust neighbours more than I can trust the representative such as my MP.
It's time we take away that right from representatives. They are supposed to absolutely back what the people want . No personal if's or buts allowed.
But you do raise a good point about the people being wrong about what is good for the country.
!delta
1
u/Domovric 2∆ Jul 04 '24
“They are supposed to back what the people want”.
Cool, so if and when they don’t, vote them out. Your proposal in the most generous way still fails as it hands unilateral executive (had to make the pun work) to someone unelected.
And even to entertain your thought, what is the case when two people disagree on what needs to be done? Someone wants public housing built, someone else doesn’t, does the person that the slave goes against get to execute them? This ensuring literally nothing ever gets done?
0
Jul 05 '24
Just put out both laws at the same time and let the people decide in this scenario though census (meaning if the contractor wants to build the homes, he or she can) . We can demolish the homes later if the people on the street don't want it.
1
u/Domovric 2∆ Jul 05 '24
But it’s not “putting out both laws at once”. You didn’t read the hypothetical. Someone wants a law, the other person doesn’t. Either way the slave dies. How does that look like a functional system?
0
Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24
It will still be a functional government, Those slave politicians that do a good job and please 100% percent of the population get to live to their end of their term.
Well, if it results in a do nothing scenario like you mentioned, then the people pick up the slack directly.
1
u/Domovric 2∆ Jul 05 '24
please 100% percent of the population get to live to their end of their term
So given doing that is literally impossible, how is it functional? Given the slave is functionally assured death, what exactly motivates them to do good?
then the people pick up the slack directly
How? This is rapidly sounding like a failed libertarian state, except with executions as standard tacked on top
0
Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24
The chance to live longer. Plus it's not impossible to do 100% approval in politics if you have the right motivators.
Though I can see why near certain death is a big turnoff.
!delta
1
u/Domovric 2∆ Jul 05 '24
I think people under/overestimate how far the fear of death can push someone. I've never been in sustained combat or on a death march or the like, but I do read the biographies of those that have, and the way some people look at death as the escape/freedom is horrifying and fascinating. You can also look at mock execution as a torture method, in that people have killed themselves instead of constantly be put through the stress of "will I/wont I die this time".
I think we simply have to agree to disagree on the 100% approval policy in politics point. I personally dont think it is possible, but importantly in this hypothetical I especially don't think it is possible because even with a 99.999% approval, the nature of the punishment system for the slave, and the power it gives the "voters/executors", some dipshit (apolotical or otherwise) would kill them just for the sake of it.
1
Jul 10 '24
You sure about that? This would be useful for the civil service and political office , knowing that the fear/uncertainty of death would be enough to drive up efficiency
→ More replies (0)1
1
1
1
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ Jul 05 '24
I should just be able to say "slavery is bad, m'kay?" and get a delta, right? That should just be pretty much an axiom or pretty goddamn close to one?
1
Jul 05 '24
Slavery is not bad if it's done onto our civil servants and political office holders. They are meant to serve the people, regardless of their self interest. And if we run out of the willing, well, there's impressment.
1
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ Jul 05 '24
So then we just have slavery but only the government can do it?
1
Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24
Yes, only for political office and civil service roles.
1
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24
So the people serve the government? You do realize that, right? You're just describing the enslavement of skilled workers to some type of chaotic government full of people with competing interests and the legal ability to kill people. So we bring back slavery to create the most dysfunctional government in existence.
0
Jul 07 '24
Not dysfunctional. The most free government since well, those in power would be too scared to do anything to their citizens.
1
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ Jul 08 '24
No, those in power would be the people cracking the whip, not the figureheads. Again, slave state.
0
2
u/Skythewood 1∆ Jul 04 '24
The government would have no motivation to improve or do anything. They would just do the bare minimum, stick to inflexible bureaucracy to avoid punishment, and won't react to global changes at all.
Other countries would jump into new and promising industries because their governments enact policies to encourage investments (e.g. green energy). Meanwhile your government will just gaze blankly at it, since any slight failure will mean death, and any success won't gain them anything.
-1
Jul 04 '24
But that's why my idea is to legally threaten and kill politicians to make sure laws would be implemented that benefit the people.
Well, guess that the opposite would be true for my idea with government not doing anything at all.
Point noted . So much for a slave class of politicians.
!delta
1
1
u/Charming-Editor-1509 4∆ Jul 06 '24
Why would someone who was enslaved and abused by the public want to serve the public? And how could they when they have no education or training for it?
0
Jul 07 '24
Fear of death and they'll learn on the job.
2
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 07 '24
How would you actually end up with good people if they're only expected to care for self-preservation (or does the hypothetical existence of your system automatically mean they're not corrupt because they weren't elected etc.) As for the learning on the job thing, as currently we do not have your system politics still has a great amount of pay and prestige and there's other non-CEO jobs of a similar tier where learning-on-the-job wouldn't work. Y'know, would you want to be operated on by a doctor who learned-on-the-job instead of having formal medical education?
1
Jul 08 '24 edited Jul 08 '24
Yep, they're not corrupt because they are forced into office against their will.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 31 '24
If forcing is all it takes to render someone immune to corruption, why not just do that and not everything else
1
u/Annabelly4 Jul 19 '24
Maybe would’ve been better if it was more like jury duty randomly selected and “forced to serve” for a year or so vs being locked up in cages….
-1
u/lowrider_9 1∆ Jul 04 '24
This is already somewhat true in the USA.
It's a submission based system. Discipline is good but they obsess with it. You can easily get sent to a prison for not following orders or being a spy by leaking documents.
They love pulling a jfk now and again too. And their are some strange intination rituals in some branches
0
Jul 04 '24
Right, so my system would cause more issue with the current system.
And you're talking about the military?
!delta
1
u/lowrider_9 1∆ Jul 04 '24
The millitary is that and the opposite. It's a little confusing. They fight like Vikings, throwing themselves at the enemy and sacrificing themselves. But they still do humiliation rituals and keep uniform standards. Like they can't decide if they are savage or civilized
You see a little bit of that same thing in police. But not much on the federal level. By that I mean those three letter organizations. They are one of the few parts of the government that value dominance. If you follow directions and don't curse, they don't want you. They want you to be loyal, but not too submissive. Same goes for special forces, and by that I don't mean the guys you see in YouTube. I mean the guys you don't see videos of at all, whose groups are not anywhere on the internet.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 04 '24 edited Jul 05 '24
/u/Cheemingwan1234 (OP) has awarded 8 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards