Let me start by saying that my system will require a number of Constituional amendments. With that said here are the basics:
Babies will be taken from their parents as soon as they are born to enter the education and evalution system.
All children will be tested through different stages of development. This allow us to determine how they can best assist their fellow citizens whether it is as a doctor, contruction worker, or having their body processed.
No type of work will be more highly valued than any other and nobody will receive direct payment. Everyone will receive the same rewards for their work.
Any person who does not live up their determined level of assistance to America (see #2) will have their body processed so they can continue to assist society.
Personal relationship will not be allowed. Only offical relationship that benefit America will be allowed.
We have no elected leaders, they be determined through the evaltion of the citizens.
Entertainment as we know it will no longer exist. Pleasure will be achieved by assiting society.
Now that I have at a very basic level shown how America would work under this new system I am sure you can see the benefits. There will no longer be welfare cases draining on our country. I am sure the conservatives will like this. Also only the those who have the skills to be our nation’s leaders will be allowed to be President. Thus, goodbye GWB. The liberal will like this. You might think there will be little personal freedom, but you sould be wrong. American will now be able to freely devote their time to assiting fellow Americans.
So what our your favorite parts of my system for America. What changes would you make? How much do you think we would increase the GDP?
Assuming that none of your OP was made in jest, then I say that your idea strikes me as little more than communism warmed over mixed with a generous portion of fascism and totalitarianism.
Obviously you are talking about a totalitarian dictatorship so horiffic it would make you long for such humane and benevolent regimes as the Taliban and the Khmer rouge
Obviously you are talking about a totalitarian dictatorship so horiffic it would make you long for such humane and benevolent regimes as the Taliban and the Khmer rouge
Well, since it appears that this was posted seriously I will answer seriously.
Anyone trying to take my children from me had better come prepared to kill me to get them, because I won’t give them up. I will mention that I would hardly be in the minority on this issue. One of the most basic and cherished freedoms in this country is the right to have and raise a family. This alone would doom your plan.
Nobody has yet developed a test that can determine where your best potential lies. The reasons are many but include things like changing interests as a person grows, environmental factors which alter the way that a children lives etc. This doesn’t even take into consideration things like expanding market places and development of new technologies which make some industries obsolete and create others. The last statistic I’ve seen is that the about 95% children in kindergartner now will work in jobs that don’t actually exist today. How do you intend to plan for this since none of these factors can be controlled or predicted with enough accuracy or precision to allow a planed society such as the one you propose to operate. Now, lets talk about who develops these tests, who administers them and who interprets their results. Any test used to determine potential is going to be, by its very nature, subjective and based largely on the interpretations of the person being tested. How do you accurately gauge these responses? Next, when do you give these tests? At age 1 or 4, or 10? Next, what happens if the markets that we have demand the hiring of 1000 computer science specialists and there are only 100 people which have been identified by your tests to fit into that pigeon hole? Finally, how do you answer the charges popular in the education circuits these days that standardized tests are inherently biased against minorities?
As has been pointed out, this is largely taken from the communist ethos which have been empirically shown to be flawed. They ignore the basic fact that humans are greedy and won’t work if they can’t advance. Once you pigeon hole someone, tell them they’re replaceable by anyone your tests have shown can do their job and prevent their advance both vertically and horizontally in the economic ladder, they will lose motivation, interest and they will stop being productive.
Huh… I suppose this means that if you aren’t productive enough (to pre-determined levels) you will be chemically altered, brainwashed and sent back into the work force to provide “the appropriate level of production, as required by your potential”. This sounds pretty horrible. Along these lines, what do you do with the mentally ill, those injured and unable to work or the people from my number 3 who become bored and start making unintended mistakes by being stuck in a job they hate and can’t get out of?
First, who determines what is beneficial to America (re. Problems predicting the future from #2). Next how in the world do you intend to enforce this? I assume that by “personal relationships” you mean no sex unless it is approved by the president of your new walking human rights violation? Unfortunately, personal relationships extends to friendships, bowling buddies and knitting circles as well. Where do you plan drawing this line? Finally, if as I have assumed you mean sexual relationships, I can deduce by this that you plan on implementing a eugenics program. Granted we have a significantly better understanding of human heredity and human genetics than we did in 1910-1940 when some social scientists tried it, but I believe the outcome would be no less terrible then the one that they produced. Look it up. Here are some sites to help you: http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/endx.htm ; http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/
This is what we do right now. Some interested citizens run and other interested citizens elevate them into positions of authority. Your reply will be that “yes the people who want the power/prestige/recognition that the position implies or who don’t mind the publicity/pressure/mud slinging that goes along with it will run but the best qualified individuals don’t”. To delay that reply please keep in mind that those qualities are also qualifications for the job and the people who don’t have them will be bad at the job, or at least distracted to the point where they aren’t as good. Remember that even if you get to change the USA, you can’t change the rest of the world and we will still be under the global microscope, so the President will still have to be able to deal with them.
How do you plan on pulling this one off? Remember you can’t just will human nature to change and expect it to happen. Neither can you legislate it out of existence. While there are a good number of people that truly get off on helping people (I’m one of them), you can by no means force them to do it. As a matter of fact, if you tried it would quite possibly backfire on you severely.
Well, I don’t see any of the supposed benefits that your society would produce. I see that you are attempting to deny the fundamental nature of humans. True, there would be no welfare cases, instead there would be 360 million brainwashed and chemically altered citizens, well quite possible a lot fewer once people stopped killing everyone who tried to enforce these utterly ridiculous rules.
What I would really like to know is:
How John Mace came up with 15.7% increase to GDP?
How you figure that democracy has failed.
How in god’s name being forced to “work assisting fellow Americans” provides true freedom?
I am sure that you have imagined yourself living at the “top” of this new society, but as you think about my responses try to imagine living at the bottom of it.
I too would like to know how democracy has “failed”. Things seem pretty damn good to me, if you live in a democratic nation; things tend to be bad if you are unlucky enough to be born in a undemocratic regime.
Democracy is the worst possible form of government, with the exception of all other forms of government.
PS: And the OP is doing a rip-off of Plato’s Republic. However, Plato later recants his Republic. Read his Laws written after he had some real experience in human affairs.
Why do these yoyos always remember the Republic but never remember the Laws? Were a truly perfect government in place (namely, an absolute monarchy of ME, Dogface, you may kiss my ring), I’d require that any institution that assigned the Republic must assign the Laws in the same course and devote at least equal time to each.