From joshb@xs4all.nl Mon May 31 13:06:53 2010 Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism From: "J.H.Boersema" Subject: ministries headed by 5 person council (or more) Organization: http://www.socialism.nl Reply-To: joshb@xs4all.nl Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:06:53 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Debian) When single person 'ministers' are appointed above Government Departments (water, army, health-care, investment, land distribution, ...) by the national council, you run the risk that these ministers attract too much power to themselves. They might swing themselves to above the ruling council, by having direct authority over and proximity to 'their' department. When an entire 50 person council is put in charge over such a ministry, it is much more unlikely that such a council would swing itself over the top of the top ruling council. That would also make the Department council more easily controlled, it would control itself more (members would control each other), and you can have the (usual in my system) council proceedings, affording tranparency to and input by the public. As an intermediate system you could put a smaller council on top. But once you get to very small sizes at the top of the Department, especially the single head, you risk what has apparently/reportedly happened to the parliamentary democracies: the ministers start to rule, rather then be subordinated by the representatives. With single head over each Department the risk that the ministers together form a council is high. In such a council far too much power is going to be concentrated over effectively the whole (national) Government. If the top of a Department is, say, 5 persons, you still run a serious risk of inter-department minister-councils forming. If there are 10 Departments, they would only become a 50 person council, and be an effective decision and debating platform in their own right. If however each Department is ruled by a 'full' 50 person council, then at 10 Departments it would be an unwieldy 500 person council. By being unwieldy & sluggish, it will probably either not form, and if it does it would most likely have less power then the national council, who are at 50 persons - and being the official power - more efficient. At 50 in a council over a Department you can easily have all manner of specialists together, even multiple of opposing views, producing hopefully a more or less balanced rule already. The national council would then be in a more effective position to inspect and control these councils (as the public would really), and switch out selected members (by hte national council its own vote), to steer the proces (or simply order certain decisions, since the minister-councils are only executing orders). It will, probably, be all but impossible to bribe entire Department councils (unless a vote where closely cut). Then there is still the national council. It most definitely can be bribed (though that is illegal), and the media may be able to get their finger behind something on that scale, even per person; but I guess it is the best one could do. Media isn't necessarily wrong if it is not all funded by private capital and the slave of a monopoly news agency cartel. At that point it would fall to the people to be effective in their controls, which they could be more effectively then in the current system, by having the power of immediate replacement. That power should be effective because it is done by the delegates, and therefore doesn't require mass mobilization (only a few activities by 1% or 1.5% of all people, the 1st delegates.) I don't think it is overkill to have a 50 person council over each national department, since it is so important, and these councils don't have to be meeting all day every day. If it is too much one could always opt for smaller, and keep an eye out that the system doesn't make it too easy for 'ministers' to boot themselves into more power then they should have. For example: Departments busy themselves with their department, not with other departments. Inter-department issues and money allocation is a matter for the national council, imho. The finance ministry doesn't say to the education ministry how much money they have, rather the national council orders the finance ministry to be dilligent and show TRUTHFULLY how much money can be spend (without causing inflation/deflation). Then the national council can assign the budgets to Departments. The education ministry doesn't have to busy itself with the treasury, and so on. Once the ministries get conflated that is a sort of clerical and appointed power, but these powers ought to be reserved to ... the people. Some sort of balance obviously would come about between these various councils (powers) because that is the nature of things in the moment. However the power should essentially be with the delegates (the people). Manipulating the system (larger, smaller, bigger, fewer, more, ... ...) is probably more effective at accomplishing that, then to make moral guidelines like 'the minister is subordinate to ...' that will be forgotten the day they where written. To make something subordinate, it is a good idea to 'wound' it, to make it less effective in its operations: slower, balanced out by more powers, fewer meetings, less conflated with other powers, ... The Department councils don't become more powerful when they are bigger, I think, because the power per council member drops, that is important imho. Whenever there is a conflict between ministry councils and delegate council, the delegate council always wins, so there shouldn't be too much worry in a direct confrontation. In a one head collective ministry council, the ministries might back each other up against the delegates: 'if he goes, we all go,' and so on. With large councils that is unlikely, members of these councils are probably all too happy to see other council members make a fool of themselves or going off, who cares, it doesn't hurt them. You can't control whole departments with only 15 persons if they all have 50 person councils, though you could do tremendous damage to an entire nation with a small clique of only 15 ministers. In the ultimate smallness you could do 3 member councils, and obviously all proceedings will be public, right ? That would be the law, imho. No more secretive sessions behind closed curtains. No doubt many things will go wrong, so ? We are people, we make mistakes. A government that never makes mistakes is probably only hiding them more effectively. -- _ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.SOCIALISM.nl \ /v`vvv\ / /_\_#_#_/_\ *Vrije markt en democratie, maar dan echt.* \ / *Dag: 34 van de revolutie.* From joshb@xs4all.nl Mon May 31 13:33:42 2010 Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism From: "J.H.Boersema" Subject: Re: ministries headed by 5 person council (or more) References: Organization: http://www.socialism.nl Reply-To: joshb@xs4all.nl Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:33:42 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Debian) On 2010-05-31, J.H.Boersema wrote: [...] > immediate replacement. That power should be effective because it is > done by the delegates, and therefore doesn't require mass mobilization > (only a few activities by 1% or 1.5% of all people, the 1st delegates.) For one national delegate replaced: a new election for a national delegate by 1% to 1.5% in 1/50th in the nation (assuming 50% to 75% voter turnout (into their voter-groups in this system)). That is 0.02% to 0.03% of the whole nation needs to engage in an election (those doing the choosing can themselves be replaced any moment by their voters, who are the people then, in the voter-groups.) That is 1/5000th to 3/10000th of the nation needed for an election activity to replace one national council member (which would the the 'main media/TV characters' you see associated with national politics.) Technically you only need a majority vote, and therefore a majority turnout to re-elect a national delegate, meaning: 1/10000th to 3/20000th needed to replace one national delegate (it is a district system, the nation has 50 districts, each (probably) will have their own district council as well, the natural Government unit involved with these activities also, making it more effective/efficient as existing lines of communication and activity could be engaged for such an asynchroneous re-election). The minute the people are starting to boo about a national delegate, the other delegates having elected that national delegate would feel the heat. They elected that person, and if it dysfunctions would be to blame, shaking their position in their voter-groups. It may therefore well be that before the people even lift a finger the 1st level delegates have long since swapped out someone who didn't behave as hoped. From joshb@xs4all.nl Mon May 31 13:46:01 2010 Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism From: "J.H.Boersema" Subject: Re: ministries headed by 5 person council (or more) References: Organization: http://www.socialism.nl Reply-To: joshb@xs4all.nl Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:46:01 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Debian) On 2010-05-31, J.H.Boersema wrote: > On 2010-05-31, J.H.Boersema wrote: > [...] >> immediate replacement. That power should be effective because it is >> done by the delegates, and therefore doesn't require mass mobilization >> (only a few activities by 1% or 1.5% of all people, the 1st delegates.) [...] > The minute the people are starting to boo about a national delegate, > the other delegates having elected that national delegate would feel > the heat. They elected that person, and if it dysfunctions would be > to blame, shaking their position in their voter-groups. It may therefore > well be that before the people even lift a finger the 1st level > delegates have long since swapped out someone who didn't behave as > hoped. Picture this: 15 delegates propose Holland goes to war on Belgium to take possession of its coastal strip (which is quite like going to war on Iraq to secure its oil wealth through theft, which is what they are now doing). Within 2 weeks one of those 15 delegates gets replaced by a province (1/50th). What will that mean for the debate in the council ? My bet is the other delegates will think twice before proceeding with that plan already (unless some who disfavored that plan where alse replaced of course, for that reason, but that is simply the objectivity of the process; if the people disfavor war generally they won't do that but replace the war hawks out more, causing the national council to think twice ....) -- _ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.SOCIALISM.nl Free markets and democracy, \ /v`vvv\ / but now: properly. /_\_#_#_/_\ \ / Day 34 of the revolution. From joshb@xs4all.nl Mon May 31 14:10:33 2010 Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism From: "J.H.Boersema" Subject: Re: ministries headed by 5 person council (or more) References: Organization: http://www.socialism.nl Reply-To: joshb@xs4all.nl Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 14:10:33 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Debian) On 2010-05-31, J.H.Boersema wrote: > When single person 'ministers' are appointed above Government > Departments (water, army, health-care, investment, land distribution, > ...) by the national council, you run the risk that these ministers > attract too much power to themselves. They might swing themselves to > above the ruling council, by having direct authority over and proximity > to 'their' department. > > When an entire 50 person council is put in charge over such a ministry, > it is much more unlikely that such a council would swing itself over > the top of the top ruling council. That would also make the Department > council more easily controlled, it would control itself more (members > would control each other), and you can have the (usual in my system) > council proceedings, affording tranparency to and input by the public. [...] You could probably get away with the level below the Department council to potentially be single heads about the various sub-department issues, organizations, and so on, because the Department council is already well specialized in that area, and is unlikely to get played by their subordinates on much or anything. Such playing with more knowledge is more likely to happen on the national council wrt their Departments, because the national council is General, its issues range from the national holidays to the design of the currency to the strength of the sea dikes to just about everything (on the 'general' level of course, not that they would, could or should control everything in detail)... from food quality standards to combatting new forms of crime and giving the police the tools for the job ... The issues for the national council are so varied that the national council members can scarcely be experts on them all. Therefore the risk is the Department head will effectively play them and swing itself effectively into day to day power (which may translate into corruption, and in general is simply not the proper people's democracy 'for better or worse'.) The department councils are probabyl made up of the best experts in a certain field already. In the department of dike safety the national council will probably appoint the best and brightest in the field. Now they *can* play the national Government too, informally through opinion, but that doesn't have to be bad, so long as the 'general' decisions and all power retains in the national council. You can't get away from losing day to day power to Departments anyway, and that probably is not a bad thing either. The national council controls them, determines the budget, makes the grand ultimate decisions or even every single decision if so wished, and decides the make-up of Departemnt council too. So that is then hopefully covered as much as it could and should be. The dynamic between the Department council and their subordinates is entirely different, imho. The dike specialist, the dike scientist and a variety of experienced people in the field are presumably outclassing together anyone whom they give any job to whatsoever. The person put in charge of organizing the inspection 200 kilometers of dike can pull out any knowledge and facts out of his hat he wants, the Department council (if appointed reasonably at least) probably knows 10 times more already, and if not would find out. To balance the national council there is also the advice councils by the way. These are undefined but appointed by the delegates. In principle a national council can besides form a health care department and appoint a 50 person health care department managing council, also a health care advice council. That department managing council manages the things the Govermnent needs done in that area, and that are above the work-load a national council could (should) do (particularly more details). Then the Health Care Advice Council has no power except the power of their advice, their voicing of opinions or researched facts. The national council can install that as a counter-balance and effectively a inspection and control entity for the Health Care industry in general, or indeed merely to advice about a certain aspect (even the operations of a department council, anything.) (Advice councils are also obligated to publish all their advice equally to the public.) If a national council wants, for example, more private schools, and they have an education department council which is against that and shows good arguments maybe, then besides replacing that department council members the delegates council could also (inclusive) appoint an advice council with people who want more private schools, to get more of that perspective on it ... Since the Advice council advice is public the Department Councils would also hear it if they want to, and because freedom of speech is guaranteed you can get a political debate between those groups as well ... That is not a bad situation for the national council, who can sit back, hear the arguments as if a judge between two opposing advocates, and then cut the knot the way it wants to (according to its will, or rather: the will of the People ...) Summary: this was only about Government department management, the delegates council (political Government), and an advice council that delegates council can appoint or not. This is a different/new system and may therefore seem more complex then it really is. If you tried to take in the entirety of existing ruling Government councils and systems you would also encounter an extensive system (parties, local, provincial, national council; local, provincial, national ministries council; local (mayor), provincial and national heads; nationally you often have another chamber; Holland has an advice council or maybe several (though these things exist on the party level too); local, provincial and national departments, their top and subordinate management layers, ...). From joshb@xs4all.nl Mon May 31 14:42:11 2010 Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism From: "J.H.Boersema" Subject: Re: ministries headed by 5 person council (or more) References: Organization: http://www.socialism.nl Reply-To: joshb@xs4all.nl Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 14:42:11 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Debian) On 2010-05-31, J.H.Boersema wrote: > On 2010-05-31, J.H.Boersema wrote: >> When single person 'ministers' are appointed above Government >> Departments (water, army, health-care, investment, land distribution, >> ...) by the national council, you run the risk that these ministers >> attract too much power to themselves. They might swing themselves to >> above the ruling council, by having direct authority over and proximity >> to 'their' department. >> >> When an entire 50 person council is put in charge over such a ministry, >> it is much more unlikely that such a council would swing itself over >> the top of the top ruling council. That would also make the Department >> council more easily controlled, it would control itself more (members >> would control each other), and you can have the (usual in my system) >> council proceedings, affording tranparency to and input by the public. > [...] > > You could probably get away with the level below the Department council > to potentially be single heads about the various sub-department issues, > organizations, and so on, because the Department council is already > well specialized in that area, and is unlikely to get played by their > subordinates on much or anything. [...] Come to think of it, it can be a good idea to appoint single heads below the Department Council rather then more councils, because if one head is responsible they can be disciplined easier by the council, less finger-pointing between what would be a council. With single heads you could simply sack one and go on to the next one. When Department council and a subordinate council have to 'debate,' that can take forever, and a Department isn't so likely to just remove an entire subordinate council on something (such as 'a council for dike inspection'.) In terms of effective rule this is probably reasonable. Picture when the Department council would ask a subordinate council a question. Technically the subordinate council would first have to debate and vote on the answer ! Compared to a single head, that head can be put before the Department council, report, and either be sacked right there or given its marching, done: next. It is also easier to find one trustworthy person, then an entire council full. Finding the trustworthy persons is already done on the national council, whether failed or succeeded it is done/tried, that then appoints the specialists per Department and who are loyal (enough) to the will of the people which flows day to day through the national council (or the people would step in, as they could and should). So we have the trusted moral persons already, we have the balance between them also already both in the national and department councils, and we have the specialists. Why would we need another round of more specialists balancing their opinions, or more best moral people ? We just need a specified job done, which is already adequately described and verified by mentioned powers. All we need is a captain that follows orders, a field officer if you like. Doing the job with honor, or get sacked with dishonor: choose, as the councils will do their choosing in the end ... True ? At some point fluffy flowers and sunshine time is over, and things will just need to be done. Once the debate is done with adequate subtlety and reference to good forms and signed with smiles and hope, then it's time to just do it, to follow through on the plan. The plan is then the general as it where, it has been decided, Democracy has done its part. The 'dictatorship of the plan' is next. Right ? Councils need their roofs water proofed as well, and so on. Some people will need to be punished, others to get their pay checks, and so on. In case Departments work with market contracts, obviously it works the same with that contracting party as a single unit, even if that contracter where to organize itself democratically in councils again (which is entirely possible and may not be a bad idea). The problem of vague subordinate councils is then moderated by the liberty to choose to give the contract to another such group quite easily, or the next contract. Market supply/demand would keep that effectively subordinate council in check, reduce the greece on its wheels (one would hope/expect). * The 'dictatorship of the plan' is next. Remember that when you do my plan once it is ratified, because it is designed for it. No need for strategic endless debate anymore, it is all covered (imho, unless you really hit on a snag of course.) Just do it. You don't need to think anymore, you never did anyway, did you ? Well, maybe on who would win the world series, right ? Not on new democratic systems, right ? But I did so now let's just use that (until it hits the wall), thanks. I'm pretty sure that it will work OK, or at least better then what we have now (especially once the current generations have died off, who may still have vested interests in seeing it fail, maybe to get back to their old positions.) -- _ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.SOCIALISM.nl Free markets and democracy, \ /v`vvv\ / but now: properly. /_\_#_#_/_\ \ / Day 34 of the revolution.