My political view

I am an Imparterist Utilitarist(first is a word that i invented for my political view ).

Impartera is a romanian word which comes from "a imparte" and "Terra" and means "to divide land". The mechanism of how you implement an imparterist society is the next one: well first you must win the political campaign. Second, you put people to vote, what politics they want: communism, monarchy, fundamentalism,utilitarist, republic and so on. Then, according to the votes you divide the land of the country into more aspects: 13% for example will have a communist society. And so on: 56% of the land will be guverned by the democratics. In the following months people could freely go by train or something else into the territories they'll want. All political-regions will be subbordonated by the capital which will be utilitarist. The president will be called "Imparter". The national government will be supported by a normal Parliament with 2 Chambers. And there will be nation laws (for all the territories) or regional laws. However the regions will not have too much autonomy or rights because this could make a national fragmentation.

Utilitarism is a doctrine described by the next factor: "People's happiness" . All the laws and all the actions are made by observing which one will make the most people happy or which one will be more profitable for the people. Example if a war comes out you will declare neutral. Most laws will be freely put up to vote for the people.

 

Isn't this kind of panarchy? I bought it up in another thread, check it out, I think it will interest you.

Some problems I have with this system:

The beauracracy is going to be huge. In a practical sense, will it be possible to run this government without a mountain of paperwork because of the different systems coexisting? What happens when a convicted peadaphile goes from one terriroty to another, or terrorist factions are working accross borders? Criminals will either manipulate the lack of coordination between the factions if it is not strictly monitorered, but if it is, then the beauracrcy will undeniably be huge.

Secondly, who runs these elections? A kind of federal government? Who is in this government, how do they achieve this position, what is their political stance, how are they funded, where are they based? Who divides up the different territories and how is that done? You say the reigons will not get too much power, but doesn't this go against the whole system in itself? The idea is that people get to choose which government governs them - but ultimatly it seems they are goverend by an unchaging federal government with a neutral political stance on everything? Highly unlikely that they would be able to hold this stance effectivley.

 

Different political systems in a single polity is a contradiction, isn't it?

 

Why? We should be allowed as much freedom as possible within the safety and wellbeing of others.

 

Practically, the politic territories will have more upgraded Land Councils - the government. The head of the territory will be the prefect. The elections will be runned once the active Imparterist Party will have the power. The one's who will divide the territories will be chosen by the people and their number will be as much territories we have. I think this type of government will allow a greater freedom to all the people - both minorities and majorities. The people will be what they will want to be - any doctrine.Yes i think it will be a lot of bureaucracy - believe me I haven't thought about all stuff - i just wanted to know someone others opinion and maybe you could give me some ideas to improve this type of government. And 9sublime please give me the address of the thread you mentioned about the panarchy.

 

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2013&highlight=panarchy

http://www.panarchy.org/day/multigovernment.1977.html


I find this theory interesting, and I suppose dividing up the country into territories in accordance to government is a more feasible and less idealistic way of implementing the system. Original panarchy is more about having overlapping governments all coexisting, but I don't think thats really possible.

 

Basically, the way of how the government will rule will be utilitaristic.That means "all for the people happines". This concludes the fact that a person will be happy if he is in the government he wants (communism, democratic and all other).So imparterism and utilitarism will have a strong connection.

 

Utilitarianism, just like perfect liberty, is a recipe for chaos.

Surely, the pursuit of one's happiness would collide with the pursuit of another's happiness without a common rule to govern all. The limiting principle in all types of polity is everyone's DUTY TOWARDS A COMMON GOOD.

Duty is the anti-thesis of utilitarian happiness.

 

You can establish a utilitarian approach around absoloutist rules though - rule utilitarianism isn't it called?

 

I take utilitarism as a better way of governing. Not a recipee for chaos. The laws and the other stuff will be made according to which number of people will be happy. Practically, if i propose a law, and the law makes more than 50% of the population happy than it is approved.

 

Tyranny, even if it is perpetuated by the majority, is STILL tyranny. An arbitrary law, however closely it conforms to utilitarian principles, is STILL an arbitrary law - hence tyrannical.

 

what's the definition of tyranny? Is half of country made by tirrans? How can you associate tirrant with happines? Give example of an arbitrary law .